Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10/07/2003, PH 4 - CONSIDERATION OF A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AT 1636 WOODLAND DRIVE TO CREATE 23 SINGLE-FAMILY
i r Council Ma�D� rD acEnba Report j C I T Y OF SAN LU I S OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director Prepared By: Ronald Whisenand, Deputy Director SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AT 1636 WOODLAND DRIVE TO CREATE 23 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND ONE 27-ACRE OPEN SPACE LOT ON APPROXIMATELY 40 ACRES OF UNDEVELOPED LAND WITHIN CITY LIMITS, REZONING THE 13 ACRES OF DEVELOPABLE LAND FROM R-1 TO R-1-S, AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) (TR/R/ER 11-01). CAO RECOMMENDATION: As recommended by the Planning Commission: A. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 5) certifying the project EIR with mitigation measures and monitoring program, based on findings; B. Introduce an Ordinance (Attachment 6) rezoning the 13 acres of developable land from Single-Family Residential (R-1) to Single-Family Residential with Special Considerations (R-1-S) and the open-space lot to Conservation Open Space (C/OS- 40), based on findings; and C. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 7) approving the tentative map, with conditions, and based on findings. DISCUSSION Situation The Bowden Ranch Development proposes the subdivision of an undeveloped, 40-acre parcel at 1636 Woodland Drive, near the terminus of Lizzie Street and at the intersection of Woodland Drive and Wilding Lane (See Vicinity Map, Attachment 1). The subdivision would create 23 custom, single-family residential lots and one 27-acre open space lot (See Vesting Tentative Map, Attachment 2). The project involves a number of planning entitlements including a rezoning, vesting tentative map, and an environmental impact report (EIR). Approval of a vesting tentative map confers a "vested right" to development in substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies and standards in effect when the application is determined complete (March 1, 2001). 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. The site includes one perennial stream that is fed by two ephemeral tributaries, all of f O Council Agenda Report—Bowden Ranch Vesting Tentative Tract Map—R/TR/ER 11-01 Page 2 which drain down the slopes and converge on the central and western portion of the site. Sensitive habitat areas will be contained within the open space lot, which is proposed for dedication to the City of San Luis Obispo. 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. 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, lighted School District sports fields, and the adult school campus (west and north). The tentative map being proposed by the applicant and recommended by the Planning Commission is entitled "Modified Proposed Project' in the Final EIR. This map represents the "mitigated project" because it incorporates project revisions and design features to fully mitigate all potential environmental impacts. A Zone Reclassification is also proposed to rezone that portion of the property proposed for development from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-1-S (Low Density Residential-Special Consideration). The purpose for the Special Consideration overlay is for: protection of wildlife habitat and corridors, preservation of hillside open space, aesthetic concerns with development of visually prominent sites, creek setback and access, fire protection issues, access to the public trail, and provision of City utilities and services. An administrative use permit will be required before any use may be established. This administrative use permit, because of the "S" zoning, will serve as a master use permit that will further ensure compliance with Land Use Element (LUE) Policy 6.2.2 Hillside Development Standards, LUE 6.2.6.B Hillside Planning Area/Woodland Drive area, and ensure proper implementation of mitigation measures that apply to individual lots. EIR Process Shortly after the project application was accepted for processing and following review by City departments and outside agencies, staff completed an Initial Study of Environmental Impact. Because the project had the potential to result in significant impacts to the environment, staff determined that an EIR needed to be prepared for the project. On March 19, 2002 the City Council authorized staff to proceed with sending a Request for Proposal (RFP) to qualified consultants to prepare the EIR. After interviewing several fines, the firm of MHA Environmental Consulting, Inc. of San Mateo was selected. The consultant contract was officially executed in July 2002 and work on the document begun. On July 31, 2002, Community Development Department staff held an EIR scoping meeting with neighbors and other interested persons. The meeting was not mandatory, but was held because several neighbors had expressed concerns with the project and its potential impacts to the area. Based on input received at the meeting, staff and the consultant made changes to the workscope for the EIR to address additional impact areas. 4 —a Council Agenda Report—Bowden Ranch Vesting Tentative Tract Map—R/TR/ER 11-01 Page 3 The project EIR found that there will be some significant environmental impacts resulting from the project all of which can be mitigated to a level of"less than significant." Impacts occur in the categories of aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy and minerals, geology/soils/seismicity, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land use and planning policies, noise, recreation, and utilities and service systems. Table ES 9-1 within the Executive Summary at the beginning of the Final EIR summarizes the project impacts. Further discussion of these impacts is contained in the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 4). On April 9, 2003, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission to discuss the Draft EIR during the required public review period. At that meeting, testimony from both the Commission and public was taken. The Final EIR is a compilation of the Draft EIR and responses to comments. Responses to comments are a written evaluation of comments on the environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the Draft EIR. Copies of all the written comments received from residents of the nearby neighborhoods and local and State public agencies, have been incorporated into the Final EIR. The minutes of the April 9, 2003 Planning Commission are also included in the Final EIR. On August 27, 2003, the Planning Commission reviewed the Final EIR in conjunction with other project entitlements. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend to the Council that the Final EIR be certified. Changes or additions were made to mitigation measures in the areas of lighting, dust suppression, and streets. An errata sheet showing the recommended changes is included in the draft Council Resolution to certify the Final EIR (Exhibit A of Attachment 5). Natural Resource Manager Report The Bowden Ranch property is perhaps the most difficult remaining development site left in town. It has visibility; it contains landmark trees; it has native woodlands;it has wetlands;it has a seasonal creek; it even has a permanent creek fed by a spring; it contains several species of concern to the State and Federal governments, and at least one formally listed endangered species. All of these issues had to be addressed in dealing with this project. City staff has worked hard to effect changes in the project that served to reduce its impact on the natural environment, protect habitat for species of special concern, and maintain the traditional use of the site as a point of entry for public access to the scenic ridge to the east. For example, early designs of the project included development of what is now referred to as the "cactus patch" or "sanctuary", an area of very high development potential but also one of very high natural resource value. The project sponsors redesigned the project to avoid this area despite the fact that it was well within the urban limit line, was zoned for development, and could easily accommodate that development. 4'b Council Agenda Report–Bowden Ranch Vesting Tentative Tract Map—R/TR/ER 11-01 Page 4 As another example, changes were also made to provide full protection to the portion of the property recognized as an overwintering site for Monarch butterflies—one of only a very few such sites in or near the City of San Luis Obispo,and a site also within the potential development area of the project. The project has resolved most of these issues through the creation of a large open space lot as an integral part of the project, the mitigation strategy recommended by the General Plan Open Space Element. This open space lot, which was not part of the original concept, has grown to occupy 2/3 of the project site or about 27 acres, and it extends well into the developable portion. This is in addition to a voluntary donation of a conservation easement on 180 acres of adjoining land in the unincorporated area owned by the project sponsors, which was dedicated to the City in December 2001. Other issues have been resolved through a series of mitigation programs that will mitigate impacts to rare plant species, to the endangered Morro shoulderband snail, and for tree removals necessitated by the project. Furthermore, the project also includes about 1'/z acres of land that will be subject to a biological conservation easement, designed to protect certain habitats in the private lots, mainly along Woodland Drive. Continued access to the ridgelands is included in the project in the form of an improved trail that will traverse the project site and connect to lands to the east. This access also provides for vehicle parking for that trail at a level consistent with other such sites maintained by the City. Staff involvement with the project continues to the present time. As an outcome of the hearing before the Planning Commission, staff is looking at the possibility of utilizing "head-in" parking at the Bowden adobe as opposed to parallel parking on the Lizzie Street extension (current proposal) as a means of reducing possible impact on the small stream that crosses the site and reducing possible recreational traffic impacts of the development and the neighborhood. Planning.Commission's Action At a public hearing held on August 27, 2003, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the project EIR and approve the requested entitlements (See Planning Commission Minutes, Attachment 3). All of the motions for approval of the various entitlements were unanimous. The Commission was appreciative of the applicant's willingness to revise the project to protect environmental resources, be compatible with the neighborhood, provide a valuable open space dedication to the City, and provide needed access to the City's Open Space resources. The Planning Commission's recommended approval of the vesting tentative tract map to the City Council was based on findings, and with 38 conditions and 9 code requirements. Conditions were added by the Planning Commission to address neighborhood compatibility, drainage, lighting, and street design. The attached Planning Commission report (Attachment 4) further describes the project and evaluates various issues. 4 i Council Agenda Report—Bowden Ranch Vesting Tentative Tract Map—R/TR/ER 11-01 Page 5 CONCURRENCES The requirements of various City departments have all been incorporated into recommended conditions of approval. The issue of drainage is high on the list of neighborhood concerns. The Public Works Department shares those concerns due to historic problems in the area. Specific conditions of approval will ensure that improvements are made to the drainage system that will fully mitigate the project's impacts, improve the overall area wide drainage situation, and fully comply with the City's engineering standards. As mentioned above in the Natural Resource Manager's report, the site contains many sensitive habitats and species of special concern. The Natural Resource Manager has been instrumental in causing project design changes that will insure full protection of sensitive resources as recommended in the project EIR. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may approve the tentative map, with changed conditions. 2. The Council may deny the subdivision if it finds it inconsistent with the general plan or the planned development preliminary map (Draft Resolution `B"). 3. The Council may continue discussion if additional information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the applicant. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1- Vicinity Map Attachment 2-Reduced copy of tentative map (full size maps to be provided to Council separately) Attachment 3-Planning Commission Minutes from August 27, 2003 Attachment 4-Planning Commission Staff Report and action Resolution Attachment 5-Draft Resolution Certifying the Bowden Ranch Final EIR with Mitigation Monitoring Program Attachment 6-Draft Ordinance rezoning property Attachment 7- Draft Resolution approving the vesting tentative tract map with findings, conditions, and code requirements Attachment 8-Draft Resolution `B"for denial of the project Distributed to Council: Large-scale tentative map Final EIR G:lazevedc\MBowden CouncilRepon.doc �L _1 ♦ir i PF Pf Fsan Luis Obispo H.S. PF 1 f, PF Ax �jMMu; � ?��� Vicinity Map / 0 200 400 600 �/a/y��y��C. i�/A� ~"7 a�I�AA•� X14', \ f •i` .�� E,�.�����' ; •lam \`6y��`.�� 7 •�pw §I .P�..`'jJ fid%.•• Y „Y Pi � � Nil °rJ .+•',ole YY � - �ei� � 8, ►!��s�.4 .'1�%�rs?L�.: � .r 1 p�5 /•7r• is 'pf�0', �! 1��M� �{� I� .�6�' �jE✓ �•�"; r w�v ��. WN �C j� \� •���7 ` �� •-�. �_� �� • . MIN IP s t.. �•,�� 11}. I I I r i Attachment 3 DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 27, 2003 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 27, 2003, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Jim Aiken, Allan Cooper, Alice Loh, Michael Boswell, Carlyn Christianson, Vice-Chair James Caruso and Chairperson Orval Osborne Absent: None Staff: Associate Planners Michael Codron and Jeff Hook, Deputy Community Development Directors Ronald Whisenand and Michael Draze, Natural Resources Manager Neil Havfk, Supervising Civil Engineer Rob Livick, Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. MINUTES: The minutes of special joint meeting of July 2, 2003 were approved as amended. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, expressed general concerns with subdivisions, drainage, creeks, and trees for all projects in the city. There were no further comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 1636 Woodland Drive. R, TR and ER 11-01; Tentative tract map to create 23 residential parcels and one open space parcel; consideration of possible rezoning of the property to R-1-S (Low-Density Residential with a special considerations overlay); and environmental review (EIR); R-1 zone; Bowden Ranch Partners, applicant. 4-9 Draft Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 3 August 27, 2003 Page 2 Ronald Whisenand, Deputy Community Development Director, presented the staff report, noting this is the second phase of the Commission's review of this project, which includes a subdivision off of Lizzie Street and Wilding Lane creating 23 single-family residential lots and a 27-acre open space lot, which contains many unique environmental resources. He explained the first phase of review was to take testimony and offer comments on the project's Environmental Impact Report. Staff is now asking for the Commission's recommendation on the project itself at this final stage. The project includes rezoning the property to provide greater protection of the site's sensitive status. He noted the property has had a long history of review by various City departments, outside agencies, and the public. Deputy Director Whisenand explained that the applicant came to the City in the mid- 1990's with various subdivision proposals that conformed with the property's R-1 zoning, established in the 1994 General Plan. However, due to site constraints including topography, creek areas, and limits on utility service, numerous parcels had to be reconfigured or eliminated. In addition, several special studies were provided early on in the review that addressed sensitive species including monarch butterflies, wood rats, Morro Shoulderband Snails, and a species of Morning Glory. With these studies in mind, the applicant went through a series of project revisions and additional lot reductions to address those issues. Neil Havlik, Natural Resources Manager, spoke to some of the natural resources issues of this property. He felt this site is the most difficult development site remaining in San Luis Obispo. It has visibility and contains landmark trees, native woodlands, wetlands, a seasonal creek, and a permanent creek fed by a spring. It also contains several species of concern to the State and Federal governments, and at least one formally listed endangered species. He explained that City staff worked hard and closely with project sponsors to effect changes to the project that serve to reduce its impact on the natural environment, to protect habitat for species of special concern, and to maintain the traditional use of the site as an access onto the scenic ridge to the east. He explained that early designs of the project included development of what is now referred to as the cactus patch" or the "sanctuary", an area of high development potential, but also one of very high natural resource values. The project sponsors redesigned the project to avoid this area, despite the fact that it was well within the urban limit line and could easily accommodate the proposed development. Changes were also made later to provide full protection to that portion of the property known as an over-wintering site for Monarch butterflies, one of only a few such sites in or around the city of San Luis Obispo. Finally, changes were made to provide enhancement for the small seasonal creek that crosses the project site and to restore that creek as a neighborhood and community amenity. Manager Havlik noted that the project as currently proposed, has resolved most of the natural resources issues through the creation of a large open space lot as an integral part of the project. This open space lot, which was not part of the original concept, has grown to occupy 2/3 of the project site and extends well into the developable portion of `-x"13 I Draft Planning Commission Minutes _ Attachment 3 August 27, 2003 Page 3 the property. Other issues have been addressed through a series of mitigation programs that will mitigate impacts to rare plant species, the endangered Morro Shoulderband snail, and for tree removals necessitated by the project. The project also includes 1.5 acres of land that will be subject to a biological conservation easement, designed to protect certain habitats in the private lots, mainly along Woodland Drive. Continued access to the ridgelands is included in the project in the form an improved trail that will traverse the project site and connect to lands to the east. This access also provides for vehicle parking for that trail, at a level consistent with other such sites maintained by the City. Based on the information given, Natural Resources staff felt that the project, as proposed, mitigates to a level of less than significant, all of the natural resource impacts identified in the project proposal and EIR, and supports the project as consistent with City policies and regulations. Deputy Director Whisenand clarified what is being asked of the Commission at this hearing: first, receive public testimony on the project; second, determine whether the final EIR adequately addresses the project's impacts on the environment; and finally, give a recommendation to the City Council as to whether the rezone and subdivision is consistent with the City's General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and Subdivision Improvement Standards. He then outlined a few minor changes to the project conditions. Condition 8: Clarifying language to make reference to street improvements on the vesting tentative map. Condition 13: Clarifying language, that private streets require suitable turn-around for residential and emergency vehicles. Condition 16: Clarifying language as to what is meant by "installing street lights to City standards leading to and from the subdivision" since it could mean any street from Los Osos Valley over. Condition 20: Similar issues pertaining to fire hydrants and public utilities. Condition 23: Should be eliminated since there are no common areas, parks, or detention basins that are owned in common by a homeowners association, and the City's reclaimed water system will not reach this location in the city. Condition 34: Clarifies what is meant by pedestrian trail and what it required through the property. Condition 35: Similar dealing with open space and delineation of environmental areas with fencing. 4- 1 O i Draft Planning Commission IVimutes Attachment 3 August 27, 2003 Page 4 Condition 41: Clarifying which lots and which maintenance responsibilities are being referred to. Deputy Director noted the omission of the City's requirement for affordable housing, through the payment of an in-lieu fee, which is allowed. He clarified this should be documented, and fees must be received prior to recording of the final map. Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo noted. the addition of a Condition 43, which is the requirement for a Standard Subdivision Indemnity Agreement. He indicated he would provide that language to Deputy Director Whisenand to ensure its inclusion. Commr. Cooper asked if the Eucalyptus stand is a potentially significant resource, and asked for the definition of a potentially significant resource. He was unclear as to which eucalyptus trees are being removed. Deputy Director Whisenand responded that the revised cultural information indicated that the eucalyptus grove was not tied in a significant way to the original adobe at the site. Commr. Loh felt this design was a great improvement over the original plan. She asked if surface water runoff would create drainage problems because of the creek and tributary. Deputy Director Whisenand felt drainage is the main issue that the EIR addressed. He acknowledged flooding issues in the past, but felt the mitigation measures are designed to ensure that the drainage is adequately handled. One proposal is detention, which would not eliminate all drainage. He emphasized that key with the drainage proposal is to ensure that the project will not result in additional drainage problems in the area. Supervising Civil Engineer Rob Livick, explained that the proposed project evaluation in the EIR has three mitigation strategies in dealing with increases in storm water runoff from the site, which are 1) to provide individual on-site detention through a series of tanks throughout the project that would hold that peak runoff and release it at the existing or lower rate; 2) to provide a larger sub-regional detention basin or basins- one in the open space area and another along lots 3, 4 and 5; and 3) to increase the head wall at the existing culvert with the stream that runs through the site that would increase the head or water surface elevation and allow more water to pass through that culvert, and adds detention to the site. By increasing the headwall height, a larger pond volume would result. Commr. Boswell asked, in reference to mitigation measure 3.3-2, if an appropriate buffer has been identified for lot 8 and the wetland area, and how it will be estimated. Neil Havlik responded that the buffer has been identified and the building envelope has been redrawn to exclude that area, which will be subject to the biological conservation easement. moi-- Draft Planning Commission lmnutes Attachment 3 August 27, 2003 Page 5 Commr. Christianson asked if fence and sign maintenance would be the responsibility of the City or the homeowners, including signs posted for the open space walk. Neil Havlik felt it. would ultimately be the City's responsibility. He explained that normally there is a period when the developer is responsible, but once they are established or installed and are operating successfully, those improvements are accepted by the City (as is done with roads and sewer lines) and the responsibility shifts. Commr. Christianson asked if they use underground tanks, would they be located in the building envelope. Deputy Director Whisenand responded yes. Commr. Caruso asked if this statement is true: Peak post-development runoff will be no greater than peak pre-development runoff. Rob Livick responded that the statement is generally correct. He explained that with the detention strategy, the peak runoff is lowered to the pre-developed level but allows it to discharge for a longer period of time. Chairperson Osborne noted that the Commission toured the development site, and the tour was provided by the applicant. Carol Florence, applicant's representative, gave a brief history,of the project and asked the Commission to recommend approval of the vesting tentative tract map and certification of the Final EIR, based on the number and quality of consultants and studies, and years spent analyzing the project. She concurred with the recommended changes to Conditions 8, 13, 16, 20, striking 23 in its entirety, clarification to 34, 35. She noted they are requesting a change to the language of Condition 38, noting it is not a well but rather a cistern that is being served by an existing spring. She asked for language that states they are able to utilize that spring water to supplementary irrigate the riparian enhancement program. She requested that in Condition 40, the creation of a homeowners' association be stricken, since this is not a common interest subdivision and there is no common ownership. Lastly, she requested a wording change to mitigation measure 3.10-2, that would allow the structural engineer to make recommendations and if those recommendations require some sort of structural improvement, the mitigation measure be implemented at that time. Commr. Cooper asked for clarification of which trees are proposed for removal. He was specifically concerned about the trees referenced in the Cultural section, eight trees planted circa 1887-1898 on both sides of the creek below the confluence of two drainages. He asked if those trees are to remain. t4 - �� } Draft.Planning Commission Wo6tes Attachment 3 August 27, 2003 Page 6 Ms. Florence noted the large-scale map clearly depicted the trees to be removed, and they are predominantly within the extension of Lizzie Court. She confirmed that those trees would remain. Commr. Loh asked if the Tree Committee had been consulted to determine the possibility of historical trees. Ms. Florence noted the trees are ancillary to the adobe, and by themselves are not historical trees. However, none of those trees are proposed for removal. She also noted she was before the Tree Committee on August 25th, and they deferred their decision until after they heard from the ARC and Planning Commission. She further noted that any tree removal will be subject to a joint review with the City Arborist, Neil Havlik, and the Fire Department. Commr. Caruso asked Attorney Trujillo about the request to remove the condition requiring a Homeowner's Association. It was his understanding that the Homeowners' Association enforces CC&R's, and he asked who would enforce them if there is no association. Attorney Trujillo explained that without a funding mechanism to enforce CC&R's, they become unenforceable. Or, if there were violations, they would ask the public entity to take over enforcement responsibilities of that private property. It all depends on whether or not there is money to pay for it. PUBLIC COMMENT Pam Definco Miller, 1615 Woodland Drive, noted that they had submitted a list of 50 comments on the Draft EIR, and she wished to focus on five areas of greatest concerns regarding the inadequacy of the Final EIR. 1) There is insufficient project description. She noted that the EIR defers any consideration of the impacts of the 23 homes to an unspecified future date. She felt the houses are an essential part of the project. 2) Lack of a lighting plan. The issue of light and glare is a major concern that should be addressed. 3) Lack of a landscape plan. She felt that a landscape plan is always included within a development level EIR. The EIR defers the requirement for a landscape plan until project approval. 4) Impact assessments are deferred, and she felt this is contrary to CEQA requirements. 5) Conformance to hillside grading policies and impacts to light and glare. She asked the Commission to recommend the Final EIR be revised to include or correct the above-mentioned items. MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, felt the area should be reserved as a greenbelt and open space area. She also noted drainage is very bad in that area, and that the creeks often flood. Richard Hendricks, 1643 Woodland Drive, felt that if the proposed Woodland Court were moved approximately 10 feet to the west, all of the trees from 1516 to 1528 Woodland could be preserved. He noted that all of the drainage from Woodland Drive Draft Planning Commission Minutes Attaclhmellt 3 August 27, 2003 Page 7 and Skylark Drive come down to a grate across from the project and drains through a culvert. He did not feel the proposed mitigation measures would keep peak post- development runoff to the peak pre-development runoff level. He noted there is a hiking trail proposed, but there is a hiking easement across lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11, which has not been addressed. The proposed trail does not give access to the area he currently hikes. Wendy Brown, 1865 Wilding Lane, did not feel CC&R's would be sufficient to enforce lighting violations. She asked what the source is for water use for dust control, and will it be of acceptable quality for entering the creek and sewer systems: She questioned"if any of the methods used for measuring potential peak discharge on the property take into account the effect of the proposed tree removals, feeling this will increase peak discharge considerably. It was her feeling that a reduction in density, particularly eliminating lots 1 through 4 would provide welcome park space to the neighborhood and would help reduce potential flooding problems on the lower level of the project. A reduction in density in lots 13 through 23 would make drainage more manageable and would allow for increased off-street parking and enhanced trail access. She felt it is agreed that the existing 32-inch City culvert down Lizzie Street is inadequate, and all the mitigations on the project will not make the culvert any larger. She questioned who would pay to replace the culvert with something that will handle the increased runoff from the neighborhood. She questioned the lack of mitigation measures for transportation and traffic, and did not agree that there are no potentially significant traffic impacts since the population of the neighborhood will increase by at least one-half. She noted that already there have been noticeably more trips in the past two weeks for access to the trail resulting from the publication and advertisement of the open space area. She supported a special considerations overlay zoning for the area. Steve Delmartini, 962 Mill Street, felt that homeowner's associations are ineffective at enforcement, and that people will do things whether or not the CC&R's allow them, and once things are done, it is too late to take action. Michael Sweeney, 1920 Fixlini Street, expressed his concern with potential traffic increase on Lizzie Street. He suggested a stop sign be placed on the east side of Lizzie Street, at the corner of Fixlini, to help mitigate the speed of traffic. He also noted his concern with parking, noting trucks are frequently parked at the comer, and suggested red zones at that location to ensure sight visibility. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commr. Christianson expressed her concern with use of Homeowner's Associations for enforcement of CC&R's, and questioned when legal restrictions on the property are passed through with deed restrictions and CC&R's, and a new home is gong to be built, at what point are these restrictions enforced and by whom. Deputy Director Whisenand responded that an "S" (special considerations) overlay zone is proposed for this project. He explained that the "S" designation is added to any 4, 14 Draft Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 3 August 27, 2003 Page 8 zoning classification that has unique issues that need to be addressed further, prior to construction. In this case, those issues are the numerous mitigation measures, building site areas, fencing requirements, lighting, and a variety of architectural design issues. He clarified that this requires the owner of the individual lots to obtain an Administrative Use Permit prior to building permit approval. In addition, because the sites have been identified as "sensitive sites", architectural review is also required. He explained the purpose for the two discretionary permit processing is to notify the neighbors, to receive input on the actual design of the house, and for staff to do the evaluation to ensure the numerous mitigation measures and conditions of approval are complied with. Commr. Christianson mentioned for the record that there is a great deal of discussion about the lighting on Taylor Field affecting the homeowners. She felt that once the homes are built, the homeowners may complain about the field and request the lights be turned out. This was an issue she felt. should be addressed. She also noted her concern with tree removals. Deputy Director Whisenand noted the School District shares the field lightning concern. He suggested the possibility of amending Condition 41 dealing with the CC&R's to provide specific language recognizing that a school with active sporting facilities and active field lighting exists on the adjacent property. He felt this would provide proper disclosure to future property owners. Commr. Christianson noted her strong concern with drainage and questioned why housing is being built where it frequently floods. Rob Livick responded by clarifying the difference between flooding and drainage impacts. He assured the Commission that there are no lots proposed in a floodway. Jeffrey Emrick, EDA, project civil engineer, explained that no homes would be placed in areas that will flood. He clarified their intention to increase the capacity of the culvert by 60% so it can take the water that is flooding the street. He further explained that they are increasing the capacity of the pipe, which will mean getting the water out more quickly through the pipe, which will mitigate the flooding and make the condition better than what currently exists. The flows out of the homes will also be mitigated with detention basins. The increased flow from all of these homes is approximately 5 cfs (cubic feet per second). The increased capacity of the culvert is about 60 cfs, which will significantly reduce flooding downstream. Commr. Boswell felt language should be added to Mitigation Measure 3.2-2 regarding grading and dust control, that neighbors be notified of the complaint process for dust issues during construction. He also noted he has no confidence in the long-term viability of the sub-surface detention tanks because of the maintenance issues, and suggested striking that requirement. Jeffrey Emrick responded that the tanks would be tanks that are normally used as septic tanks, and would be cleaned the same way. Rather then septic waste, there would be 14 - I �;, t � Draft Planning Commission Minutes Alt achment 3 August 27, 2003 Page 9 silts that accumulate in the tank. In response to a question, Mr. Emrick explained you would know if the system failed because the inlets within each site would start backing up. He noted the reason for the tanks over the detention basins is strictly visual. Deputy Director Whisenand noted staff's similar maintenance issues with the tanks, and it is staff's preference to have another alternative considered. He also felt attractive detention basins can be constructed and are the preferred method. Rob Livick suggested the homeowner's association be responsible for the maintenance of the tanks. Commr. Boswell felt the lot pattern was very unusual and questioned the rationale for that type of adjacency. Commr. Caruso moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the vesting tentative tract map and zone change and certification of the EIR, based on the findings and subject to the conditions noted in the staff report, with conditions 8, 13, 16, 20, 23, 34, 35, 41, 43 modified per staff, and adding I; and with the following amendments: Lighting mitigation measure shall apply to all the lots, and-the lighting plan submitted for development of each the lots to take into account, at a minimum, the following: Outdoor lighting shall be minimized: outdoor lighting shall be shielded form adjacent properties, shall be low-level lighting, and shall minimize off-site -glare. Air Oivality condition modified to read: Prior to the start of construction, neighboring property owners shall be notified how to file dust complaints. Drainage condition, the use of detention tanks or detention basins shall be as agreed upon by the City and the developer. If tanks are used, centralized maintenance entity shall be responsible for maintenance of the tanks and a maintenance plan shall be submitted by the developer to the City for review and approval, prior approval of. the improvement plans. Roads and Streets condition to read: Exact road locations shall be determined in the field to minimize tree removal,without substantially affecting other resources. Add a condition for Taylor Field; Lot purchasers shall be informed of the existing field lighting on the adjacent sports field. Seconded by Commr. Cooper. Commr. Cooper suggested the EIR or project description include a detailed tree removal map. He agreed with and supported the motion. Commr. Aiken questioned the issue of parking for the trailhead and how vehicles will turn around. He suggested head-in parking at the adobe rather than parallel parking. Commr. Caruso suggested an amendment adding a condition that prior to finalization of the improvement plans, an alternative for parking be explored that lessen the effect of the existing home next to the adobe on Lizzie Court. Commr. Christianson noted her concern on the lot pattern issue. 4 - Ito Draft Planning Commission minutes Attachment 3 August 27, 2003 Page 10 Commr. Aiken suggested an amendment modifying the buildinq envelopes to increase the width of the setback on lots 19 20 and 21(adiacent to the Adamski residence) to 20 feet. Commr. Osborne supported the motion. AYES: Commrs. Caruos, Cooper, Aiken, Loh, Boswell, Christianson and Osborne NOES: None ABSENT: None REFRAIN: None The motion carried 7:0. Deputy Director Ronald Whisenand noted this action is a recommendation to the City Council and not a final action, therefore, it cannot be appealed. He noted this item will tentatively go before the City Council on October 7, 2003. 2. 1716 Osos Street. U and V 18-03; Request to allow a Bed and Breakfast Inn in the R-3-H zone, and possible request for reduced parking from 9 spaces to 7 spaces; Suzie Kyle and Neta Gladney, applicants. (Pam Ricci) Associate Planner Michael Codron presented the staff report. He explained this is the first request for a Bed and Breakfast Inn in a residential zone since the City started allowing them in 1996. He noted the Planning Commission reviewed this request on August 13, 2003, and continued consideration of the request, and provided direction on six specific items, all dealing with parking considerations. The project plans were modified to eliminate the 3rd floor penthouse unit, which reduced the required parking by one space. However, the project remains short by one space in meeting the City's parking requirement, so a request for a variance is being considered. He noted a parking management plan has been submitted that includes a provision for a bicycle to each guest and a shuttle service to and from the airport. He also noted the applicant has complied with the direction previously provided by the Commission, and staff is recommending approval of the project and parking variance, based on findings and subject to conditions of approval, as outlined in the staff report. In response to a question from Commr. Cooper, Planner Codron explained that tandem parking had been evaluated and rejected because of Bed and Breakfast Performance Standards that require availability of outdoor use area and the area available for tandem parking would be in that area. The parking situation has been modified and improved.. Commr. Aiken asked where the vehicle used as the airport shuttle parks, and questioned if it will be parked in the manager's parking space. l ' Attachment 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM#1 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Deputy Direct r/ MEETING DATE: August 27, 2003 BY: Lynn M. Azevedo, Associate Planner CITY FILE NUMBERS: TR/R/ER 11-01 (County Tract Map No. 2420) STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 2002071126 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1636 Woodland Drive SUBJECT: Consideration of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map to create 23 single-family residential lots and one 27-acre open space lot on approximately 40 acres of undeveloped land within City limits, rezoning the 13 acres of developed land from R-1 to R-1-S, and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). RECOMMENDATION Recommend to the City Council approval of the vesting tentative tract map and zone change and certification of the EIR based on the findings and the conditions recommended in this report. BACKGROUND Situation/Previous Review On April 9, 2003, the Planning Commission held a public meeting during the 45-day review period of the Draft EIR to take public testimony and provide input to City and consultant staffs on any additional analysis or data needed to adequately evaluate environmental issue areas. The 45-day review period ended May 7, 2003 and a total of 242 comments were generated as of that date, all of which have been responded to as part of the Final EIR. Data Summary Address: 1636 Woodland Drive Applicant: Bowden Ranch Partners, JV Representatives: C.M. Florence, Oasis Associates, Inc. Environmental status: Final EIR under consideration by the Planning Commission Site Description The project site is located at 1636 Woodland Drive, near the terminus of Lizzie Street and at the intersection of Woodland Drive and Wilding Lane. (See Figure ES 1-1 for vicinity map.)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 Attachment 4 Bowden Ranch Development(TR/R/ER 11-01) Page 2 elevations. 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. 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. 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). PrOlect Description The Bowden Ranch Development proposes the subdivision of an undeveloped, 40-acre parcel within the City limits into 23 custom, single-family residential lots and one 27-acre open space lot. The proposed tentative tract map is a vesting map. Approval of a vesting tentative map confers a "vested right" to development in substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies and.standards in effect when the application is determined complete (March 1, 2001). The project includes the construction/installation of typical residential infrastructure (e.g. streets, sewer lines, water lines). A rezoning is also proposed to rezone that portion of the property proposed for development from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-1-S (Low Density Residential-Special Consideration). EVALUATION The tentative map being evaluated as part of this staff report is entitled "Modified Proposed Project" as found in Figure 5.2-1 in the EIR (FEIR page no. 5-4). A full-scale copy of this map is enclosed with this staff report for the Commission and available at City Hall for review by the public. This map is the "mitigated project." The following paragraphs discuss aspects of the subdivision design and highlight changes made to original plans to address various project issues as found in the"modified proposed project" map: 1. Street Development Public vs. Private ownership The two cul-de-sacs being created, Lizzie Court and Woodland Court, will be public streets meeting minimum City width requirements. Three privately owned common driveways would serve up to 14 of the 23 lots, depending on how access is ultimately taken. Required Width The goal of the applicant has been to accommodate two-way travel, parking, adequate emergency vehicle access and at the same time retain the site's semi-rural atmosphere. To do this, minimum 4r ` g Y Attachment 4 Bowden Ranch Development(TR/R/ER 11-01) Page 3 street widths have been proposed consistent with City standards, and private common driveways proposed where terrain would make minimum City street widths difficult with respect to preservation of a semi-rural appearance. Narrower street widths will help to minimize grading and thereby minimize impacts to drainage, erosion and sedimentation, and visual resources. Page 2 of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map shows cross sections for the streets that will be improved as part of the project. ■ Lizzie Court will be a 43-foot right-of-way with two travel lanes, parking and curb/gutter on one side, and curb/gutter/sidewalk on the other. ■ Woodland Court will be a 35-foot right-of-way with two travel lanes, curb/gutter on one side, and parking and curb/gutter/sidewalk on the other. ■ Woodland Drive, past Woodland Court, will be improved by the project developer with curb and gutter on the north side of the street. ■ Woodland Drive between Wilding Lane and Woodland Court includes dedication of 24 feet, 18 feet for additional travel lane and parking, and 6 feet for curb, gutter, and sidewalk. ■ Wilding Lane will be improved with an additional 4 feet of pavement and 6 feet of curb/gutter/sidewalk where it borders the project site. ■ The private driveways have been designed such that designated turnarounds will be constructed to allow adequate turnaround maneuverability for emergency vehicles. The City-adopted street cross-sections for Woodland Drive (between Wilding Lane and Woodland Court) and for Wilding Lane. [16.45 in (54 ft.) R/W and 10.4m (34 ft.) curb to curb and 1.5 in (5 ft.) wide detached sidewalks will be met with this development. The Public Works and Fire Departments have reviewed and found acceptable the proposed street and driveway widths and configurations with respect to consistency with City standards. 2. Utilities As discussed in "Section 1. Streets", above, the main project cul-de-sacs will be public and the common driveways privately owned and maintained. Condition No. 6 calls for common driveway and utility agreements to accommodate public water and sewer systems. Conditions 13, 23, and 24 address fire hydrant locations and ownership of hydrants along the common driveways. 3. Environmental Issues The project EIR (FEIR) finds that there will be some significant environmental impacts resulting from the project all of which can be mitigated to a level of"less than significant." Impacts occur in the categories of aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy and minerals, geology/soils/seismicity, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, 4 ' Attachment 4 Bowden Ranch Development(TR/R/ER 11-01) Page 4 land use and planning policies, noise, recreation, and utilities and service systems. Table ES 9-1 within the Executive Summary at the beginning of the FEIR summarizes the project impacts. Aesthetics The potentially most identifiable visual characteristics associated with the proposed project are structures (e.g. houses), tree removal, site grading, paved driveways and streets, and landscaping. The two areas of environmental concern are (1) the potential to have a substantial effect on a scenic vista and (2) the potential to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Based on identified thresholds of significance and the Visibility Inventory, in general, the project has low to moderate visibility throughout the community. The most visible elements of the existing site are the 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 locations, generally north of the project site, development on Lots 13 through 23 would be potentialy visible at an average viewing distance of 0.6 miles. This viewing distance reduces the viewers' perception of smaller-scale project details as well as the site's overall prominence within the viewshed. With the exception of viewpoints in the immediate vicinity, homes built on Lots 1 through 12 would not be visible to the overall community. The individual components of the project would be almost unnoticeable from the adjacent neighborhood. Eight mitigation measures are proposed which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. These measures include implementation of a Landscape Screening Plan to obscure views of the project from areas to the north and west, minimization of visible hillside grading, and approval of an Administrative Use Permit and architectural review prior to issuance of a building permit. The use permit and architectural review would be based on the criteria set forth in mitigation measures 3.1-5 and 3.1-6. Biological The presence of the Mono Shoulder-band Snail, a federally endangered species, was found within portions of the development area of the project site. The "modified proposed project" (MPP) map shows the mitigated project with respect to this species and the associated mitigation measures. The MPP map also reflects mitigation related to small wetland areas found within the project site. The design of the MPP map and the original vesting tentative tract map, upon which the EIR was based, reflect all other mitigation measures recommended by the various wildlife and habitat reports prepared for this project. Attachment 4 Bowden Ranch Development(TR1R/ER 11-01) Page 5 Cultural The La Loma Adobe is an adobe residence dating to the latter part of the 1700's or early 1800's. The Adobe is situated just north of proposed Lizzie Court. Portions of the Bowden Ranch project site were at one time or another part of the lands associated with the Adobe. Several features associated with the Adobe were found on the project site as listed here: 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 proposed mitigation measures reduce potential impacts related to these features to a less than significant level as demonstrated in Section 3-6 of the Final EIR. Grading During the April public meeting, Commissioners brought up concerns regarding the slope of the proposed building sites. As shown on Figure 3.6-1 (FEIR page 3-76), upper slopes of the hillside lots exceed 25%. However, these areas are above the proposed building envelopes. All building pads will fully comply with the City's slope standards for single family residential zones. 4. Open Space An important feature of the project is the City's acquisition in fee title to approximately 27 acres of open space. This property is adjacent to another 200 acres recently put into open space by the project applicant. The combination of these properties is not only large, but it is also environmentally rich and scenic and will provide improved and legal access to an existing informal trail leading to Reservoir Canyon. The project proponent will be providing fencing for the trail through the project site, as well as, informational signage consistent with project mitigation measures. There has been much discussion amongst staff and with the developer about the area within Lots 8-10 along the creek between the building envelopes and the southern boundary of the subdivision and the creek corridor between lots 4-5. There are compelling pros and cons of public versus private ownership of these areas. After much thought and debate, the Natural Resources Manager recommends a biological open space easement be placed over these areas. The purpose of this easement will be to regulate vegetation activities and access for wildlife habitat and fuel management purposes. 5. Special Considerations of the Site - "S" Zoning Attachment 4 Bowden Ranch Development(TR/R/ER 11-01) Page 6 The developable portion of the property is proposed to be rezoned from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-1-S (Low Density Residential with the Special Consideration overlay). The purpose for the Special Consideration overlay is for: protection of the riparian corridors, protection of wildlife habitat and corridors, preservation of hillside open space, aesthetic concerns with development of visually prominent sites, creek setback and access, fire protection issues, access to the public trail, and provision of City utilities and services. An administrative use permit will be required before any use may be established. This administrative use permit, because of the "S" zoning, will serve as a master use permit that will further ensure compliance with Land Use Element (LUE) Policy 6.2.2 Hillside Development Standards, LUE 6.2.63 Hillside Planning Area/Woodland Drive area, and ensure proper implementation of mitigation measures that apply to individual lots. Many of the concerns with provisions of utilities and protection of the open space and other sensitive habitat areas are already addressed through the tentative map, proposed mitigation measures and conditions of approval. To help maintain a somewhat semi-rural appearance, narrow streets and common driveways are proposed. To help keep development further away from both the creek area and the hillsides, building envelopes are shown for each lot. The net areas of all proposed building envelopes are provided on the tentative map. To further protect resources, staff is recommending a tentative map condition that a 15-foot street yard be allowed for homes and a 20-foot street yard for garages. One of the goals of these setback requirements is to minimize the appearance of garages when viewing the project from the main roadway. Other benefits of a relaxed street yard standard (20 feet is normally the requirement in a R-1 zone) are providing more flexibility in designing the house's footprint and helping to encourage siting of development away from more sensitive resource areas. In addition, a reduced setback will allow for better neighborhood interaction consistent with LUE Policy 7.2.12.I. Through the review of the use permit, staff would like to review conceptual development plans for some of the lots with odd shapes, long frontages and smaller net areas for the building envelopes. The use permit will also contain guidelines that relate to building design to provide generalized direction to the developers on colors, materials, and other architectural features appropriate for houses in the context of the project setting. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The comments and recommendations of various City departments are incorporated into the following conditions and code requirements. RECOMMENDATION Recommend to the City Council approval of the vesting tentative tract map, zone change, and certification of the EIR, based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions �-a3 Attachment 4 Bowden Ranch Development(TR/R/ER 11-01) Page 7 and code requirements: ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue the item with direction regarding additional information needed to make a recommendation to the City Council. 2. Deny the project based on findings. Findin¢s Zoning Map Amendment 1. Amending the Official Zoning Map to change the zoning for lots 1 through 23 of Tract Map 2420 at 1636 Woodland Drive from Low Density Residential (R-1) to Low Density Residential-Special Consideration (R-1-S) is the appropriate means of further implementing the General Plan with respect to hillside policies and urban edges character. 2. The purpose for the Special Consideration overlay is for: protection of the riparian corridors, protection of wildlife habitat and corridors, preservation of hillside open space, aesthetic concerns with development of visually prominent sites, creek setback and access, fire protection issues, access to the public trail, provision of City utilities and services, and implementation of EIR mitigation measures that apply to development of the individual lots. Tract Map 3. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the General Plan as noted in the staff report and FEIR. 4. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in an R-1-S zone. 5. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements subject to identified mitigation measures are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will not conflict with public access through (or use of property within) the proposed subdivision. Environmental Review 7. The subdivision will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, subject to incorporation of the mitigation measures of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the mitigation monitoring program. ( r Attachment 4 Bowden Ranch Development(TR/R/ER 11-01) Page 8 Conditions Streets 8. Street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City regulations, Engineering Standards and Specifications in effect on the date the vesting map was deemed complete (March 1, 2001) which include integral curbs, gutters and sidewalks, full width street pavement, signing, striping, barricades, street lights, etc.. 9. The final map shall accommodate the City-adopted street cross-sections for Woodland Drive (between Wilding Lane and Woodland Court) and for Wilding Lane. [16.45 m (54 ft.) R/W and 10.4m (34 ft.) curb to curb and 1.5 m(5 ft.) wide detached sidewalks. 10. Any additional rights of way or easements needed on project streets to accommodate the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) sidewalk requirements behind driveway ramps shall be dedicated on the final map. 11. The proposed Wilding Lane right of way abandonment, as shown on the tentative map, is not approved. However, any "excess" right of way along Woodland Drive, between Wilding lane and Woodland Court will be abandoned as part of the final map process, rather than under the California Streets & Highways Code procedures. 12. The subdivider shall provide necessary signage along the southern curb lines of Lizzie Court (except parking turnout) and Woodland Court as "No Parking — Fire Lane," to the approval of the Public Works Director and Fire Marshall per City standards. 13. Common driveway and utility agreements are required for the three private driveways, to the satisfaction of the Community Development and Public Works Directors, per City standards and regulations. The driveways and utility extensions shall be done as subdivision improvement requirements. Concrete pavement is required for "common driveways" with greater than 15% slope (unless approved otherwise by the Public Works Director and Chief Building Official) and individual driveways greater than 20% slope. 14. The subdivider shall dedicate a 2m wide public utility easement across the frontage of each lot. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 15. The subdivider shall dedicate a 3m wide street tree easement across the frontage of each lot. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 16.The subdivider shall install street lighting and all associated facilities (conduits, sidewalk vaults, fusing, wiring, luminaires, etc.) per City standards, including off-site street lighting `4( .fir l Attachment 4 Bowden Ranch Development(TR/R/ER 11-01) Page 9 along roadways leading to and from the proposed development, as determined by the City Engineer. 17. Street trees are required along all public street frontages per City standards, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist, with building permits on the respective lots. Species are to be approved by the City Arborist and Natural Resources Manager (in creek areas) and consistent with the Master Subdivision Planting Plan to be approved by the Architectural Review Commission. 18. All tree removals necessary to construct the public streets, private driveways and grading certain rear yards adjacent to creeks, are subject to a master tree removal permit, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. Tree removals have been identified on the Tree Removal Plan as identified in the EIR. All other trees within the development areas, not specifically approved for removal, shall remain and be protected during the construction process, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist and Natural Resources Manager. 19. If the City Arborist determines any trees require safety pruning, all pruning shall be performed by a certified Arborist, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. Water,Sewer & Utilities 20. The subdivider shall be responsible for necessary adjustments to existing fire hydrants, public and private utility and drainage services and any other affected facilities, to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Utilities Directors. 21. Final grades and alignments of all public water, sewer and storm drains (including service laterals and meters) shall be subject to change to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Engineer. 22. The subdivider shall place underground, all existing overhead utilities adjacent to the tract boundary along the public street frontage(s), to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and utility companies. 23. The irrigation systems for common areas, parks, detention basins, and other large landscape areas shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards for reclaimed water use. Appropriately sized reclaimed water mains shall be constructed from the City's trunk system to these irrigation areas. If reclaimed water is not yet available, the system shall be designed and constructed to reclaimed water standards, and temporarily connected to the City's potable water system in the area of the anticipated connection to the reclaimed water system. Appropriate backflow protection shall be installed with this connection to the satisfaction of the County Cross Connection Inspector. Grading & Drainage 24. Any necessary clearing of existing creek and drainage channels within the tract boundary, ` ,au _ Attachment 4 Bowden Ranch Development(TR/R/ER 11-01) Page 10 including tree pruning or removals, and any necessary erosion repairs shall be to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, the City's Natural Resources Manager and the Dept. of Fish & Game. 25. All lots shall be graded to preclude cross-lot drainage, or, appropriate easements and drainage facilities shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Mapping& Miscellaneous Requirements 26. All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with Autocad (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the Public Works Director. 27. Prior to acceptance by the City of public improvements, the developer's engineer shall submit a digital version of all public improvement plans & record drawings, compatible with Autocad (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 28. The final map, public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the City Engineer. Fire Department Requirements 29. Fire hydrants shall be installed to City standards; locations to be determined by the Fire Marshall during the subdivision improvement plan check process, in accordance with City regulations. Additional hydrants will be required at the end of Lizzie Court and near the intersection of Woodland Drive and Woodland Court. 30. The proposed fire hydrants shown on the tentative map, within Lot 23 and near Lot 12 shall be private and incorporated into the required common driveway and utility easements," which shall include an agreement for common maintenance and operation of the private fire line and hydrants, as well as, the driveway, to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshall. Open Space 31.The open space lot shall be dedicated to the City as part of the final map. l _� I Attachment 4 Bowden Ranch Development(TR/MR 11-01) Page 11 32. The Swale in the northeast comer of Lot 14 shall be added to the open space lot. 33. The subdivider shall dedicate a biological open space easement over: ■ The area within Lots 8-10 along the creek between the building envelopes and the southern boundary of the subdivision; and • The creek corridor between lots 4-5. The purpose of this easement is to regulate vegetation activities and access for wildlife habitat and for fuel management purposes. 34. The final map shall show a pedestrian access easement extending east from Uzzie Court in the alignment shown on the tentative map to formally provide a public walking trail to connect with the adjacent open space to the east already owned by the City. 35. Fencing along the trail within the project site and around the sanctuary will generally be wood rail. The specific design will be finalized as part of the subdivision improvement plans and subject to the approval of the Natural Resources Manager. The fence design and construction will be the responsibility of the subdivision developer. 36. Informational signs about the sanctuary and other aspects of site shall be finalized as part of the trail and fence design plan identified in the above condition. Signage shall be subject to the approval of the Natural Resources Manager and the responsibility of the subdivision developer to install. 37. The applicant shall submit plans prepared by a licensed landscape architect and a qualified plant restoration ecologist for tree planting in accordance with the specifications detailed in Mitigation Measure 3.3-16 of the Final EIR. The Natural Resources Manager will require the use of bay trees along creek, and oaks and toyons elsewhere. The Master Tree Planting Plan will be subject to the approval of the Natural Resources Manager, City Arborist, and Architectural Review Commission. Said plan shall be approved prior to acceptance of subdivision improvements. 38. Water from the existing well, as said well functions at this time (i.e., no pumping), requires adjudication; adjudication will (1) keep the diversions from the well no more than they are at this time and (2) a reasonable portion of said diversion will accrue to the benefit of the open space parcel to be dedicated to the public trust. Planning Requirements 39. Individual lot development shall be subject to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). Planning staff may make the determination upon submittal of complete plans if the minor or incidental architectural review process is appropriate. `1 , Attachment 4 Bowden Ranch Development(TR/R/ER 11-01) Page 12 40. A 15-foot street yard shall be allowed for homes and a 20-foot street yard for garages with doors facing the street. 41. Subdivider shall prepare conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) to be approved by the City Attorney and Community Development Director prior to final map approval. CC&R's shall contain the following provisions that pertain to all lots: a. Creation of a homeowners'association.. b. No parking except in approved, designated spaces. c. No change in city-required provisions of the CC&R's without prior City Council approval. d. Homeowners' association shall file with the City Clerk the names and addresses of all officers of the homeowners'association within 15 days of any change in officers of the association. e. Provision for all of the maintenance responsibilities outlined in the various mitigation measures of the Final EIR. 42. The subdivider shall submit a common driveway agreement for Lots 9-12 and 13-23, including maintenance provisions, to the approval of the Community Development Director at the time of final map approval. CODE REQUIREMENTS A. Traffic impact fees are required to be paid as a condition of issuance of building permits. B. A water allocation is required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. The City currently has water to allocate, and does so on a "first-come, first-served" basis. Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued and the Water Impact Fee is paid. Both the Water and Wastewater Impact Fees are charged on a"per residential unit" basis. C. Each parcel is to have its own separate water and wastewater service laterals. D. Plans shall show an appropriately sized USC approved backflow prevention device at the end of each of the cul-de-sacs serving the private fire hydrants on the private driveways. E. An earlier version of the development plan indicated a looped connection between the two dead-end water mains. The dead-end water mains now being proposed with this project require the approval of both the Utilities Department and the Fire Department. City standards y"U Attachment 4 Bowden Ranch Development(TR/R/ER 11-01) Page 13 dictate that, if approved, the 8" diameter dead-end mains shall be no longer than 210 meters. F. By ordinance, the applicant is required to prepare a recycling plan for approval by the City to address the recycling of construction waste for projects valued at over $50,000 or demolition of structures over 1000 square feet. The recycling plan shall be submitted to the Building Department with the building plans. The City's Solid Waste Coordinator can provide some guidance in the preparation of an appropriate recycling plan. G. Appropriate backflow prevention will be necessary on any connection to the City water system if the property includes an active well. H. EPA Requirement: General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and excavation results in land disturbance of five or more acres. Storm water discharges of fess than five acres, but which is part of a larger common plan of development or sale, also require a permit. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State Water Board. Attachments: Planning Commission Resolution of Approval Enclosed: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No 2420—Modified Proposed Project (full-sized blueprints to Planning Commissioners only) city of sAn lul' S OBISPO 990 Palm Street, San.Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 Attach i len-t 4 September 8, 2003 Bowden Ranch Partners, J.V. 5875 Stockdale Rd. Paso Robles, CA 93446 SUBJECT: 1636 Woodland Drive; TR, R and ER 11-01_. Tentative tract map to create 23 residential parcels and one open space parcel; consideration of possible rezoning of the property to R-1-S (Low- Density Residential with a special considerations overlay); and environmental review (EIR); R-1 zone. Dear Bowden Ranch Partners: The Planning Commission, at its meeting of August 27, 2003, recommended that the City Council support the project EIR and approve the tentative tract map, based on findings and subject to conditions noted in the attached resolution. The action of the Planning Commission is a recommendation to the City Council and, therefore, is not final. This matter has been tentatively scheduled for public hearing before the City Council on October 7, 2003. This date, however, should be verified with the City Clerk's office at (805) 781- 7102. If you have any questions, please contact me at (805) 781-7177. Sincerely, Ronad Whisenan Deputy Director of Community Development Development Review cc: SLO County Assessor's Office Oasis Associates Pete J. Cagliero, Tre Eta] Attn: Carol Florence % Frederick K. Glick 3427 Miguelito Ct. 1315 Santa Rosa Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Attachment: Resolution No. 5370-03 OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. "yr Q �� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. All B.C;h n,ont 4 RESOLUTION NO. 5370-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, ZONE CHANGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1636 WOODLAND DRIVE TR/R/ER 11-01 (Tract 2420) (Bowden Ranch Estates) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted public. hearings in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 9, 2003 for the purpose of soliciting comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on August 27, 2003 for the purpose of considering Application TR/R/ER 11-01, a single-family residential subdivision with 23 residential lots and one open space lot; and WHEREAS, the August 27, 2003 public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Environmental Impact Report and the mitigation monitoring program prepared for the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings: Zoning Map Amendment 1. Amending the Official Zoning Map to change the zoning for lots 1 through 23 of Tract Map 2420 at 1636 Woodland Drive from Low Density Residential (R-1) to Low Density Residential-Special Consideration (R-1-S) is the appropriate means of further implementing the General Plan with respect to hillside policies and urban edges character. 2. The purpose for the Special Consideration overlay is for: protection of the riparian corridors, protection of wildlife habitat and corridors, preservation of hillside open space, aesthetic concerns with development of visually prominent sites, creek setback and access, fire protection issues, access to the public trail, provision of City utilities and services, and implementation of EIR mitigation measures that apply to development of the individual lots. 4-32 Resolution No.5370-03 TR/R/ER 11-01 Page 2 Tract Map 3. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the General Plan as noted in the staff report and FEIR. 4. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in an R-1-S zone. 5. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements subject to identified mitigation measures are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will not conflict with public access through (or use of property within) the proposed subdivision. Environmental Review 7. The subdivision will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, subject to incorporation of the mitigation measures of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the mitigation monitoring program. Conditions Streets 8. Street improvements as shown on the vesting tentative map shall be constructed in accordance with the City regulations, Engineering Standards and Specifications in effect on the date the vesting map was deemed complete (March 1, 2001) which include integral curbs, gutters and sidewalks, full width street pavement, signing, striping, barricades, street lights, etc. 9. The final map shall accommodate the City-adopted street cross-sections for Woodland Drive (between Wilding Lane and Woodland Court) and for Wilding Lane. [16.45 m (54 ft.) R/W and 10.4m (34 ft.) curb to curb and 1.5 in (5 ft.) wide detached sidewalks. 10. Any additional rights of way or easements needed on project streets to accommodate the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) sidewalk requirements behind driveway ramps shall be dedicated on the final map. 11. The proposed Wilding Lane right of way abandonment, as shown on the tentative map, is not approved. However, any "excess" right of way along Woodland Drive, between Wilding lane and Woodland Court will be abandoned as part of the final map process, rather than under the California Streets &Highways Code procedures. �-33 �rnnnt 4 Resolution No.5370-03 TR/R/ER 11-01 Page 3 12. The subdivider shall provide necessary signage along the southern curb lines of Lizzie Court (except parking turnout) and Woodland Court as "No Parking — Fire Lane," to the approval of the Public Works Director and Fire Marshal:. per City standards. 13. Common driveway and utility agreements are required for the three private.driveways, to the satisfaction of the Community Development and Public Works Directors, per City standards and regulations. The driveways and utility extensions shall be done as subdivision improvement requirements. Concrete pavement is required for "common driveways" with greater than 15% slope (unless approved otherwise by the Public Works Director and Chief Building Official) and individual driveways greater than 20% slope. Suitable turn around areas shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and Fire Marshall. 14. The subdivider shall dedicate a 2m wide public utility easement across the frontage of each lot. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 15. The subdivider shall dedicate a 3m wide street tree easement across the frontage of each lot. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 16. The subdivider shall install street lighting and all associated facilities (conduits, sidewalk vaults, fusing, wiring, luminaires, etc.) per City standards, including off-site street lighting along roadways adjacent to the proposed development, as determined by the City Engineer. 17. Street trees are required along all public street frontages per City standards, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist, with building permits on the respective lots. Species are to be approved by the City Arborist and Natural Resources Manager (in creek areas) and consistent with the Master Subdivision Planting Plan to be approved by the Architectural Review Commission. 18. All tree removals necessary to construct the public streets, private driveways and grading certain rear yards adjacent to creeks, are subject to a master tree removal permit, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. Tree removals have been identified on the Tree Removal Plan as identified in the EIR. All other trees within the development areas, not specifically approved for removal, shall remain and be protected during the construction process, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist and Natural Resources Manager. 19. If the City Arborist determines any trees require safety pruning, all pruning shall be performed by a certified Arborist, to the satisfaction of the City- Arborist. 20. The City and subdivider shall explore other alternatives to the parking arrangement for public access. Use of perpendicular parking either on the northerly or southerly side of Lizzie Court may provide a superior parking arrangement that would help resolve possible neighborhood impacts. Final design shall be to theapproval of the Natural Resources Manager and Public Works Director. `T ' Resolution No. 5370-03 TR/R/ER 11-01 Page 4 Water,Sewer & Utilities 21. The subdivider shall be responsible for necessary adjustments to existing fire hydrants, public and private utility and drainage services and any other affected facilities within or adjacent to the proposed tract boundary, to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Utilities Directors. 22. Final grades and alignments of all public water, sewer and storm drains (including service laterals and meters) shall be subject to change to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Engineer. 23. The subdivider shall place underground, all existing overhead utilities adjacent to the tract boundary along the public street frontage(s), to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and utility companies. Grading & Drainage 24. Any necessary clearing of existing creek and drainage channels within the tract boundary, including tree pruning or removals, and any necessary erosion repairs shall be to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, the City's Natural Resources Manager and the Dept. of Fish & Game. 25. All lots shall be graded to preclude cross-lot drainage, or, appropriate easements and drainage facilities shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 26. Any required individual or common stormwater retention facilities shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. All drainage facilities shall be maintained. If the use of underground retention or the creation of "common" or centralized drainage facilities is proposed, a Homeowners Association or other maintenance entity shall be formed. Mapping& Miscellaneous Requirements 27. All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with AutoCAD (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic 'Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the Public Works Director. 28. Prior to acceptance by the City of public improvements, the developer's engineer shall submit a digital version of all public improvement plans & record drawings, compatible with AutoCAD (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 4, ment 4 Resolution No.5370-03 TR/R/ER 11-01 Page 5 29. The final map, public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the City Engineer.. Fire Department Requirements 30. Fire hydrants shall be installed to City standards; locations to be determined by the Fire Marshall during the subdivision improvement plan check process, in accordance with City regulations. Additional hydrants will be required at the end of Lizzie Court and near the intersection of Woodland Drive and Woodland Court. 31. The proposed fire hydrants shown on the tentative map, within Lot 23 and near Lot 12 shall be private and incorporated into the required common driveway and utility easements," which shall include an agreement for common maintenance and operation of the private fire line and hydrants, as well as,the driveway, to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshall. Open Space 32. The open space lot shall be dedicated to the City as part of the final map. 33. The swale in the northeast comer of Lot 14 shall be added to the open space lot. 34. The subdivider shall dedicate a biological open space easement over: ■ The area within Lots 8-10 along the creek between the building envelopes and the southern boundary of the subdivision; and ■ The creek corridor between lots 4-5. The purpose of this easement is to regulate vegetation activities and access for wildlife habitat and for fuel management purposes. 35. The final map shall show a pedestrian trail in the open space lot, extending east from Lizzie Court in the alignment shown on the vesting tentative map to provide access to other lands of the developer in the unincorporated area, where access has been permitted, and ultimately to City-owned lands further east. 36. Fencing along the trail within the project site around the sanctuary, and delineating the biological easement areas will generally be wood rail. Those fences that form side or back yard boundaries adjacent to the open space, or that form the boundaries of the biological easement areas, shall be designed so that they will prevent dogs from getting out of the fenced areas and into open or protected areas. The specific design will be finalized as part of the subdivision improvement plans and subject to the approval of the Natural Resources Manager and Architectural Review Commission. The fence design and construction will be the responsibility of the subdivision developer. Resolution No.5370-03 TR/R/ER I1-01 Page 6 37. Informational signs about the sanctuary and other aspects of site shall be finalized as part of the trail and fence design plan identified in the above condition. Signage shall be subject to the approval of the Natural Resources Manager and the responsibility of the subdivision developer to install. 38. The applicant shall submit plans prepared by a licensed landscape architect and a qualified plant restoration ecologist for tree planting in accordance with the specifications detailed in Mitigation Measure 3.3-16 of the Final EIR. The Natural Resources Manager will require the use of bay trees along creek, and oaks and toyons elsewhere. The Master Tree Planting Plan will be subject to the approval of the Natural Resources Manager, City Arborist, and Architectural Review Commission. Said plan shall be approved prior to acceptance of subdivision improvements. 39. Water from the existing cistern served by the existing spring requires adjudication; adjudication will (1) keep the diversions from the well no more than they are at this time and (2) a reasonable portion of said diversion will accrue to the benefit of the open space parcel to be dedicated to the public trust. Planning Requirements 40. Individual lot development shall be subject to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). Planning staff may make the determination upon submittal of complete plans if the minor or incidental architectural review process is appropriate. 41. A 15-foot street yard shall be allowed for homes and a 20-foot street yard for garages with doors facing the street 42. A 20-foot rear yard setback shall be maintained along the southwesterly property line of lots 19-21. 43. Subdivider shall prepare conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) to be approved by the City Attorney and Community Development Director prior to final map approval. CC&R's shall contain the following provisions that pertain to all lots: a. Creation of a homeowners' association. b. No parking except in approved, designated spaces. c. No change in city-required provisions of the CC&R's without prior City Council approval. d. Homeowners' association shall file with the City Clerk the names and addresses of all officers of the homeowners' association within 15 days of any change in officers of the association. meat 4 Resolution No.5370-03 TR/R/ER 11-01 Page 7 e. Provision for those certain maintenance responsibilities for specific lots outlined in the various mitigation measures of the Final EIR. f. Provision for maintenance of any underground or common stormwater retention facilities. g. Advising property owners that the project is located adjacent to a school facility including lighted sports fields and that occasional noise and glare may occur as a result of . the School District's use of these facilities. A declaration to this effect shall also be included in the California Department of Real Estate documents alerting potential buyers to this situation. 44.The subdivider shall submit a common driveway agreement for Lots 9-12 and 13-23, including maintenance provisions, to the approval of the Community Development Director at the time of final map approval.. 45. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b), the subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this subdivision, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review. CODE REQUIREMENTS A. Traffic impact fees are required to be paid as a condition of issuance of building permits. B. A water allocation is required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. The City currently has water to allocate, and does so on a "first-come, first-served" basis. Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued and the Water Impact Fee is paid. Both the Water and Wastewater Impact Fees are charged on a "per residential unit" basis. C. Each parcel is to have its own separate water and wastewater service laterals. D. Plans shall show an appropriately sized USC approved backflow prevention device at the end of each of the cul-de-sacs serving the private fire hydrants on the private driveways. E. An earlier version of the development plan indicated a looped connection between the two dead-end water mains. The dead-end water mains now being proposed with this project require the approval of both the Utilities Department and the Fire Department. City standards dictate that, if approved, the 8" diameter dead-end mains shall be no longer than 210 meters. F. By ordinance, the applicant is required to prepare a recycling plan for approval by the City to address the recycling of construction waste for projects .valued at over$50,000 or demolition of structures over 1000 square feet. The recycling plan shall be submitted to theBuilding. r -M Resolution No. 5370-03 TR/R/ER I 1-01 Page 8 Department with the building plans. The City's Solid Waste Coordinator can provide some guidance in the preparation of an appropriate recycling plan. G. Appropriate backflow prevention will be necessary on any connection to the City water system if the property includes an active well. H. EPA Requirement: General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and excavation results in land disturbance of five or more acres. Storm water discharges of less than five acres, but which is part of a larger common plan of development or sale, also require a permit. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State Water Board. I. The applicant shall pay an affordable housing in-lieu fee equal to 5% of the total building valuation of the new dwelling units, consistent with Chapter 17.91 of the Zoning Regulations, prior to final subdivision map approval. On motion by Commissioner Caruso, seconded by Commissioner Cooper and on the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: Commrs. Caruso, Cooper, Osborne, Aiken, Christianson, Boswell & Loh. NOES: None REFRAIN: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 27th day of August, 2003. '004 4��z onal hisenan , Secretary Planning Commission Attachment 5 RESOLUTION NO. (2003 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE BOWDEN RANCH ESTATES PROJECT LOCATED AT 1636 WOODLAND DRIVE (ER 11-01) WHEREAS, public hearings on this EIR were held before the Planning Commission on April 9, 2003 and August 27, 2003, and the City Council on October 7, 2003; and WHEREAS, the EIR, including EIR Errata dated September 16, 2003 (Exhibit A) was considered by the City Council after extensive review by City staff and other agencies, and with the comments of the Planning Commission and concerned public; and WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the project have been evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council hereby certifies that the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Bowden Ranch Estates Subdivision adequately identifies the project's potentially significant impacts, alternatives to the proposed action, and recommended mitigation measures. SECTION 2. Findings. 1. The Final EIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was considered by the City prior to any approvals of the project. 2. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City. 3. For each significant effect identified in the EIR under the categories of Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy and Minerals, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, and Transportation and Traffic, the approved mitigation measures contained in the EIR and attached as Exhibit B, will avoid or substantially lessen the identified adverse environmental impacts of the project to a level of insignificance and have been incorporated into the project. - 0 Attachment 5 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 2 4. The Mitigation Monitoring Program has been reviewed and approved by the City Council in conjunction with the certification of the Final EIR. SECTION 3. Effective October 7,2003. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2003. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: Cit tomey Jonathan Lowell G:]=vedo\CMowden FEQ2 Res.doc 4A , -- Attachrri....c 5 � ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. Memo Date September 16, 2003 To Ron Whisenand From Dain Anderson Subject Bowden Ranch Development Final Environmental Impact Report- Errata We have reviewed the comments expressed by the Planning Commission and the project proponent at the Commission's August 27th meeting. Based on that review, we recommend modifications (errata) to Section 7 (Response to Comments) of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)for the Bowden Ranch Development. The following presents a brief summary introduction to the Response to Comments for the benefit of the reader: INTRODUCTION Each comment letter received during the Draft EIR's review, including those comments received at the Planning Commission's August 27111 meeting, 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 Final EIR are described in the response and referenced by the page number on which the original text appears in the Final EIR. Added text is underlined; deleted text is stfiek8R. PC SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION PC-60 Errata: The Commission expressed concern that the future residential units to be constructed at Bowden Ranch could potentially result in the generation of significant levels of night-time lighting, which could be considered a potentially significant impact. The following mitigation measure addresses that concern: Mitigation Measure 3.1-9. Prior to issuance of building permits for each lot, an exterior.lighting shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development for review and approval.The plan shall indicate the use of low level lighting only.The plan shall also indicate the use of exterior lighting fixtures that are shielded so as to ensure that there is no glare off of each individual lot. / j 4 - cl 4 West Fourth Avenue,Suite 303 San Mateo,California 94402 TEL 650.373-1200 FAA 650.373-1211 E-MA[Lmail@mha-inc.com wwwmha-inc.com AtL..nment 5 Page 2 Ron Whisenand September 16, 2003 PC-61 Errata: The Commission expressed concern that the community may not.know what to do or who to call should there be significant levels of dust generated during grading activities associated with the project's initial development. The FEIR includes mitigation measures designed to minimize the generation of fugitive dust in accordance with recommendations of the San Luis Obispo air Pollution Control District. To further enforcement of those measures, the Commission recommended addition of either a new mitigation measure or modification of an existing measure designed to provide enforcement information to the community, as follows: 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 air Pollution Control District 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 quantities to reduce those emissions. • The designation of a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering or-other measures as necessary to prevent transport of dust.offsite.Their duties should include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in Progress. • The name and telephone number of such persons shall be.provided to the APCD and all adjacent residents within 1;000 linear feet of the proiect site prior to the commencement of construction. • Compliant handling procedures shall be identified. This shall include, but shall not be limited to the posting of signs at the proiect perimeters identifving the APCD as the enforcement agency and citing their address and Wephone number, and further indicating that all complaints with regard to proiect related air quality shall be forwarded to the District. • A-daily dust observation-log shall be completed and submitted weekly to the APCD and the Director of Community Development. PC-62 Errata: The Planning Commission commented that there may be opportunities to refine the proposed alignments of all on-site roadways to further minimize encroachment into existing on-site tree stands and areas of biological resources. The following mitigation measure addresses that opportunity: Aft ,iment 5 Page 3 Ron Whisenand September 16, 2003 Mitigation Measure 3.3-21. Prior to recordation.of the Final Map the applicant shall submit a revised tentative-subdivision map to the Director of Community Development. The revised map shall reflect a refinement of the alignment of all.on-site roadways to minimize to the extent possible the roadways'encroachment into existing tree stands and areas of biological resources. AP3 OASIS LANDSCAPE, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING AP3-29 Errata: The project proponent commented that the language of Mitigation Measure 3.10-3 could be interpreted as assuming that construction of the Bowden Ranch project would affect the structural integrity of the La Loma Adobe. This was not the intent of the Measure, which has been modified as follows to reflect the potential affect and to identify a strategy to ensure the Adobe's protection (NOTE: Mitigation Measure 3.10-3 was newly added with publication of the FEIR. Only changes to that Measure are reflected below): Mitigation Measure 3.10-3. Prior to the first ground disturbing activity on the project site the applicant shall fund as structural engineering analysis of the La Loma Adobe_fer�he e�ess purpose of the analysis would be to of deteFminir g whaf determine if there would be any possibility of ground borne vibration generated during grading and construction activities negatively affecting the Adobe's pre-construction structural integrity. If the analysis were to conclude that grading and construction activities could damage the.Adobe, then a plan to protect the Adobe shall be funded by the applicant, and eliminate any pe%eRtial Glamage to the A-trunture from on-site qFading and shall be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. QA;bif A Attachment 5 Exhibit B Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measure Monitor Aesthetics Potential Impact 3.1-2:Potential for Mitigation Measure 3.1-1.Prior to the start of Director of Community adverse effect on a scenic vista. any grading and concurrent with submittal of Development 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 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 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 Bowden Ranch Development Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 1 October 2003 4 < Attachment 5 Impact Mitigation Measure Monitor 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. Mitigation Measure 3.1-2.Prior to issuance of Director of Community the Grading Permit,the applicant shall submit Development and City Engineer 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 Director of Community recordation of the Final Map,the applicant Development 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 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. Mitigation Measure 3.1-4.Improvement Director of Community plans shall demonstrate that site development Development and City Engineer 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 2 Bowden Ranch Development Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting October 2003 i 1 X40 A Attachment 5 Impact Mitigation Measure Monitor plants to reduce erosion and to blend with the surroundings,and shall be consistent with applicable biological resource mitigation. Mitigation Measure 3.1-5.Prior to Director of Community recordation of the Final Map,the applicant Development 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 Director of Community recordation of the Final Map,the applicant Development shall submit to the Director of Community Development for review and approval language to be incorporated into a Deed Bowden Ranch Development Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 3 October 2003 4 ,4-) Attachment 5 Impact Mitigation Measure Monitor 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 Director of Community recordation of the Final Map,the applicant Development 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 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 Director of Community degradation of the visual character or recordation of the Final Map and approval of Development 4 Bowden Ranch Development Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting October 2003 f r L1 , 2 Exhibit A Attachment 5 Impact Mitigation Measure Monitor quality of the site. Improvement Plans,the applicant shall submit Development 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. Mitigation Measure 3.1-9.Prior to issuance of Director of Community building permits for each lot,an exterior Development lighting shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development for review and approval.The plan shall indicate the use of low level lighting only.The plan shall also indicate the use of exterior lighting fixtures that are shielded so as to ensure that there is no glare off of each individual lot. Air Quality Potential Impact 3.2-1:The potential Mitigation Measure 3.2-1.Prior to issuance Air Pollution Control District. to generate a nuisance or increase air of the Grading Permit,or approval of emissions from on-and off-site sources Improvement Plans,whichever occurs first, associated with the project the applicant shall submit to the Air Pollution Control District 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 Bowden Ranch Development Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 5 October 2003 Attachment 5 Impact Mitigation Measure Monitor 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 quantities to reduce those emissions. • The designation of a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering or other measures as necessary to prevent transport of dust offsite.Their duties should include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. • The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD and all adjacent residents within 1,000 linear feet of the project site prior to the commencement of construction. • Compliant handling procedures shall be identified.This shall include,but shall not be limited to the posting of signs at the project perimeters identifying the APCD as the enforcement agency and citing their address and telephone number,and further indicating that all complaints with regard to project related air quality shall be forwarded to the District. • A daily dust observation log shall be completed and submitted weekly to the APCD and the.Director of Community Development. Mitigation Measure 3.2-2:Prior to the Air Pollution Control District 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 3.2-3:All diesel powered Director of Community construction equipment,including mobile and Development stationary equipment,shall adhere to the following: 6 Bowden Ranch Development Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting October 2003 (� 64 -�D E,ch�b iJ A Attachment 5 Impact Mitigation Measure Monitor • 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 Air Pollution Control District issuance of a Grading Permit,or approval of Improvement Pians,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 Construction,Grading,Quarrying,and Surface Mining Operations.Alternatively,the applicant shall comply with the ATCM for dust control. Biological Resources Potential Impact 33-1.Potential to Mitigation Measure 3.3-1.The applicant shall Director of Community directly impact sensitive habitats. offer to dedicate that portion of the property Development 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. Mitigation Measure 3.3-2.Prior to Director of Community recordation of the Final Map the applicant shall Development and Manager of submit to the Director of Community Natural Resources 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 f 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 Bowden Ranch Development Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 7 October 2003 [�' L e; Attachment 5 Impact Mitigation Measure Monitor 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 Mitigation Measure 3.3-3 Prior to recordation Director of Community indirectly impact sensitive habitats of the.Final Map,the applicant shall submit an Development 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 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. Mitigation Measure 3.3-4.The applicant shall Manager of Natural.Resources 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 offtrail usage and minimize impacts to sensitive habitat near trails. Mitigation Measure 3.3-5.All construction Director of Community activity on lots 7,9,22,and 23(adjacent to the Development butterflyover-winteringhabitat)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 Mitigation Measure 3.3-6.The applicant shall Manager of Natural Resources directly impact sensitive plant species work with a qualified restoration specialist,in 8 Bowden Ranch Development Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting October 2003 Attachment 5 Impact Mitigation Measure Monitor directly impact sensitive plant species 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 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 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. Potential Impact 3.34.Potential to Mitigation Measures 3.3-3 and 3.3-4. Director of Community indirectly impact sensitive plant Development and Manager of species. Natural Resources Potential Impact 3.3-5.Potential to Mitigation Measure 3.3-7.Not more than 72 Manager of Natural Resources 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 3.3-8.Not more than one Manager of Natural Resources 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,seasonal activity restrictions,or on-site habitat enhancement or protection or off-site habitat acquisition and/or enhancement. Bowden Ranch Development Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 9 October 2003 EXl�ib�t� Attachment 5 Impact Mitigation Measure Monitor Mitigation Measure 3.3-9.Not more than one Manager of Natural Resources 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 protection or off-site habitat acquisition and/or enhancement. Mitigation Measure 33-10.If any on-site Manager of Natural Resources 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 I week prior to planned grading.All active nests 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 Manager of Natural Resources 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 3.3-12.Prior to Manager of Natural Resources 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 10 Bowden Ranch Development Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting October 2003 Avachment 5 Impact Mitigation Measure Monitor 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, Manager of Natural Resources 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 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. Mitigation Measure 33-14.The applicant Manager of Natural Resources 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 3.3-4,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 3.3-15.Prior to Manager of Natural Resources recordation of the Final Map,and as part of Bowden Ranch Development Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 11 October 2003 Ec %b i't q Attachment 5 Impact Mitigation Measure Monitor Mitigation Measures 3.3-3 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 3.3-3,33-4,33-5,33- Director of Community indirectly impact sensitive wildlife 14. Development and Manager of species. Natural Resources Potential Impact 3.3-7.Potential to Mitigation Measure 3.3-16.Prior to Director of Community directly impact on-site trees. recordation of the Final Map the applicant shall Development and Manager of submit to the Director of Community Natural Resources Development 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 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 3.3-17.Prior to any Director of Community ground disturbing activity within the project Development and Manager of site,the applicant shall erect exclosure fencing Natural Resources 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 Measure3.3-18.The applicant Director of Community shall retain a qualified biologist,botanist,or Development and Manager of arborist to periodically inspect the form and Natural Resources 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, Director of Community inrhiriinn trpnrhinn anri hnrinn.shall not hp r)avolnnmant anti Mananpr of 12 Bowden Ranch Development Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting October 2003 /4 Attachment 5 Impact Mitigation Measure Monitor including trenching and boring,shall not be Development and Manager of allowed within the enclosed areas of significant Natural Resources trees. Mitigation Measure 3.3-20.If Mitigation Director of Community Measure 3.3-18 and 3.3-19 are not feasible,the Development and Manager of applicant(or contractor)shall minimize root Natural Resources 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 orkTemporarily covering exposed roots with wet burlap; • Cutting rather than ripping tree roots; • Preserving drainage patterns around trees. The feasibility of Mitigation Measure 3.3-20 shall be determined solely by the City. Mitigation Measure 3.3-21.Prior to Director of Community recordation of the Final Map the applicant shall Development and Manager of submit to the Director of community Natural Resources 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 significant tree resources within individual lots during and after all construction activities. Mitigation Measure 3.3-22.Prior to Director of Community recordation of the Final Map the applicant Development and Manager of shall submit a revised tentative subdivision Natural Resources map to the Director of Community Development.The revised map shall reflect a refinement of the alignment of all on-site roadways to minimize to the extent possible the roadways'encroachment into existing tree stands and areas of biological resources. Cultural Resources Potential Impact 3.41.Potential to Mitigation Measure 3.41.All design-level Director of Community disturb,destroy,or adversely affect the engineering and construction drawings shall Development integrity of cultural(prehistoric be prepared in consultation with an historic)resources on or adjacent to the archaeologist,acceptable to the City.Facilities, project site. staging areas,and any activity involving Bowden Ranch Development Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 13 October 2003 �(� Attachment 5 Impact Mitigation Measure Monitor project site. 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. Mitigation Measure 3.4-2.The Gibson Report, Director of Community an archaeological survey,was prepared for the Development 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 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: 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. Mitigation Measure 3.4-3.If feasible,road Director of Community sections,including street width,curb,gutter Development 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 14 Bowden Ranch Development Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting October 2003 ExA e't A Attachment 5 Impact Mitigation Measure Monitor existing project site. Energy and Minerals Potential Impact 3S-1.The potential Mitigation Measure 3.5-1:Landscaping plans Director of Community to conflict with adopted energy for individual lots shall include shade trees Development conservation plans. along the southwestern side of the houses to reduce summer cooling needs.In addition,the 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 3.5-2.The potential Mitigation Measure 3.5-1. Director of Community to use non-renewable resources in a Development wasteful and inefficient manner. Geology,Soils,and Seismicity Potential Impact 3.6-1.The exposure Mitigation Measure 3.6-1.Groundshaking City Engineer 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 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 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 Bowden Ranch Development Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 15 October 2003 /� Attachment 5 Impact Mitigation Measure Monitor 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 City Engineer for substantial soil erosion. 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 photodegraciable erosion control blankets and hydro seeding.The Measure shall be implemented in conjunction with Mitigation Measure 3.8-1. Mitigation.Measure 3.63.Immediately Director of Community following construction of all subdivision Development and City Engineer 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 3.63.The potential Mitigation Measure 3.64.Foundations, City Engineer 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 3.64.The potential Mitigation Measure 3.65.Foundations, City Engineer 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. 16 Bowden Ranch Development Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting October 2003 4 '�QO - C*hihi-+ A Attachment 5 Impact Mitigation Measure Monitor Hazards and Hazardous Materials Potential Impact 3.7-1.The potential Mitigation Measure 3.7-1.Prior to issuance of City Engineer 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 soil,and public access public safety during all phases of project 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 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 Potential Impact 3.7-2.The potential Mitigation Measure 3.7-2.Prior to issuance of City Engineer 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 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 Bowden Ranch Development Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 17 October 2003 �xhrA. Attachment 5 Impact Mitigation Measure Monitor • 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 Director of Community increase the risk to project site homes recordation of the Final Map the applicant shall Development and homeowners from falling trees and submit to the Director of Community tree limbs. 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. Hydrology and Water Quality Potential Impact 3.8-1.Alterations in Mitigation Measure 3.8-1.Prior to issuance of City Engineer 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 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; • 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 18 Bowden Ranch Development Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting October 2003 — _ E,ch16itA Impact Mitigation Measure Monitor sediment,and the clearing of these drainage structures of debris and sediment. Mitigation Measure 3.8-2.The applicant shall City Engineer comply with NPDES General Construction Activities Storm Water Permit Requirements established by the CWA..Pursuant to the NPDES 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 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 City Engineer 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: 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 reduce flows to the culvert entrance.These ponds differ from the individual detention tanks in Bowden Ranch Development Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 19 October 2003 4,Lo 3 _� E�chlb �t A -' Attachment 5 Impact Mitigation Measure Monitor 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 Liuie 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 cfs(3.37 m3/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 Viability 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 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 20 Bowden Ranch Development Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting October 2003 r Aso. C, hjN A ral a,C4.Ii?12(lt 5 Impact Mitigation Measure Monitor 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 particulates to 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. • 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 City Engineer 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 Bowden Ranch Development Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 21 October 2003 4-tAr Impact Mitigation Measure Monitor practice to remove many nutrients,trace metals,and hydrocarbons is largely related to its ability to remove suspended sediment and particulates.Refer to Mitigation Measure3.8-3 for general detention pond design guidelines. Mitigation Measure 3.8-5.Prior to issuance of City Engineer the Grading Permit the applicant shall submit to the Director of Public Works for review and approval 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, 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 34-6.Prior to issuance of City Engineer 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 22 Bowden Ranch Development Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting October 2003 cp.( . Exl,'ih('t A ttak-!`lme nt 55 Impact Mitigation Measure Monitor 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: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 when they build up to 6 inches at any spot,cover biofilter vegetation,or otherwise interfere with biofilter operation;and 3)Reseeding of blofilters 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 homeowners 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 Bowden Ranch Development Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 23 October 2003 �r61 t A it- iM& gent 5 Impact Mitigation Measure Monitor 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. Land Use and Planning Potential Impact 3.9-1:Potential to Mitigation Measure 3.9-1.Prior to Director of Community conflict with adopted policies of the recordation of the final map the applicant shall Development General Plan. submit to the Director of Community Development for review and approval a landscape plan for those portions of Lots 11 through 16.The plan shall provide for a 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 Director of Community recordation of the Final.Map the applicant shall Development 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 Director of Community recordation of the final map the applicant shall Development and Fire Marshall 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. Mitigation Measure 3.9-4.Prior to Director of Community recordation of the final map the applicant shall Development submit to the Director of Community Development for review and approval a graphic depiction of building envelopes for 24 Bowden Ranch Development Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting October 2003 44"4" r Exh�b�tA Attach-nent S Impact Mitigation Measure Monitor 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. Noise Potential Impact 3.10-1.Construction Mitigation Measure 3.10-1.Construction- Director of Community noise at the project site. related noise impacts to sensitive receptors at Development or nearthe 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 3.10-3.Prior to the first Director of Community ground disturbing activity on the project site Development the applicant shall fund a structural engineering analysis of the La Loma Adobe. The purpose of the analysis would be to determine if there would be any possibility of ground borne vibration generated during grading and construction activities negatively affecting the Adobe's pre-construction structural integrity.If the analysis were to conclude that grading and construction activities could damage the Adobe,then a plan to protect the Adobe shall be funded by the applicant,and 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 Director of Community to increase the use of existing of the Grading Permit the applicant shall Development recreational facilities resulting in submit Site Improvement Plans to the Director accelerated deterioration or the of Community Development for review and 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 Bowden Ranch Development.Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 25 October 2003 4109 i Attachment 5 Impact Mitigation Measure Monitor 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 • 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 Director of Community of the Grading Permit,the applicant shall Development 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 Director of Community of the Grading Permit the applicant shall Development 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 City Engineer 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 homes to be constructed on the project site.All 26 Bowden Ranch Development Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting October 2003 r r90 C �bt-+ A };a^ti-,, Impact Mitigation Measure Monitor 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 Citys 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 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. Bowden Ranch Development Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 27 October 2003 n l } Attachment 6 ORDINANCE NO. (2003 SERIES) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS MAP TO DESIGNATE 1) AN APPROXIMATELY 13-ACRE PORTION OF 1636 WOODLAND DRIVE WHERE DEVELOPMENT LOTS ARE PROPOSED AS R-1-S,SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, WITH THE SPECIAL CONSIDERATION OVERLAY,AND 2) APPROXIMATELY 27 ACRES OF THE SITE (Lot 24) AS C/OS40, CONSERVATION OPEN SPACE WITH A 40-ACRE MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE. (R 11-01) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 27, 2003, and recommended approval of amendments to the Zoning Regulations map; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on October 7, 2003, and has considered testimony of other interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that map amendments are consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) map and text, and the City Council finds that the map amendments are consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Regulations and other applicable City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Council has certified the Final Environmental Impact Report, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15090. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The City council finds and determines that the project's Final Environmental Impact Report adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed Zoning map amendments, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council through the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report incorporates the mitigation measures into the project. SECTION 2. The Zoning map amendment R 11-01, designating the developable portion of the site as R-1-S, Single-Family Residential with the Special Consideration overlay zone, and the remainder as C/OS-40, Conservation Open Space with 40-acre minimum parcel size as shown on the attached Exhibit A, is hereby approved, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. Amending the Official Zoning Map to change the zoning for lots 1 through 23 of Tract Map 11-01 at 1636 Woodland Drive from Low Density Residential (R-1) to Low Density Residential-Special Consideration (R-1-S) is the appropriate means of Ordinance No. k-u03 Series) Page 2 Attachment 6 further implementing the General Plan with respect to hillside policies and urban edges character. 2. The purpose for the Special Consideration overlay is for: protection of the riparian corridors, protection of wildlife habitat and corridors, preservation of hillside open space, aesthetic concerns with development of visually prominent sites, creek setback and access, fire protection issues, access to the public trail, provision of City utilities and services, and implementation of EIR mitigation measures that apply to development of the individual lots. SECTION 3. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of the Council Members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) prior to its final passage, in the Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of the thirty (30) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED on the day of , 2003, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the _day of , 2003, on the following roll call vote: AYES:. NOES: ABSENT: Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: Cit ey Jonathan Lowell GA1auvedo\CC\Bowden(R 11-01)Ord.doc 4-93 Bowden Ranch Rezone 111-01) Atoment 6 Proposed Zoning EXHIM I Urban Reserve Line City Limit Line Zone Boundary 200 0 200 Feet R-1-S U_71IE 02� ooO�Np • •. N •' C/OS-40 � •. �,�J- ���, \`/\` .ice\,\'_/ ,\ >, \ '/ - •:`'as•••''•••�'n� Attachment 7 RESOLUTION NO. (2003 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING THE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AT 1636 WOODLAND DRIVE, CREATING 23 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, AND ONE OPEN SPACE LOT TOTALING 27ACRES (TR 11-01; COUNTY TRACT MAP NO. 2420) WHEREAS, the Planning commission conducted a public hearing on August 27, 2003 and recommended approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 11-01; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on October 7, 2003 and has considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan, the Zoning Regulations, and other applicable City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the subdivision will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, subject to the mitigation measures of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and listed in Exhibit "A", being incorporated into the project, and the adopted mitigation monitoring program being followed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the certified Final EIR adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map 11-01, and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the general plan. 2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in an R-1-S zone. 3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat due to mitigation measures designed into the project or added as conditions to the subdivision approval. Attachment 7 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 2 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will not conflict with easement for access through (or use of property within) the proposed subdivision. 5. The subdivision is in compliance with the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified by the City Council on October 7, 2003, and incorporating by reference the findings as contained in City Council Resolution No.(2003 Series). SECTION 3. Conditions. The tentative map for Tract 11-01 (County Tract Map No. 2420) is approved subject to the following conditions and code requirements: Conditions Streets 1. Street improvements as shown on the vesting tentative map shall be constructed in accordance with the City regulations, Engineering Standards and Specifications in effect on the date the vesting map was deemed complete (March 1, 2001) which include integral curbs, gutters and sidewalks, full width street pavement, signing, striping, barricades, street lights, etc. 2. The final map shall accommodate the City-adopted street cross-sections for Woodland Drive (between Wilding Lane and Woodland Court) and for Wilding Lane. [16.45 m (54 ft.) R/W and 10.4m (34 ft.) curb to curb and 1.5 in (5 ft.) wide detached sidewalks. 3. Any additional rights of way or easements needed on project streets to accommodate the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) sidewalk requirements behind driveway ramps shall be dedicated on the final map. 4. The proposed Wilding Lane right of way abandonment, as shown on the tentative map, is not approved. However, any "excess" right of way along Woodland Drive, between Wilding lane and Woodland Court will be abandoned as part of the final map process, rather than under the California Streets&Highways Code procedures. 5. The subdivider shall provide necessary signage along the southern curb lines of Lizzie Court (except parking turnout) and Woodland Court as "No Parking — Fire Lane," to the approval of the Public Works Director and Fire Marshall per City standards. 6. Common driveway and utility agreements are required for the three private driveways, to the satisfaction of the Community Development and Public Works Directors, per City standards and regulations. The driveways and utility extensions shall be done as subdivision improvement requirements. Concrete pavement is required for "common driveways" with greater than 15% slope (unless approved otherwise by the Public Works Director and Chief Building Official) and individual driveways greater than 20% slope. Suitable turn around areas shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and Fire tet" �� Attachment 7 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 3 Marshall. 7. The subdivider shall dedicate a 2m wide public utility easement across the frontage of each lot. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 8. The subdivider shall dedicate a 3m wide street tree easement across the frontage of each lot. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 9. The subdivider shall install street lighting and all associated facilities (conduits, sidewalk vaults, fusing, wiring, luminaires, etc.) per City standards, including off-site street lighting along roadways adjacent to the proposed development, as determined by the City Engineer. 10. Street trees are required along all public street frontages per City standards, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist, with building permits on the respective lots. Species are to be approved by the City Arborist and Natural Resources Manager (in creek areas) and consistent with the Master.Subdivision Planting Plan to be approved by the Architectural Review Commission. 11. All tree removals necessary to construct the public streets, private driveways and grading certain rear yards adjacent to creeks, are subject to a master tree removal permit, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. Tree removals have been identified on the Tree Removal Plan as identified in the EIR. All other trees within the development areas, not specifically approved for removal, shall remain and be protected during the construction process, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist and Natural Resources Manager. 12. If the City Arborist determines any trees require safety pruning, all pruning shall be performed by a certified Arborist, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. 13. The City and subdivider shall explore other alternatives to the parking arrangement for public access. Use of perpendicular parking either on the northerly or southerly side of Lizzie Court may provide a superior parking arrangement that would help resolve possible neighborhood impacts. Final design shall be to the approval of the Natural Resources Manager and Public Works Director. Water, Sewer & Utilities 14. The subdivider shall be responsible for necessary adjustments to existing fire hydrants, public and private utility and drainage services and any other affected facilities within or adjacent to the proposed tract boundary, to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Utilities Directors. 15. Final grades and alignments of all public water, sewer and storm drains (including service laterals and meters) shall be subject to change to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Engineer. 4 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Attachment 7 Page 4 16. The subdivider shall place underground, all existing overhead utilities adjacent to the tract boundary along the public street frontage(s), to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and utility companies. Grading & Drainage - 17. Any necessary clearing of existing creek and drainage channels within the tract boundary, including tree pruning or removals, and any necessary erosion repairs shall be to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, the City's Natural Resources Manager and the Dept. of Fish & Game. 18. All lots shall be graded to preclude cross-lot drainage, or, appropriate easements.and drainage facilities shall be provided,to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 19. Any required individual or common stormwater retention facilities shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. All drainage facilities shall be maintained. If the use of underground retention or the creation of "common" or centralized drainage facilities is proposed, a Homeowners Association or other maintenance entity shall be formed. Mapping& Miscellaneous Requirements 1. All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with Autocad (Digital Interchange Format, DW for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the Public Works Director. 2. Prior to acceptance by the City of public improvements, the developer's engineer shall submit a digital version of all public improvement plans & record drawings, compatible with Autocad (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 3. The final map, public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the City Engineer. Fire Department Requirements 4. Fire hydrants shall be installed to City standards; locations to be determined by the ,Fire n `t" 1� Attachment 7 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 5 Marshall during the subdivision improvement plan check process, in accordance with City regulations. Additional hydrants will be required at the end of Lizzie Court and near the intersection of Woodland Drive and Woodland Court. 5. The proposed fire hydrants shown on the tentative map, within Lot 23 and near Lot 12 shall be private and incorporated into the required, common driveway and utility easements;" which shall include an agreement for common maintenance and operation of the private fire line and hydrants, as well as,the driveway, to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshall. Open Space 6. The open space lot shall be dedicated to the City as part of the final map. 7. The swale in the northeast corner of Lot 14 shall be added to the open space lot. 8. The subdivider shall dedicate a biological open space easement over: o The area within Lots 8-10 along the creek between the building envelopes and the southern boundary of the subdivision; and ■ The creek corridor between lots 4-5. The purpose of this easement is to regulate vegetation activities and access for wildlife habitat and for fuel management purposes. 1. The final map shall show a pedestrian trail in the open space lot, extending east from Lizzie Court in the alignment shown on the vesting tentative map to provide access to other lands of the developer in the unincorporated area, where access has been permitted, and ultimately to City-owned.lands further east. 2. Fencing along the trail within the project site around the sanctuary, and delineating the biological easement areas will generally be wood rail. Those fences that form side or back yard boundaries adjacent to the open space, or that form the boundaries of the biological easement areas, shall be designed so that they will prevent dogs from getting out of the fenced areas and into open or protected areas. The specific design will be finalized as part of the subdivision improvement plans and subject to the approval of the Natural Resources Manager and Architectural Review Commission. The fence design and construction will be the responsibility of the subdivision developer. 3. Informational signs about the sanctuary and other aspects of site shall be finalized as part of the trail and fence design plan identified in the above condition. Signage shall be subject to the approval of the Natural Resources Manager and the responsibility of the subdivision developer to install. 4. The applicant shall submit plans prepared by a licensed landscape architect and a qualified 4 . 99 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Attachment 7 Page 6 plant restoration ecologist for tree planting in accordance with the specifications detailed in Mitigation Measure 3.3-16 of the Final EIR. The Natural Resources Manager will require the use of bay trees along creek, and oaks and toyons elsewhere. The Master Tree Planting Plan will be subject to the approval of the Natural Resources Manager, City Arborist, and Architectural Review Commission. Said plan shall be approved prior to acceptance of subdivision improvements. 5. Water from the existing cistern served by the existing spring requires adjudication; adjudication will (1) keep the diversions from the well no more than they are at this time and (2) a reasonable portion of said diversion will accrue to the benefit of the open space parcel to be dedicated to the public trust. Planning Requirements 6. Individual lot development shall be subject to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). Planning staff may make the determination upon submittal of complete plans if the minor or incidental architectural review process is appropriate. 7. A 15-foot street yard shall be allowed for homes and a 20-foot street yard for garages with doors facing the street 8. A 20-foot rear yard setback shall be maintained along the southwesterly property line of lots 19-21. 9. Subdivider shall prepare conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) to be approved by the City Attorney and Community Development Director prior to final map approval. CC&R's shall contain the following provisions that pertain to all lots: a. Creation of a homeowners' association. b. No parking except in approved, designated spaces. c. No change in city-required provisions of the CC&R's without prior City Council approval. d. Homeowners' association shall file with the City Clerk the names and addresses of all officers of the homeowners' association within 15 days of any change in officers of the association. e. Provision for those certain maintenance responsibilities for specific lots outlined in the various mitigation measures of the Final EIR. f. Provision for maintenance of any underground or common stormwater retention facilities. OA Attachment 7 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 7 g. Advising property owners that the project is located adjacent to a school facility including lighted sports fields and that occasional noise and glare may occur as a result of the School District's use of these facilities. A declaration to this effect shall also be included in the California Department of Real Estate documents alerting potential buyers to this situation. 37. The subdivider shall submit a common driveway agreement for Lots 9-12 and 13-23, including maintenance provisions, to the approval of the Community Development Director at the time of final map approval.. 38. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b), the subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim,action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this subdivision, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review. CODE REQUIREMENTS A. Traffic impact fees are required to be paid as a condition of issuance of building permits. B. A water allocation is required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. The City currently has water to allocate, and does so on a "first-come, first-served" basis. Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued and the Water Impact Fee is paid. Both the Water and Wastewater Impact Fees are charged on a"per residential unit" basis. C. Each parcel is to have its own separate water and wastewater service laterals. D. Plans shall show an appropriately sized USC approved backflow prevention device at the end of each of the cul-de-sacs serving the private fire hydrants on the private driveways. E. An earlier version of the development plan indicated a looped connection between the two dead-end water mains. The dead-end water mains now being proposed with this project require the approval of both the Utilities Department and the Fire Department. City standards dictate that, if approved, the 8" diameter dead-end mains shall be no longer than 210 meters. F. By ordinance, the applicant is required to prepare a recycling plan for approval by the City to address the recycling of construction waste for projects valued at over $50,000 or demolition of structures over 1000 square feet. The recycling plan shall be submitted to the Building Department with the.building plans. The City's Solid Waste Coordinator can provide some guidance in the preparation of an appropriate recycling plan. G. Appropriate backflow prevention will be necessary on any connection to the City water system if the property includes an active well. Attachment 7 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 8 H. EPA Requirement: General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and excavation results in land disturbance of five or more acres. Storm water discharges of less than five acres, but which is part of a larger common plan of development or sale, also require a permit. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must submit a completed 'Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State Water Board. I. The applicant shall pay an affordable housing in-lieu fee equal to 5% of the total building valuation of the new dwelling units, consistent with Chapter 17.91 of the Zoning Regulations, prior to final subdivision map approval. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call voter AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 2003. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: S`o s ttorney Jonathan Lowell G:Uazevedo\CC\Bowden Tract Res.(Approvap.doc Attachment 8 Draft Resolution `B" RESOLUTION NO. (2003 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING THE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AT 1636 WOODLAND DRIVE, CREATING 23 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, AND ONE OPEN SPACE LOT TOTALING 27ACRES (TR 11-01; COUNTY TRACT MAP NO.2420) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 27, 2003 and recommended approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 11-01; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on October 7, 2003 and has considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the [General Plan], [the Zoning Regulations], and other applicable City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified by the City Council on October 7, 2003; BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 11-01, and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: [Council specifies findings] SECTION 2. Denial. The tentative map for Tract 11-01 (County Tract Map No.. 2420) is hereby denied. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2003. Resolution No. 3,_43 Series) - Page 2 Attachment 8 Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Jonathan Lowell G:Uanvedc\CC\Bowden Tract Resolution(denial).doc Sept. 16, 2003 2018 Skylark Lane San Luis Obispo, CA. 9340 San Luis Obispo City Council City Hall fAr dppN(NNRiof ,990 Palin Sr:., • ., 1 OOun0i1 falfIN� San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 1122 Honorable Council Members: This letter is in reference to the Bowden Ranch development, which we understand will come before the council for consideration and approval on October 7. We live in the neighborhood bordering the development, and have followed the evolution of the development plan as it has proceeded through the planning process. A number of concerns have been expressed by members of the adjacent neighborhoods, and were addressed with varying degrees of satisfaction. Ultimately the planning commission approved the developer plan largely as submitted. Questions raised during the planning process included density of the project, conservation of the fragile ecological environment, traffic and drainage. We would urge the Council to carefully consider all of these issues when reviewing the project, but we would like to address the last two in particular. Drainage and run-off are a looming concern for any of us adjacent to or down-slope from the project. During the storm(s) of '95, for example, we could not drive up Wilding and Woodland to our home, such was the volume and velocity of the water coming down the street. We literally waded home from the high school parking lot in water knee deep. Since that time the city has improved drainage with a culvert under Lizzie; however, several times during the discussion of the development it was stated that these modifications were insufficient to deal with current heavy run-off, which of course would only be exacerbated by further development. The developer's engineer stated flatly to the planning commission that his run-off mitigation plans would address development run-off by more than 100 %. In other words, he feels there would be less post-development run- off than there is now. His solution entails installing underground holding tanks on each owner's property (maintained by the homeowner) and raising the height of a retaining wall at the head of the culvert under Lizzie. The holding tank idea, while perhaps an elegant engineering solution, is just plain silly in the real world. Unless the city maintains the tanks on a regular schedule, they WILL silt up, the inlets and outlets WILL clog with debris, and they WILL cease to contain run-off. RECEIVED SEP 18 2003 SLO CITY COUNrii 4Y 1 The developer says the homeowners will be responsible for maintenance. He must anticipate a whole new breed of homeowner. For most of us, an underground holding tank on our property would be "out of sight out of nand" Since its function would not affect the owner's property, the average home owner won't even think to maintain the tank until it is obviously not working and water is flooding down on neighbors. in short, we urge the council to reject this goofy idea. -- The developer further proposes to deal with.run-off py raising the height of the -dam" above the inlet to the Lizzie Streerculvert:--The theory is that this will increase the head pressure of the water flow and thus increase the capacity of the culvert. While we understand the physics of the relationship of volume and pressure, we are skeptical that the result will sufficiently increase capacity to the point of addressing the additional development run-off. Further, we can't believe that this proposal will not result in turning lot number one into a lake when we have the periodic great rains. The developer's engineer dismissed this concern (giving us the idiot treatment), but we would suggest that sitting in the comfort of an office calculating water flow capacity with engineering tables is quite different than wading up the street knee deep in rushing water to your house. if the council agrees to this arrangement, I would urge you to consider requiring the developer to combine lots one and two into one lot, and requiring that a portion of that lot (nearest the creek) be left open to accommodate run-off accumulation. Although the issue was not raised with the planning commission, there has been some discussion about requiring the developer to widen woodland (which is now one lane) up to Skylark to better accommodate existing neighborhood traffic. This would require the removal of several trees next to the seasonal creek, and would place the edge of the street virtually on the edge of the creek bed. while we think this idea has merit from a traffic flow prospective, on balance we urge the council not to pursue it. We live on the corner of Skylark and woodland (with our garage entrance on Woodland) and have not found traffic to be dangerous. For the most part, drivers recognize that they are driving on a one-lane street and proceed with reasonable caution. In short, if it comes to a trade-off between streets and trees, we prefer to preserve the maximum number of trees and maximum amount of green belt in the neighborhood. We appreciate your consideration of our thoughts and concerns related to this issue. Sincerely, Kenneth Palmer Carolynne Palmer RED FILE y_i 1 - ZUL mmblu reptw " - METING AGE A nap tt luded—+o Wuru LM l ITEM awc6uncft memoRAnbum DATE: October 1, 2003 RECEIVED UL 1 0 2 2003 TO: City Council SLO CITY CLERK VIA: Ken Hampian, CAO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Directors Fa,-'yak BY: Ronald Whisenand,Deputy Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Red File Memo on Bowden Ranch Development Councilperson Muholland has raised a question regarding tree removals associated with the Bowden Ranch development and the process by which those removals were evaluated. As is often the case, when one Council member has a question, others may have similar ones so staff wanted to take this opportunity to provide you with additional background information on the subject prior to your deliberation of the project at next Tuesday's meeting. As identified in the project EIR, several mature trees will be removed to make way for the proposed access roads that lead to the residential building sites. As shown on the attached Tree Removal Plan, a total of 35 trees will be removed consisting primarily of eucalyptus and a limited number of smaller oaks, a walnut, and a Monterey Cypress. The plan also notes that the development will replant Western Sycamore, Coast Live Oak, and California Bay at a ratio of approximately 4:1 (140 replacement trees). As pointed out in the project EIR, a large number of significant trees will remain and are visible from off site thereby lessening visual impacts to the neighborhood. As will be pointed out in the staff report, the project has a long history with extensive staff and agency review dating back to January of 2001. The proposed tree removals and replacement planting have always been a component of the project. City Arborist Todd Martin reviewed the project in 2001 and again in 2002 and consistent with City's tree policies, made the following recommendations: 1. Street trees are required along all public street frontages per City standards, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist, with building permits on the respective lots. Species are to be approved by the City Arborist and Natural Resources Manager (in creek areas) and consistent with the Master Subdivision Planting Plan to be approved by the Architectural Review Commission. 2. All tree removals necessary to construct the public streets, private driveways and grading certain rear yards adjacent to creeks, are subject to a master tree removal permit, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. Tree removals have been identified on the Tree Removal Plan as identified in the EIR. All other trees within the development areas, not specifically approved Red File Memo-Bowden Ranch Tree Removal October 1,2003 Page 2 of 2 for removal, shall remain and be protected during the construction process, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist and Natural Resources Manager. 3. If the City Arborist determines any trees require safety pruning, all pruning shall be performed by a certified Arborist, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. These recommendations are incorporated into the recommended project conditions that will be part of your Council packet as conditions 10, 11, and 12. The Master Tree Removal Permit referenced above will be submitted to the Arborist for review and approval prior to project grading. That permit would be referred to the Tree Committee as deemed appropriate by the Arborist consistent with the City's tree removal guidelines. The City's current Arborist, Ron Combs has reviewed these recommendations and based on the species and size of trees to be removed, concurs with Todd Martin's recommendation. The bylaws of the Tree Committee state that the purpose of the Tree Committee is "to advise City Staff and the City Council on all matters related to trees in San Luis Obispo." The role of the Tree Committee as outlined in the City's Advisory Body Handbook is to "make recommendations to the Council and staff on tree policies and regulations." The scope and authority of the Committee has evolved over the last 20 years or so, to review tree matters that the City Arborist felt needed additional review or input from the Tree Committee. The Committee is not normally involved in the review of planning applications going through the discretionary review process unless plans are referred to them by the Arborist, an advisory body, or the City Council. In summary, the project's tree removals were fully evaluated by Community Development, Pubic Works, and Natural Resources staff. The City Arborist is charged with making recommendations on tree removals associated with development projects and determined that the types and size of trees involved, the number of trees to remain, and the native tree replacement plan at a 4:1 ratio did not warrant Tree Committee review. Certainly the Council has the authority to make the referral next Tuesday night if input from that Committee would be helpful before rendering a decision. Just as long as the Council understands that their review is not mandated by current City policy. I hope this helps clear the issue up. As always, feel free to call me with any further questions. cc: Wendy George, ACAO Mike McCluskey, Public Works Director Jay Walter, City Engineer Todd Beights, Parks and Urban Forest Maintenance Supervisor Ron Combs, Urban Forest Technician/Arborist Neil Havlik, Natural Resources Manager 'COUNCIL yCDD DIR ;"CAO ?'=1N DIR p'ACAO -Ef"FIRECHIEF EXATTORNEY ,LPW DIR_ ZrCLERK/ORI© .L PONCE CHF ❑ DEPT HEADS Z REC DIR a UTIL DIR SHR DIR �. RECEIVED WENDY BROWN ' UC( 0 3 2003 CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT 1865 WILDING LANE*SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401 .TEL/FAX (805)546-9491 .WeRO QTY CLERK October 3, 2003 Ron Whisenand RED FILE City Council MEETING AGENDA I COUNCIL ,CAD DIR City of San Luis Obispo ITEM #, O'CAO z FIN DIR 990 Palm Street DA IDI 1?J'ACAO P'FIRE CHIEF P(ATTORNEY ZPW DIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 O'CLERK/OHIO ,'POLICE CHF ❑ DEPT HEADS 8'REC DIR Re: Bowden Ranch Development Tentative Tract Map ZYUTIL DIR �'HR DIR Dear Mr. Whisenand and City Council Members: Following are my comments on a few issues before you concerning the Bowden Ranch Development. I will not be able to attend the hearing on October 7, 2003, and hope you take this letter into account in lieu of my testimony at that time. 1. The proposed R-1-S zoning seems essential for this development. Please make it part of the final project. 2. Condition 19: I am deeply suspicious of underground retention facilities, and hope that the Public Works Department and the Applicant can work out a method that will insure that the occasional but.certain heavy storm events are adequately provided for. Properly graded waterways or drainage easements are probably the simplest and surest measures, and what will happen anyway, whether they are planned for or not. 3. Condition 4: Just don't make the existing streets any narrower than they are now, particularly Woodland Drive. 4. Condition 5: Please make sure that parking is allowed on at least one side of Lizzie Court and Woodland Court. I am already impacted by parking by users of the trail. 5. A reduction in density, particularly eliminating lots 1-4, would provide welcome park space to the neighborhood and would help to reduce potential flooding problems on the already impacted lower level of the project. A reduction in density in lots 13 —23 would also make drainage more manageable. 6. It seems to be agreed that the existing 32" city culvert going down Lizzie Street is inadequate. All the mitigations on the Bowden Property will not make that culvert any larger. The City should be thinking about drainage improvements to the whole area—Skylark, Woodland, Wilding, and Lizzie. The flooding currently impacts property down to Johnson Avenue. 7. The Bowden Ranch Development, the potential rehabilitation and public use of the La Loma Adobe, the condominiums in back of the Judge's House on Johnson Avenue, the ultimate development of the Andre property, and the development to occur at the end of Fixlini Street will all have an effect on traffic funneling through Lizzie Street. Please think about possible mitigations. Some suggestions are to put in a stop light at Ella and Johnson, and to restrict some parking along Lizzie Street. 8. 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 allow more open space, more area for water flow, would result in less traffic, and would produce fewer headaches for the City and the existing neighbors in the future. Bowden Ranch City k�( uncil Hearing Page 2 Thank you for your consideration of these issues, and the hard work of the Council and Staff on this difficult and complicated proposal. Yours truly, Wendy Brown Allen Settle Bowden Ranch DeveloPme°�- Pa9®1 , _ -_ RECEIVED From: Thomas Miller<tlmiller@sbcglobal.net> UL 1 U 3 2003 To: <asettle@slocity.org> Date: Thu, Oct 2, 2003 9:05 PM SLO CITY CLERK Subject: Bowden Ranch Development Dear Mr. Settle, We have many concerns regarding the Bowden Ranch Development.The Planning Commission's unanimous support of the project and of the Final EIR does not adequately reflect the concerns of those who currently live in the neighborhood. In fact we were surprised and dismayed by the commissions actions in this case. Specific issues remain inadequately addressed in spite of what city staff and the commission have alleged to be sufficient mitigations.They include but are not limited to: •Water run-off and drainage from our neighborhood are already inadequate.The development will only compound this problem. In our opinion,the proposed mitigations are not satisfactory. •The traffic and parking congestion 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.The assertions that the existing streets have sufficient unused capacity and that the project would not result in a significant impact are, in our opinion, categorically incorrect. If you have any doubt about this try driving down Lizzie within 30 minutes before or after High School hours. •Many of the suggested mitigations of identified environmental impacts require the implementation and enforcement of CC&R's. As such, these issues would be mitigated only to the degree that the new homeowners wished to enforce their own CC&R's. In our view, no environmental concern should have to rely on CC&R's for mitigation. •With respect to the remainder of the EIR,we 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 surrounding sensitive fauna and flora (the proposed mitigations seem insufficient);the adequacy of RED FILE fire protection for the development and, by extension,the remainder of the neighborhood; the significant number of trees which will be cut MEETING AGENDA down (e.g.the entirety of lot 1 is currently tree-covered) as well as DA ITEM some of the specific trees which will be destroyed; and the non-existent landscaping plans and non-existent guidelines for the proposed development. •Most of the above concerns would be at least diminished by a substantial reduction in the number of homes constructed on the site. In 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 COUNCIL T-CDD DIR to preserving open space and to protecting the fragile.physical j CAO _i FIN DIR environment of our city. In our view,to simply proceed as though it ACAO Ze;: . E CHIEF were just another project; or to plan it to reflect what is already ATTORNEY �Flw DIR J2 CLERK/ORIG ZPOL10E CHF ❑ D THEADS ZREC DIR -eIHRIRIR D Allen Settle-Bowden Ranch Developm Page 2 s here(most of which was planned and designed in the 60's and 70's) would be shortsighted and, by definition, irredeemable. I would like to thank you and your colleagues for providing_a valuable service to our community. You will no doubt receive a number of letters regarding this development-all of which will express their own individual and unique concerns.We appreciate your time and expertise in these efforts. Respectfully, Thomas L. Miller and Pamela M. Dassenko 1615 Woodland Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 5479103 All Sett�-Bowden Ranch Developmerr= � RECEIVED From: "Marla DeMarco" <mad_slo-cpa@msn.com> OCf 0 7 2003 To: "Allan Settle"<asettle@slocity.org>, "Ken Schwartz" <kschwartz@sl ci e�>� n �+LERK Ewan" <jewan@slocity.org> t Date: Mon, Oct 6, 2003 11:05 AM Subject: Bowden Ranch Development On Tuesday evening the City Council will be reviewing the proposed Bowden Ranch Development. I am an election day volunteer and may not be able to attend the 7:00 meeting. The following issues have been discussed from the beginning of the project and continue to be of concern to myself and my neighbors: TRAFFIC—Currently 35 homes exit the neighborhood through the Wilding Lane/Lizzie intersection. The proposed development adds 23 homes to this traffic corridor. This is a 66% increase through that intersection. Also, with the relocation of the school district offices to the old junior high facility,the traffic on Lizzie is already a problem. The students, parents and school buses make Lizzie traffic very difficult at peak commute times. In addition we will be having more cars from the new development at the south end of Fixlini,the proposed condos on Fixlini behind the Judge's house, and a proposed seven homes at the top of Woodland on the Andre property. This is just too much traffic when Wilding/Lizzie is our only traffic outlet. FIRE THREAT--This neighborhood has been threatened by fire.twice in the period I have lived here. Once neighborhood evacuations were needed. Will the "flag lot" driveways be adequate for residents and fire trucks to deal with evacuations? Particularly alongside explosive eucalyptus trees? PUBLIC ACCESS PARKING--How will the public know parking spaces are available? Will parking be changed from parallel on creekside to perpendicular in front of Adobe property to keep traffic flow from driving into neighborhood to turn around? Will a parking lot detract from cultural aspects of Adobe? Will the hiking trail spaces be adequate if Adobe is ever opened to the public? OPEN SPACE--The Woodland side creek with native oaks has not been accorded the same treatment as the main creek with the eucalyptus trees. The side creek.should be designated as open space and not part of the backyards of the homes. Although there are deed restrictions on those parcels,who will be monitoring encroachment into the creek 20-30 years from now? Also is the open space supposed to be measured from the creek edge or the edge of the riparian area? Several of the lots encroach into the riparian area, particularly Lot 1. Lot 11 seems to be above the urban reserve line (dotted on the map). TREE REMOVAL--Since no tree removal maps were available at the Planning Commission meeting and the Tree Committee has not reviewed the tree removal plan, should the City Council review be postponed until the Tree Committee has made its recommendations? DRAINAGE--Recently I met with Mr. Glick, Carol Florence, and their drainage engineer at the property. They indicated that the added runoff from the development would be addressed with on-site underground tanks. This may take care of the houses' run-off but will not remedy the added run-off from the streets, driveways and patios and will require maintenance over the years to work properly. The amount of water carried by the two creeks on this property has previously created flooding problems on Woodland,Wilding, Lizzie and Johnson Ave. The maintenance of these creeks is necessary for flood control to the lower homes. The drainage canal between Lots 4 and 5 should not be part of the parcels. Over the years owners of these lots will not maintain the canal and may want to build fences for privacy. Several years ago this section of canal had a large dirt berm added to keep the side creek water in the canal. When this side creek overflows, it runs through Lots 1-4 and into Wilding Lane. I have personally waded, ankle deep in water on the sidewalk in the first block of Wilding from heavy storm run-off coming from the Woodland Creek overflow. The drainage engineer for the development indicated that the property's run-off would continue to be surface water because there is no City storm drain inlet until the top of Lizzie. Even then, the storm drain running down Lizzie is inadequate to accommodate additional water. RED FILE - M I AGENDA DATF ITEM # 244 All Setti�s- Bowden Ranch Develo mel=& Page 2 Although the side creek up Woodland is a seasonal creek, it receives all the run-off from upper Woodland and Skylark Lane through a pipe at the curve of Woodland. This run-off will be increased if the Andre property development is added. The neighborhood is concerned about the underground tank storage for run-off water. The developer should provide financial indemnity for the neighbors down Wilding and Lizzie if this experimental collection system fails. HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION--The developers indicated that they did not want a homeowners association because there is no commonly owned property. The City staff felt that one was necessary to maintain pumping underground storage tanks and creek debris. The development relies too much on CC&R restrictions and ineffectual homeowners association for the various mitigating solutions. Who will be monitoring the CC&Rs in 20-30 years? CONCLUSION I ask you to reduce the number of lots in order to reduce the traffic demands and drainage impact to the neighborhood. These existing neighborhood problems will be further impacted for many years to come by the design of the development that you approve. Thank you for consideration of these concerns. COUNCIL12� G CDD DIR CAO 1PIN DIR ACAO O'FIAE CHIEF )ZATTORNEY DPW DIR LERlVORIQ Z POLICE CHF LD !g!W EAD eM'REC'DIR- IL DIR HR DIR l 6 counaL MedwD. (D — ^ — ac Enba izEpoin i.mn �S C I T Y OF SAN LU I S O B 1 S P 0 FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director( ,' PREPARED BY: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner SUBJECT: AMENDMENT OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND ZONING REGULATIONS RELATING TO SALES OF ALCOHOL FROM SERVICE STATIONS (TA 108-03) PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 1. Introduce an ordinance amending a Municipal Code Section 5.36.020 and Zoning Regulations Sections 17.08.040 and 17.100 pertaining to sales of alcohol from service stations as presented by staff to the Planning Commission. 2. Notwithstanding the above, consider revision of proposed Municipal Code Section 5.36.020 to include a distance restriction on ancillary retail facilities to service stations. CAO RECOMMENDATION Introduce an ordinance amending the Municipal Code Section 5.36.020 and Zoning Regulations Sections 17.08.040 and 17.100 pertaining to sales of alcohol from service stations, including a new distance restriction incorporated into Section 17.08.040 regarding concurrent sales of fuel and beer or wine. REPORT-IN-BRIEF The pending Costco application with a gasoline sales component has raised the issue of sales of alcoholic beverages from service stations. The City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance modifying the Municipal Code and Zoning Regulations to clarify requirements pertaining to sales of alcohol from a service station. The attached ordinance maintains the current prohibition of alcohol sales from a service station, but modifies the definition of a service station to apply to a business where motor fuel is sold as the principal use of the property. The proposed changes define ancillary retail facilities of 5,000 square feet or less as a component of the service station, therefore not allowing the sale of alcoholic beverages in such facilities. The existing regulations regarding concurrent sales of gasoline with beer and wine are also amended to clarify they apply to a retail outlet that permits payment for both motor fuel and beer and or wine: 1) at the same location, or 2) using a single financial transaction. Also, no concurrent sales are permitted within 500 feet of any other establishment selling or serving alcoholic beverages. (Note: the existing and proposed concurrent sales regulations, Section 17.08.040, do not take effect unless the overall prohibition, Section 5.36.020, is repealed or declared invalid.) Sr 1 l Council Agenda Report—Concurrent.Sale of Fuel and Alcohol Page 2 The overall effect of the proposed changes will be to continue to prohibit sales of alcoholic beverages from service stations, but will allow a warehouse store or other large retail establishment that sells alcoholic beverages to also sell motor fuel, provided such an operation is otherwise permitted by the City and the State. DISCUSSION Situation The Planning Commission (PC) reviewed the proposed amendments on September 24, 2003 (see Attachment 1, PC staff report). The PC voted 4-3 to recommend approval of the amendments to City Council as proposed by staff(see attachment 3, draft PC minutes). On a second motion that passed 4-3, the commission voted to recommend amendments to Section 5.36,modifying the text recommended by staff. The amendments proposed by the PC eliminated the 5,000 square foot maximum size definition of an ancillary retail use of a service station and instead recommended a distance criterion between a service station and other point of sale selling or serving alcoholic beverages. The text proposed by staff reads: Section 5.36.020 Alcoholic beverages- Sale prohibited-Exceptions A. It is unlawful for any person to sell, offer for sale, display for sale or otherwise furnish any alcoholic beverages from a service station. B. " For the purposes of this section "service station" means a business where motor fuel is sold as the principal use of the property. Service station includes any ancillary retail facility of 5,000 square feet or less that offers for sale prepackaged food items and tangible consumer goods, primarily for self service by the consumer. " The text recommended by the Plannine Commission reads: A. It is unlawful for any person to sell, offer for sale, display for sale or otherwise furnish any alcoholic beverages from a service station. B. " For the purposes of this section "service station" means a business where motor fuel is sold as the principal use of the property. Service station includes any ancillary retail facility only if the point of sale of that retail facility is greater than 200 feet from another point of sale on the same parcel serving alcoholic beverages. " Staff stands by its recommendation, and below discusses how it has incorporated distance restriction language similar to that recommended by the PIanning Commission into the revised section 17.08.040 language regarding concurrent sales of motor fuel and beer or wine. History In 1982 the City Council adopted an ordinance prohibiting sales of alcoholic beverages from service stations. While the staff reports to the Council and minutes from the 1982 Council meetings are not available,the 1988 staff reports indicated that when the 1982 prohibition was adopted various cities in California were instituting similar laws in order to combat drunk �.J Council Agenda Report—Concurrent Sale of Fuel and Alcohol Page 3 driving; furthermore, crime at such establishments was a concern of San Luis Obispo's Police Chief. In 1987, in response to pressure from alcoholic beverage lobbyists, the State legislature passed AB 140 that amended the Business and Professions Code to preempt local ordinances regulating the sales of alcoholic beverages from establishments that sell motor vehicle fuel. Revised Business and Professions Code section 23790.5 contained an exception for ordinance enacted prior to 1985, but indicated this grandfather clause only applied to prohibitions that included alcoholic beverages as a broader class of uses or products. In 1988 it was felt the City's prohibition would not fall within that narrow exception, so an ordinance regulating the concurrent sales of fuel with beer and wine was drafted. The 1988 staff reports reiterated an important purpose for the ordinance was to address issues of drinking and driving. A 1986 County of San Diego Department of Health Service study and a 1986 report to the California State Assembly Select Committee on Alcohol and Related Problems were provided to the City Council. The City Attorney opined that an argument could be made that the State's new legislation was invalid and therefore the City's prohibition was not preempted. In light of this, the Council reaffirmed its earlier prohibition and indicated that in the event it were declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, then the new regulations (which the Council also adopted) would then take effect. This is the reason both provisions are currently contained in the Municipal Code and the stricter of the two, section 5.36.020, is applied. Section 5.36.020 contains an exception for service stations selling alcoholic beverages before the 1982 prohibition went into effect. One station currently sells alcoholic beverages pursuant to that clause (157 Higuera). A research of other California cities has revealed that many similar communities maintain ordinances that regulate the concurrent sale of motor fuel and alcohol. Some communities such as the City of Danville, Contra Costa County maintain a complete prohibition against the concurrent sale of motor fuel and alcoholic beverages like San Luis Obispo. Most local area communities, however,regulate concurrent sales through a conditional use permit process similar to our"backup"provisions found in our Zoning Ordinance Chapter 17.08.040. Analysis Local gasoline dealers argue that the current prohibition of sales of alcoholic beverages from service stations should apply to Costco. They contend that either Costco should not be permitted to sell gasoline, or the local gasoline dealers should be permitted to sell alcohol from their businesses. Neither Costco nor local gasoline dealers are responsible for land use planning and protection of the public health, safety and welfare of this community. It is up to the City Council, with input from the Planning Commission, staff and the public, to determine what uses are appropriate and where. Making decisions of this kind may result in a party feeling he is being treated unfairly because he is not allowed to engage in a use on his property that others are permitted to have on theirs. However, such decisions are lawful, and are inherent in providing for land use planning and protection of the public health, safety and welfare. G7- S 1 ` i Council Agenda Report—Concurrent Sale of Fuel and Alcohol Page 4 In this instance, the City Council has indicated that it believes the prohibition on sales of alcoholic beverages from service stations was never intended to apply to a warehouse store or large retailer. The Council directed staff to return with minor revisions to the Code to clarify this intent. The Council is empowered to interpret its ordinances and to revise them. The proposed amendment to section 5.36.020 (set forth in the attached September 24, 2003 staff report to the Planning Commission) replaces a broad definition of service station ("any business where motor fuel is offered for retail sale, whether or not in conjunction with another use or activity") with a narrower one ("a business where motor fuel is sold as the principal use of the property," including any ancillary retail facility of 5,000 square feet or less that offers for sale certain items). While the Planning Commission has suggested alternative language for section 5.36.020, staff believes such a revision is better suited for the proposed section 17.08.040 (see discussion below). The staff recommendation for section 5.36.020 makes clear the prohibition of alcoholic beverage sales applies to mini-mart type operations at gas stations. The suggested Planning Commission language is broader and may extend the prohibition to uses beyond what the Council intends to regulate. The proposed amendment to section 17.08.040 (set forth in the attached September 24, 2003 staff report to the Planning Commission) provides for no concurrent sales within 500 feet of any other establishment selling or serving alcoholic beverages. The current prohibition is 1,000 feet. Proposed subsection L provides that: "Concurrent sales of motor fuel and beer or wine" shall mean the ability to purchase motor fuel and beer or wine at the same time or at the same place. More specifically, a retail outlet that permits a customer to pay for motor fuel and beer or wine: 1) at the same location, or 2) utilizing a single financial transaction, is engaging in concurrent sales of motor fuel and beer or wine. Staff believes that another revision, along the lines of the Planning Commission's recommended change, is appropriate for insertion in this section as shown below: "Concurrent sales of motor fuel and beer or wine" shall mean the ability to purchase motor fuel and beer or wine at the same time or at the same place. More specifically, a retail outlet that permits a customer to pay for motor fuel and beer or wine: 1) at the same location, i.e., on a single parcel and within 50 (fifty) feet of each other, or 2) utilizing a single financial transaction, is engaging in concurrent sales of motor fuel and beer or wine. Staff has included this latter change in the draft Ordinance presented to the Council. In 1982 and 1988 the City Council explained restrictions on alcohol sales from service stations were necessary in order to reduce the potential for drunk driving and to discourage crime. In 1988 studies were provided that found a correlation between alcohol sales from convenience stores and drunk driving by people with alcohol addictions. The lawyer for the local gasoline Y_ Council Agenda Report—Concurrent Sale of Fuel and Alcohol Page 5 dealers has provided to the City a 1991 Purdue University report prepared for Atlantic Richfield that found an insignificant link between prohibition of alcohol sales from service stations and reduced incidences of alcohol related traffic accidents (this report is available for review in the Council Reading File). At the time of this writing, staff has not located any additional research to support or refute the effectiveness of prohibitions of the type in place in San Luis Obispo today. An important point raised in a 1988 staff report is that: greater availability of alcoholic beverages leads to more drinking; more drinking causes more public health and safety problems; concurrent sales outlets make beer/wine more readily available for drinking. In a community comprised of many young people, living independently as adults for the first time, the City Council may not wish for alcoholic beverages to be available for sale at service stations because it does not want to greatly expand the number of locations alcohol can be purchased at. Yet, to meet the needs of others in the community who benefit from the convenience of shopping at a large warehouse or other retail facility that sells both alcoholic beverages and gasoline, the City Council may allow such sales from that type of facility. CONCURRENCES City Police Department staff concurs with staff recommendations and believes the amendments proposed by staff will not impact the City's ability to implement the intent of its ordinance limiting the concurrent sale of fuel and alcohol. FISCAL IMPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact. Furthermore, since no changes are proposed to modify the intent of this ordinance, no fiscal impacts are anticipated to result.. ALTERNATIVES 1. Leave the existing Ordinance as it is. 2. Revise the Draft Ordinance. 3. Refer the item back to staff for additional amendment. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Planning Commission Staff Report 9-24-03 Attachment 2: Planning Commission Resolution 9-24-03 s` J Council Agenda Report—Concurrent Sale of Fuel and Alcohol Page 6 Attachment 3: Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 9-24-03 Attachment 4: Letters from Anne Russell, Diehl & Rodewald Attachment 5: 11-1-1988 Staff Report Attachment 6: 11-15-1988 Staff Report Attachment 7: Draft Ordinance amendments to Sections 5.36.020 of the Municipal Code and Sections 17.08.040 and 17.100 of the Zoning Regulations Available in Council Reading File: 1991 Purdue University Report regarding the effect of banning common site sales on alcohol related accidents in California. GA\Pdunsmore\Text AmendmentsTuel&Alcohol\CC Staff report l.doc S�Co AftcI4 , CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM #2 BY: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner(781-7522) MEETING DATE: September 24, 2003 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Deputy Director- Development Review FILE NUMBER: TA 108-03 PROJECT ADDRESS: City Wide SUBJECT: Proposed text amendment to the Municipal Code, Sections 5.36.020, 17.08.040 and 17.100 to define when alcohol sales may be allowed on a site in conjunction with automotive fuel sales. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Review proposed amendments to Sections 5.36.020, 17.08.040 and 17.100 of the Municipal Code and adopt a resolution making a recommendation to the City Council to approve the revisions. BACKGROUND Situation During recent review of a Use Permit to allow a Costco warehouse store and fueling station on the same property, it became apparent there is insufficient clarity within the City's Municipal Code as it pertains to the sale of motor fuel and alcohol on the same site. Specifically, the term of concurrent sales is not defined and the definition of a service station does not reflect the apparent intent of the City Council. The City Council recently directed staff to process appropriate code amendments to clarify its intent with regard to concurrent sales of motor fuel and alcohol. EVALUATION The regulations that limit the concurrent sales of motor fuel and alcoholic beverages exist within two provisions in the Municipal Code. The first, and most restrictive, is set forth as Title 5 of the Municipal Code (Licenses, Permits and Regulations). Chapter 5.36 contains regulations pertaining specifically to service stations while subsection B of Section 5.36.020 specifically defines what a service station is. This regulation prohibits all sales of alcoholic beverages from a service station. A review of past staff reports reveals the intent of the ordinance was to eliminate the convenient sale of alcoholic beverages from a mini-mart or other service station associated vendor thereby reducing the potential for drinking and driving and reducing the number of unsightly service station banner signs that advertise alcoholic beverages. The record before the s` I MACHMER I TA 108-03 (Citywide) Page 2 Council at that time contained a report indicating readily available alcoholic beverages at a service station resulted in a higher incidence of drunk driving by people with alcohol addictions. Business and Professions Code (B&P code) prohibits cities from totally banning the sale of alcoholic beverages from service stations and establishes the standards by which concurrent sales can occur. Section 23790.5 of the B&P code, however, exempts prohibitions enacted by local governments prior to August 1, 1985. Thus the City's broad prohibition of sales of alcoholic beverages from service stations remains valid since the ordinance was adopted in 1982. The proposed amendments before the Planning Commission do not amend or alter the City's basic prohibition of alcohol and fuel sales. They are intended to define the intent and focus of the code by providing clear definitions of service station and concurrent sales. The amendments propose to simply define a service station as a business where motor fuel is the principal use along with ancillary retail uses up to 5,000 square feet. For example, if a gas station shares a property with a retail use and the retail use is greater than 5,000 square feet that retail use would be exempt from the prohibition under the ordinance and would be allowed to sell alcoholic beverages. Section 5.36.020 from Title 5 of the Municipal Code with proposed amendments: 5.36.020 Alcoholic beverages-Sale prohibited-Exceptions. A. It is unlawful for any person to sell, offer for sale, display for sale or otherwise furnish any alcoholic beverage from a service station. B. For the purposes of this section "service station" means any business wher-e meier-fu a business where motor fuel is sold as the principal use of the property. Service station includes any ancillary retail facility of 5.000 square feet or less that offers for sale prepackaged food items and tangible consumer goods primarily for self service by the consumer. C. The prohibition contained in subsection A of this section shall not apply to service stations lawfully selling, offering for sale, displaying for sale or otherwise furnishing alcoholic beverages as of the effective date of the ordinance f rst adopting the provisions codified in this section. The other Municipal Code section that pertains to the concurrent sale of alcoholic beverages and motor fuel sales is actually within the Zoning Regulations, Municipal Code Section 17.08.040. Additionally, the Zoning Regulations, Section 17.100 (Definitions) contains a definition of a service station. These regulations are less restrictive than the Municipal Code Section 5.36.020 and actually allow concurrent sales subject to a set of restrictions. However, in accordance with section 5.36.020 of the Municipal Code, the more restrictive code shall apply rather than Section 17.08.040. In the event that Section 5.36.020 is ever repealed, the provisions of section 17.08.040 shall control. Amendments are proposed to Section 17.08.040 and the definition in Section 17.100 in order to clarify the concurrent sales issue and have the Zoning Regulations be consistent with limitations in the B&P code in the unlikely event it were to become the effective regulation in the future. Additionally some clean up amendments are proposed to remove language that is irrelevant to the existing code section and in order to conform with state law. s- B ATTACHMOff TA 108-03 (Citywide) Page 3 Section 17.08.040 of Title 17 (Zoning Regulations) with proposed amendments: 17.08.040 Concurrent sales of motor fuel and alcoholic beverages. Concurrent sales of motor fuel and alcoholic beverages other than beer and wine are prohibited. The concurrent sales of motor fuel and beer or wine at a single premises or retail outlet shall be subject to the following: A. There shall be no sales of beer or wine for on-site consumption; B. Beer and wine may be sold only in conjunction with selling groceries and other sundries and convenience items; C. No concurrent sales outlet shall be established within 4-,WO 500 feet of any other establishment selling or serving alcoholic beverages; ED. There shall be no advertisement or display of beer or wine visible from off the premises; €E. Inside the premises, there shall be space provided for public-service posters concerning the effects of drunk driving, equal to at least the area devoted to advertising beer and wine; FF. No beer or wine shall be displayed within.5 49 feet of the cash register or ont door; #G. No advertisement of beer or wine shall be displayed at motor fuel islands and no self-illuminating advertising for beer or wine shall be located on buildings or windows; IH. No sales of beer or wine shall be made from a drive-in window; A _er--wine.. No display or sales of beer or wine shall be made from an ice tub. KJ. . Employees on dutv between the hours of 10 p.m. and 2 a.m. who sell beer or wine shall be at least 21 years of age. gaper �� q ` ATTACHMEW 1 TA 108-03 (Citywide) Page 4 A4K. Applicant shall pay a fee, in an amount determined by resolution of the City Council, to cover costs of City inspection to assure compliance with these requirements. (Ord. 1124 - I Ex.A (part), 1988) L For purposes of this section "concurrent sales of motor fuel and beer or wine" shall mean the ability to purchase motor fuel and beer or wine at the same time or at the same place More specifically, a retail outlet that permits a customer to pay for motor fuel and beer or wine: I) at the same location. or 2) utilizing a single financial transaction is engaging in concurrent sales of motor fuel and beer or wine. Section 17.100 (Definitions) of Title 17 (Zoning Regulations) with proposed amendments: Service Station. "Service station" means a business where motor fuel is sold as the principal use of the property. Service station includes any ancillary retail facility of 5,000 square feet or less that offers for sale prepackaged food items and tangible consumer goods primarily for self service by the consumer. Service station includes the sale and installation of tires, batteries and automotive accessories; lubrications; and the testing, adjustment and repair of motor parts, brakes, tires and accessories. May also include accessory sales of fuel oil, butane, propane, and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). Service station does not include: steam cleaning, mechanical car washing, tire recapping, body or chassis repair or painting, which are instead included under "Vehicle Services;" or the sale, rental or storage of motor vehicles, trailers or other equipment, which are included under "Auto and Vehicles Sales/Rental." Environmental Review Amendments of the Municipal Code pertaining to land use regulations or similar are not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and therefore are subject to an environmental determination. Staff has prepared a draft initial study for the proposed amendments and has found that the amendments will not create any significant environmental impacts. A Negative Declaration has been proposed, a copy of which has been attached for review. Conclusion Staff has worked with the City Attorney in ascertaining the history and appropriate language for the regulations that pertain to the concurrent sale of motor fuel and alcoholic beverages. It is the intent of the amendments to maintain the prohibition of concurrent sales as set forth in Section 5.36.020 of the Municipal Code, however recent land use determinations such as the Use Permit application by Costco have raised particular question as to the intent and definition of the regulations. The intent of the regulations is to prohibit someone from purchasing motor fuel and consumer ready alcoholic beverages at one point of sale and under one transaction such as a mini S, 1 ATTACHU 1 TA 108-03 (Citywide) Page 5 market and service station. The intent was not to limit a separate motor fuel vendor from locating on the same property as a warehouse store or other large consumer goods or grocery store. ALTERNATIVES 1. Refer the item back to staff for additional research. 2. Consider alternative amendment language. Attachments: Attachment 1: Proposed Environmental Initial Study. Attachment 2: Planning Commission Resolution recommending amendments to Sections 5.36.020, 17.08.040 and 17.100 of the Municipal Code to the City Council. G:\\Pdunsmore\Text AmendmentsTuel &Alcohol\PC report.DOC �����������Hi►►►��II�IIII[������������ Iliicity � OBISPO 1u,s 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER# 108-03 1. Project Title: Zoning Text Amendment 108-03 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner(805) 781-7522 4. Project Location: Citywide, City of San Luis Obispo 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: Not applicable (Citywide) 7. Zoning: Not applicable (Citywide) 8. Description of the Project: Municipal code text amendment related to service station mini markets selling alcohol. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: Not applicable (Citywide) 10. Project Entitlements Requested: Project involves a text amendment to the Municipal Code, Sections 5.36.020, 17.08.040 and 17.100 to define when alcohol sales may be allowed on a site in conjunction with automotive fuel sales. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. , L Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. ATACl1 IIVICI tl I I ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation Materials Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service Systems Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance P >F �n 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 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 This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). CRY OF SAN Luis Owspo 2 IMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKusT 2003 S= T3 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and -X 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 proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an 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 significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR 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. August 14,2003 gnat a Date Jeo,xt l tvlh,se r - if C o For: John Mandeville, Printed Name Community Development Director `ar CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CRECcKwr 2003 s�14 MACHO I EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 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 are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a"Less than Significant Impact" The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17,"Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California Code of Regulations. 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: Crry OF SAN Luis OBLsPo 4 1HmAL SnmY EwmoNMENTAL CHEcKun 2003 r : - ATTACHO I 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. Issues, Discussion and Suppo � iformation Sources Sources Pol Potrnti No Sigt. Ant Significant Significant finpact ER 108-03 saes Impact Mitigation Citywide Incorporated 1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on ascenic vista? _X_ b) Substantially damage scenic'resources,including;but not limited —X-- to,trees,rock outcrgppings,open space,and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or qualityof _X_ the site and its surroundings? d). Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would _X_ adversely effect da or nighttime views in the area? Evaluation Project involves an amendment to Zoning Text to define when alcoholic beverages may be sold on the same property as motor vehicle fuel. No impacts to aesthetics are anticipated. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland,11nique Farmland,or Farmland of _X_ Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a —X— Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to _X_ their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland to non-a 'cultural use? Evaluation Project involves an amendment to Zoning Text to define when alcoholic beverages may be sold on the same property as motor vehicle fuel. No impacts to Agriculture Resources are anticipated. 3. AIR QUALffY. Would theproject: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an __X__ existing or projected air quality violation? b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air _X_ quality plan? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant —X-- concentrations? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of -X- people? e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria _X_ pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable-federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Evaluation Project involves an amendment to Zoning Text to define when alcoholic beverages may be sold on the same property as motor vehicle fuel. No impacts to air quality are anticipated. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverseeffect,either directly orindirectly or — hroughhab tat modtficaticin-s,oA any speciesidendfiedas CITY of SAN Luis OBtspo 6 INITIAL STuoy ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKLtsT 2003 Issues, Discussion and Suppor `iformation Sources Sources p potentially Sig.. in Significant a t Issues Unless Impact ER 108-03 Mitigation Citywide Incorporated -candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local orregronal . phi policies,or regulations,of by the Cahfornia Department `of Fish and Game or LLS.Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or -X— other sensitive natural community identified in'iocal or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting -X— biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)?. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e)" Conflict with-lire provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation —X— Plan, X-Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other'approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? f) have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected -X— wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,'but not limited to,marshes;vernal pools,etc.) tlr_oug -h direct removal;filling,hydrological interruption,or other mean's? Evaluation Project involves an amendment to Zoning Text to define when alcoholic beverages may be sold on the same property as motor vehicle fuel. No impacts to biological resources are anticipated. 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a --X— *historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 150645), .b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an —X— archaeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource --X-- or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of -X—: I-T formal cemeteries? Evaluation Project involves an amendment to Zoning Text to define when alcoholic beverages may be sold on the same property as motor vehicle fuel. No impacts to Cultural Resources are anticipated. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the miect: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? —X-- b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient --3�— manner? c) 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? Evaluation Project involves an amendment to Zoning Text to define when alcoholic beverages may be sold on the same property as motor vehicle fuel. No impacts to mineral resources are anticipated. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOE S. Would theproject: p) ";F.P- people-or structures to potmotiaLsubsti otial.adverse :X- CRY OF SAN Luis Oeispo 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNEcKLisT 20 Issues, Discussion and Support tformation Sources Sources Pa Potentially Sign.._ant Significant Significant Impact ER 108-03 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Citywide Incorporated effects,including risk of loss,injury'-or death involving- 1. - Rupture of almown 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? 11. Strong seismic ground shaking? =X— III. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? -X— IV. Landslides or mudflows? —X— b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? —X— ,c) Be Iocated on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that X— would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on or off site landslides,lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction,or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the —X— Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or proper ty? Evaluation Project involves an amendment to Zoning Text to define when alcoholic beverages may be sold on the same property as motor vehicle fuel. No impacts to geology and soils are anticipated. S. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERU S. Would the r( 'ect: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment —X-- through the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely --X— hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous —X— emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste? c) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous —X— materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,it would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within —X— two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for the people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the adopted emergency emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, --X-- or death,involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? Evaluation CRY OF SAN LUIS Oetspo 8 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKLtsT 2003 s-- [9 Issues, Discussion and Support lformation Sources sources Po- i potentially t.es Sig. Ant Significant Sign scan pact ER 108 03 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Citywide Incorporated Project involves an amendment to Zoning Text to define when alcoholic beverages may be sold on the same property as motor vehicle fuel. No impacts to hazards and hazardous materials are anticipated. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the projece a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge —X-- requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere —X— substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.The production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the —X— capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide additional sources of runoff into surface waters (inciudiat but notlimited to,vWetlands,riparian areas,ponds,. springs,creeks;streams;rivers,lakes,estuaries,fidal areas,bays, ocean,etc;)? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage.pattern;of the site or =J{- area in a'inanner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or —X— area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding onsite or offsite? fl Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on --X-- a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? .g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which --X— would impede or redirect flood flows? h) Will the project introduce typical storm water pollutants into --X-- ground or surface waters? i) Will the project alter ground water or surface water quality, temperature,dissolved oxygen,or turbidity? Evaluation Project involves an amendment to Zoning Text to define when alcoholic beverages may be sold on the same property as motor vehicle fuel. No impacts to hydrology and water quality materials are anticipated. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject: a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of --X-- an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b) Physically divide an established community? --X-- c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural --X— community conservationplans? Evaluation Project involves an amendment to Zoning Text to define when alcoholic beverages may be sold on the same property as motor vehicle fuel. No impacts to General Plan Policies or other city policies that are adopted for avoiding an environmental impact are anticipated. 11.NOISE. Would the project result in: J) 'YXpR 9fmpk-t-9 or-&aprat o':Of'�?�S�Pt�L�@"_':tlQtS@. =-X— CITY OF SAN Luis OBISao 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 . J -X Issues, Discussion and Support iformation Sources Sources Pot i Potentially t.ess 1 Sig,. mt Significant Significant act ER 108-03 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Citywide Incorporated levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance? b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in —X-- ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne —X— vibration or groundborne noise levels? d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within two miles miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Evaluation Project involves an amendment to Zoning Text to define when alcoholic beverages may be sold on the same property as motor vehicle fuel. Amendments to the municipal code of this nature will have no relation to noise levels. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project. a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly -X— (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of. existing housing or people —X— necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Evaluation Project involves an amendment to Zoning Text to define when alcoholic beverages may be sold on the same property as motor vehicle fuel. No impacts to population and housing are anticipated. 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: a) Fire protection? --X— b) Police protection? --X-- c) Schools? —X— d) Parks? —X— e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? --X— Other public facilities?Evaluation ProjectProject involves an amendment to Zoning Text to define when alcoholic beverages may be sold on the same property as motor vehicle fuel. No impacts to public services are anticipated. 14.RECREATION. Would theproject: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or --X— other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or —X— expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? FEvaluation Project involves an amendment to Zoning Text to define when alcoholic beverages may be sold on the same property as Ctry of SAN Luis OBisPo 10 INmAi.STUDY EmRoKmENTAL CHECKusT 2003 S'34 Issues, Discussion and Suppor Mormation Sources sources Pc Y Potentially toss Sig. -ant Significant Sigrtificant npac ER 108-03 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Citywide Incorporated motor vehicle fuel. No impacts to recreation facilities are anticipated. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the _X__ existingtraffic load and capacity of the street system? b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service —X-- standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways? c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp curvesoror dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? e) Result Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? _X_ f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative —X- transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land —X-- Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise, or a change,in air traffic attems? Evaluation Project involves an amendment to Zoning Text to define when alcoholic beverages may be sold on the same property as motor vehicle fuel. No impacts to transportation facilities or area traffic are anticipated. 16.UTII.TfIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable _X_ Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water __X__ treatment,waste water treatment,water quality control,or storm drainage facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project _X from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and expanded water resources needed? d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider —X- which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitment? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to _X_ accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? fj Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations _X__ related to solid waste? Evaluation Project involves an amendment to Zoning Text to define when alcoholic beverages may be sold on the same property as motor vehicle fuel. No impacts to transportation facilities or area traffic are anticipated. 17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the __X_ environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,Teduce the number or restrict tberange of a rare or endangered plant or animal.or eliminatedmortant examples_of_ Cmr OF SAN Luis OBISPO 11 birrm STUDY ENvIRoNMENrAL CNEcKusT 2003 5rC)� I .a Issues, Discussion and Support ,formation Sources Sources Po Y Potentially Less'M I)r1 Sign...-ant Significant Significant Impact ER 108-03 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Citywide Incorporated the major periods of California history or rehisio N/A b) Does thepmject have impacts that are individually limited,.but --X- cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, . the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future ro'ects N/A C) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause =X-- substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? N/A 18.EARLIER ANALYSES. :Earlier analysis miy be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: '_a)-Earlier nal sis used. Identify' earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. _. . . N/A b) •16ipaels 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 the earlier analysis. N/A c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are"Less than Significant with Mitigation.Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. N/A 19. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,July 2002 2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element,November 1994 3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element,May 1996 4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element,July 2000 5. City of SLO General Plan Conservation Element,July 1973 6. City of SLO General Plan Energy Conservation Element,April 1981 7. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element,July 1996 8. City of SLO General Plan EIR 1994 for Update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements 9. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 10. Project Description All documents listed above are available for review at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department,990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,California(805)781-7522. �� CttY of SAN Luts Oaisao 12 INrnAL STunY EwmoNmENraL CHECKLIST 2003 - Attachment 2 RESOLUTION NO. 5372-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.08.0409 17.100 AND 5.36.020 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE—ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND MOTOR FUEL SALES,TO THE CITY COUNCIL TA 108-03 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 24, 2003 to consider amendments to the Municipal Code pertaining to the sale of alcoholic beverages and motor fuel; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has considered public testimony, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff; and WHEREAS, staff has prepared an Environmental Initial Study in accordance with CEQA, and has determined that the proposed amendments will not create significant impacts to the environment; BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. 1. The proposed amendments are necessary to clarify the intent of the ordinance as well as clarify the definition of a service station. 2. The proposed amendments not reduce the effectiveness of the current intent of the Municipal Code to prohibit the concurrent sale of motor fuel and alcoholic beverages. 3. The proposed amendments will not significantly alter the character of the City or cause significant health, safety or welfare concerns, since the amendments only clarify the definition of a service station and when alcoholic beverages may not be sold. SECTION 2. Action. 1. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of amendments as identified in Exhibit A. A�ACHMENT� Resolution No.5372-03 TA/ER 108-03 Page 2 On motion by Commissioner Loh, seconded by Commissioner Aiken, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Aiken, Christianson, Cooper, Loh NOES: Commrs. Boswell, Caruso, Osborne REFRAIN: None ABSENT: None 2. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council further consideration of amendments as modified in Exhibit B on a second motion. On a motion by Commissioner Cooper, seconded by Commissioner Loh, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Aiken,Boswell, Cooper, Loh NOES: Commrs. Caruso, Osborne, Christianson REFRAIN: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 24th day of September 2003. Ronald Whisenan , Secretary Planning Commission Attached: Exhibit A Exhibit B: Additional modifications as recommended by Planning Commission ,�' OJ Resolution No.5372-03 TA/ER 108-03 Exhibit A Page 3 1. Subsection B of Section 5.36.020 (Alcoholic Beverages-Sale Prohibited-Exceptions) of Chapter 5.36 (Service Stations) of Title 5 (Licenses, Permits and Regulations) of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: B. For the purposes of this section "service station" means any business A F 1 fO d F t i4 1 .M th ff t ' H0ti0R With-any xnvcvr-raaz za vxzvzoa zv: cocmz omo, Y cxoa�oz of iwc iii ovi�Jc c '�j other-use ^r-astivity a business where motor fuel is sold as the principal use of the property. Service station includes any ancillary retail facility of 5,000 square feet or less that offers for sale prepackaged food items and tangible consumer goods, primarily for self-service by the consumer. 2. Section 17.08.040 (Concurrent Sales of Motor Fuel and Alcoholic Beverages) of Chapter 17.08 (Uses Allowed in Several Zones) of Title 17 (Zoning Regulations) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 17.08.040 Concurrent sales of motor fuel and alcoholic beverages. Concurrent sales of motor fuel and alcoholic beverages other than beer and wine are prohibited. The concurrent sales of motor fuel and beer or wine at a single premises or retail outlet shall be subject to the following: A. There shall be no sales of beer or wine for on-site consumption; B. Beer and wine may be sold only in conjunction with selling groceries and other sundries and convenience items; C. No concurrent sales outlet shall be established within 4,QW 500 feet of any other establishment selling or serving alcoholic beverages; P. —Sales ef beer-er-Wine between 4 iQQ p.m. and 10:p.fn. aFe pr-ehibi BD. There shall be no advertisement or display of beer or wine visible from off the premises; FE. Inside the premises, there shall be space provided for public-service posters concerning the effects of drunk driving, equal to at least the area devoted to advertising beer and wine; GF. No beer or wine shall be displayed within 5 49 feet of the cash register or front door; 14G. No advertisement of beer or wine shall be displayed at motor fuel islands and no self-illuminating advertising for beer or wine shall be located on buildings or windows; IH. No sales of beer or wine shall be made from a drive-in window; - Resolution No. 5372-03 - AffACHM 2 TA/ER 108-03 Page 4 JI There shall be . sales a- disvlaN, of .e4iee...,teA hep- No disvlay or sales of beer or wine shall be made from an ice tub. KJ Employees on duty between the hours of 10 p.m. and 2 a.m. who sell beer or wine shall be at least 21 years of age. Vapef reeevel, devioes fer- GustefHer, c 11 1. r Yl a ...l:e. a with NW. Applicant shall pay a fee, in an amount determined by resolution of the City Council, to cover costs of City inspection to assure compliance with these requirements. (Ord. 1124 - 1 Ex. A(part), 1988) L. For purposes of this section, "concurrent sales of motor fuel and beer or wine" shall mean the ability to purchase motor fuel and beer or wine at the same time or at the same place. More specifically, a retail outlet that permits a customer to'pay for motor fuel and beer or wine: 1) at the same location, or 2)utilizing a single financial transaction, is engaging in concurrent sales of motor fuel and beer or wine. 3. The definition of"Service Station" set forth at Chapter 17.100 (Definitions) of Title 17 (Zoning Regulations) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Service Station. Any business where mete f fuel , effe;;ell Fn retail sa4es whethe f er met Retieft with any ether- use(s). "Service station" means a business where motor fuel is sold as the principal use of the property. Service station includes any ancillary retail facility of 5,000 square feet or less that offers for sale prepackaged food items and tangible consumerog ods, primarily for self-service by the consumer. Service station includes the sale and installation of tires, batteries and automotive accessories; lubrications; and the testing, adjustment and repair of motor parts, brakes, tires and accessories. May also include accessory sales of fuel oil, butane, propane, and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). Service station does not include: steam cleaning, mechanical car washing, tire recapping, body or chassis repair or painting, which are instead included under "Vehicle Services," or the sale, rental or storage of motor vehicles, trailers or other equipment, which are included under"Auto and Vehicles Sales/Rental." 4. It is the intent of this Council for the prohibition of sales of alcoholic beverages from service stations, set forth at section 5.36.020, and originally enacted in 1982, to remain in full force and effect,as contemplated by subsection (b)(4) of Business and Professions Code section 23790.5 (which exempts from the directive that beer and wine sales be permitted, those prohibitions enacted by local governments prior to August 1, 1985.) It is also the intent of this Council that, in accordance with subsection C of section 17.02.40 (Interpretation), section 5.36.020, as the more restrictive provision, shall apply rather than section 17.08.040. In the event that section 5.36.020 is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction,the provisions of section 17.08.040 shall apply. " Exhibit Brt' Resolution No. XXXX-03 Page 5 1. Subsection B of Section 5.36.020 (Alcoholic Beverages-Sale Prohibited-Exceptions) of Chapter 5.36 (Service Stations) of Title 5 (Licenses, Permits and Regulations) of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby recommended for consideration by the City Council to read as follows: B. For the purposes of this section "service station" means any businesswl3ere Oahe_HSS OF .. .:..ay a business where motor fuel is sold as the principal use of the property. Service station includes any ancillary retail facility only if the point of sale of that retail facility is greater than 200 feet from another point of sale on the same parcel serving alcoholic beverages. S` 00 EXCERPT- ITEM 2 ATTACHMENT 3 DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 24, 2003 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 24, 2003, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Jim Aiken, Allan Cooper, Alice Loh, Michael Boswell, Carlyn Christianson, Vice-Chair James Caruso and Chairperson Orval Osborne Absent: None Staff: Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore, Deputy Community Development Director Michael Draze, Deputy Public Works Director Tim Bochum, Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. MINUTES: The minutes of July 9, 2003 were approved as amended. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, expressed her fondness for the City and the old structures that are part of its heritage. Michael Sullivan congratulated the Commission on their action the previous night on the Conservation/Open Space Element, and expressed appreciation that comments were opened to the public. He suggested public surveys be implemented on various elements. There were no further comments made from the public. 2. City-wide. TA/ER 108-03: Request to amend City regulations related to service station mini-marts selling alcohol; City of SLO, applicant. (Continued from September 10, 2003.) (Phil Dunsmore) Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report, asking the Commission to review the proposed amendments to Sections 5.36.020, 17.08.040, and 17.100 of the gn- Draft Planning Commission Minutes ATTACHMENT 3 Excerpt—Item 2 September 24, 2003 Page 2 Municipal Code, and recommend the City Council adopt a resolution approving the revisions. Planner Dunsmore explained there is insufficient clarity within the Municipal Code as it pertains to the sale of motor fuel and alcohol on the same site. Specifically, the term of concurrent sales is not defined and the definition of service station does not reflect the apparent intent of the City council. The City Council recently directed staff to process appropriate code amendments to clarify its intent with regard to concurrent sales of motor fuel and alcohol. He concluded by stating the intent of the regulations is to prohibit someone from purchasing motor fuel and consumer-ready alcoholic beverages at one point of sale and under one transaction. He clarified the intent was not to limit a separate motor fuel vendor from locating on the same property as a warehouse store or other similar large grocery store. He also noted consideration is not to change the law but to clarify its intent. Commr. Cooper questioned statutes stating that there should be a separation criteria of 1000 feet between any concurrent sales outlet. He did not understand how 5,000 square feet relates to this issue, and asked if the issue is not the distance between the entrances to each establishment. He felt a 6,000 square foot establishment could be allowed within 20 feet of a gas station, which would be exempt from this ordinance. Planner Dunsmore responded that the definition of concurrent sales states, "at one point of sale." A typical mini-mart is between 500 and 1000 square feet in area. He also noted that the separation criteria is proposed to be changed from 1000 feet to 500 feet. Commr. Christianson suggested eliminating Section 5.36. Planner Dunsmore responded that Council's direction to staff was to maintain Section 5.36 and maintain the prohibition of concurrent sales. Commr. Boswell asked if Section 5.36 was to be preserved because it was established prior to the State's prohibition. Attorney Trujillo explained that the State Statute is the Business and Professions Code that has a clause that grandfathered in any ordinances adopted prior to 1985. Therefore, this ordinance is grandfathered in. He noted a letter was received from Diehl and Rodewald that makes a point that there may be an exception to that grandfather clause that may or may not apply. However, the court will make that determination. Commr. Aiken noted that all discussion in the staff report refers to "alcoholic beverages" but the ordinance sections being considered discuss "beer and wine'. He questioned the effect this will have from the standpoint of distribution of hard liquor. Se Draft Planning Commission Minutes J ATTACHMENT 9 Excerpt—Item 2 September 24, 2003 Page 3 Planner Dunsmore explained that Section 5.36 is a complete prohibition of alcoholic beverages. Section 17.08, which is not currently in effect, which allows the sale of beer and wine only as a concurrent sale in mini-markets and fuel stations. He noted that they would be in conflict with each other if both were enacted, which is not the case. Commr. Cooper questioned the City Council's direction. He asked if staff was directed to clarify or to re-write the section to allow a Costco store. Planner Dunsmore responded that staff was directed to clarify. He pointed out that the discussion came up at a previous Planning Commission meeting about the vagueness of our Municipal Code as it relates to alcohol sales and fuel. He explained staff was to define the intent of the Municipal Code by doing the historical research and determine why the ordinance was written, and ensure the true intent of the ordinance is displayed. Commr. Osborne asked if it is conceivable that the intent could have been clarified without a size restriction. Planner Dunsmore responded yes. He explained the size restriction came from staff based on research and an attempt to narrowly define what truly constitutes concurrent sales. PUBLIC COMMENT MaryBeth Schroeder, 2095 Wilding Lane, opposed any amendments to the Municipal Code to allow the sale of alcohol at any fuel station. Darren Brewer, 1438 Nipomo Street and owner of Foothill Chevron, noted the 1988 staff report, that references the 1982 report that created the ordinance, contains only one study that discusses concurrent sales of beer, wine and gasoline. The study was done in 1986, and found no correlation between the concurrent sales of beer, wine, gasoline, and drinking and driving. He also noted a 26-page study was obtained from the California State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and forwarded to City staff that showed that restrictions on off-sale beer and wine have no correlation with drinking and driving. He noted the report was updated in 1991 and provided additional data supporting his arguments. He expressed his feeling that the City is turning its cheek towards Costco and away from 20 local businesses owned by local citizens, and felt concurrent alcohol and fuel sales should be allowed. Commr. Cooper asked if Mr. Brewer was dissatisfied with the amendment of changing the 1000 feet to 500 feet. Mr. Brewer responded that would preclude every service station in town from selling beer and wine, and he felt that is why they made the separation 500 feet, and why they made the convenience store size 5,000 square feet. Commr. Loh asked what the average size is of the 20 service stations, including the mini-mart. � f 1 Draft Planning Commission Minutes `� ATTACHMENT 3 Excerpt—Item 2 September 24, 2003 Page 4 Mr. Brewer felt the largest is approximately 2,500 square feet, but that staff had accurate numbers on the service station sizes. Michael Sullivan, San Luis Obispo, asked that if there is over 5,000 square feet of ancillary commercial use, does that entitle one to sell alcohol, provided there is also pre- packaged food items offered? If so, would that allow any type of use of a commercial use that offers pre-packaged food items to sell alcohol, for example a Laundromat or lumber yard? Planner Dunsmore responded that if a commercial use is less than 5,000 square feet and has a separate cash register exclusively for alcohol sales, then the answer is yes. He further explained that concurrent sales of beer and wine means the ability to purchase motor fuel and beer and wine at the same time, and at the same place. In order to not be concurrent, .you would need a separate store that is greater than 5,000 square feet, with a separate independent cash register in that store; you could not pay for the fuel in that store. Lionel Johnston, 290 Palm Street, expressed his concern with the unattractive landscaping along the boulevard. COMMISSION COMENT Commr. Boswell noted there are two issues. The first is the overall rationale for the policy, which the Commission has not been clearly asked to deal with by the Council, as well as the more direct issue of the definition of concurrent sales. The second issue — is this a loophole for Costco? He did not feel this is a loophole, but felt it was precipitated by Costco. He noted that by definition, staff may have to consider Costco a service station, but traditionally, Costco has never been considered a service station. He did not feel the square footage threshold is necessary in the definition of a service station. He suggested a two-part definition: Part one that differentiates the point of sale, i.e., it is not concurrent sales if you have two different points of sale for alcoholic beverages and for fuel; Part 2 would be a distance requirement between the two points of sale, not between businesses. Commr. Caruso felt the City is regulating the sale of a dangerous drug, and anything that makes it more difficult to do that is good policy. He did not feel there is a need to change the existing policy. Commr. Christianson felt the problem is that there are two ordinances that are not in agreement. One was only grandfathered in, which means if it is changed or repealed too much, it will not be added back in. She felt the most important issue is the intent of the Council, both then and now, which seems to be retention of the strict standards of Section 5..36, and determination that the 5,000 square feet is based on a rationale that makes sense to accomplish the goal. She did not feel the policy needs to be discussed. She felt service station owners were not concerned so much with beer and wine sales as they are with the loss of business to another larger fueling station. She felt that elimination of the Costco fueling station might be a good outcome. �r 2� Draft Planning Commission Minutes J ATTACHMENT 3 Excerpt—Item 2 September 24, 2003 Page 5 Commr. Aiken. concurred with Commr. Christianson, and felt that this is a "smokescreen" to prevent Costco from dispensing fuel, since they dispense fuel at between 10-20 cents per gallon less than other local fuel stations. He felt that alcohol sales at Costco is an ancillary use to a grocery type store. Commr. Cooper concurred with Commr. Boswell, and felt the charge of the Commission is to make the ordinance clearer. He felt distance between points of sale makes more sense than square footage, and clarify what concurrent sales means. Commr. Loh supported the Business and Professional Code modification or clarification. Commr. Loh moved to accept staff's recommendation to adopt a resolution making a recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed revisions to the Municipal Code. Seconded by Commr. Aiken. Commr. Aiken suggested language that "the point of sales between fuel dispensing and alcohol purchases shall be 500 feet." Commr. Boswell felt staff and the City Attorney should determine whether or not Commr. Aiken's suggestion could work. He supported retaining the existing policy. Attorney Trujillo noted that the language proposed under Section 5.36 has been given serious thought and various other options were evaluated by the City Attorney's office with staff. He felt the proposed language is the cleanest and easiest to propose to meet the Council's direction in this matter. He felt that Commr. Boswell's idea was discussed in concept by the Attorney's office and staff, but met with severe difficulty in trying to make that type of definition work, given the Council's direction. He clarified that there would be little problem with Commr. Boswell's language in Section 17.08, but trying to work that language into Section 5.36, to have a service station defined by the distance between cash registers could be very problematic. He further noted this is the Section that is in force right now and the one the Council wants to keep. Planner Dunsmore noted that when staff reviewed distance issues, it was determined that nearly every service station in the city is within approximately 200-250 feet from either a restaurant serving alcohol or a store selling alcohol. Commr. Osborne had no problem with the original definition of a service station, which is a business that primarily sells fuel. He felt this is a loophole written for Costco, and did not feel a distinction based on size alone is fundamentally unfair. He also noted the City of Santa Maria has a similar resolution, and they did not offer to change their resolution to accommodate Costco, who is living by that existing definition. Commr. Caruso noted at the first hearing that the justification for allowing concurrent sales was not concurrent sales of fuel and alcohol because the fuel islands were 480 feet from the entrance to the store where one would go to purchase alcohol and had a separate pay station. He questioned what happened to that idea and why it. was replaced with the square footage idea. Ste- 23 1 y Draft Planning Commission Minutes ATTACHMENT 3 Excerpt— Item 2 September 24,2003 Page 6 Commr. Loh encouraged the commission to go forward with this item and not send it back to staff for changes. Commr. Cooper suggested modification to language in 1.b, second sentence to read. "Service stations include any ancillary retail facility only if the point of sale of that retail facility is greater than 200 feet from another point of sale serving alcoholic beverages." The motion maker and seconder accepted the amendment. A brief recess was called in order for the City Attorney and staff to review the proposed motion amendment language. Attorney Trujillo expressed concern that the proposed language may be opening the door to a legal challenge to 5.36 in the fact that it is attempting to define a service station by points of sale, which is very unusual. He suggested that due to timing issues involved, staff recommends that if the Commission does not support the proposed language, that a motion be made to Council forwarding it, that the Commission does not support the proposed language, and if the Commission chooses, may direct staff or ask the Council to review the proposed language to see if it could be refined to be more workable. Commr. Cooper's amendment to the motion was withdrawn from this motion, to be considered as a separate motion. AYES: Commrs. Loh, Aiken, Cooper and Christianson NOES: Commrs. Caruso, Boswell and Osborne ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carries on a 4:3 vote. Comms. Cooper moved to have the City Council consider modification to language in 1.1b. second sentence to read: "Service stations include any ancillary retail facility only if the point of sale of that retail facility is greater than 200 feet from another point of sale on the same parcel servingalcoholic beverages." Seconded by Commr. Loh. AYES: Commrs. Cooper, Loh, Aiken and Boswell NOES: Commrs. Caruso, Christianson and Osborne ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carries on a 4:3 vote. Attachment 4 JOSEPH W. DIEHL. JR. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION TELEPHONE RODERICK A. RODEWALD ____ (805) 541-1000 SHANNON G. MATUSZE\VICZ ATTORNEYS ATL -`-_ ) 1043 PACIFIC STR EEITY OF SAI^d LUIS OBISPO TELECOPIER PETER J. HARRIS' (805) 541-6870 'ALSO ADMITTED IN WASHINGTON STATE SAN LUIS OBISPO. CA [)34 E-MAIL OF COUNSEL JUL L LVW DMIN@DIEHLRODEWALD.COM ANNE M. RUSSELL July 2, 2003OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HAND DELIVERED TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Planning Commission City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Costco Application for Vehicle Fueling Operation/Concurrent Sales of Alcohol and Fuel Our File No. 1446 Dear Commissioners: This firm represents the owners of San Luis Chevron (2000 Monterey St.), Foothill Chevron(151 N. Santa Rosa St.) and San Luis Arco (254 Santa Rosa St.). Our clients are concerned about Costco's proposed concurrent sale of motor vehicle fuel and alcohol. Other service station owners in San Luis Obispo share these concerns. Costco is seeking, and staff is recommending, a grant of special privilege to allow Costco to engage in a profitable commercial activity that the City prohibits for all other service station owners. The City should either enforce its ordinance against all, or repeal it. HISTORY. From 1982 through 1988,the City prohibited service stations from selling any alcoholic beverage. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code ("SLOMC") §5.36.020. In 1988, California Business&Professions Code §23790.5 voided any ordinance prohibiting the concurrent sale of motor vehicle fuel and off-sale beer and wine in zoning districts where fuel and off-sale beer and wine could be retailed on separate sites The statute allowed cities to retain land use controls pursuant to a conditional use permit ordinance meeting specified requirements and minimum standards. In response,the City adopted a new ordinance,prohibiting concurrent sales of fuel and alcoholic beverages other than beer and wine, and severely restricting concurrent sales of fuel and beer and wine (with the effect of prohibiting all concurrent sales throughout the City of San Luis Obispo). Ordinance 1124 (1988) amended by Ordinance 1265 (1994) (now SLOMC §17.08.040). The City concurrently allows separate site sales of beer and wine or fuel in the C- N, C-R and C-T zones (and allows one or the other in other zones). Concurrent sales are S- 3S - MAGHMEW 4 July 2, 2003 Page 2 ostensibly allowed in those 3 zones, plus C-S, but in actuality are prohibited due to excessive restrictions. The ordinance is of questionable legality. COSTCO MEETS THE CITY'S DEFINITION OF"SERVICE STATION". AS SUCH, COSTCO CANNOT SELL FUEL AT ALL IF IT ALSO SELLS"HARD" LIQUOR. COSTCO CANNOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS TO SELL BOTH FUEL AND BEER AND WINE WITHOUT CHANGING ITS USUAL BUSINESS PRACTICES AND HOURS OF OPERATION. 1. The Sale of Motor Fuel Alone Qualities Costco as a "Service Station". SLOMC §17.04.060 defines a"service station"as: "any business where motor fuel is offered for retail sale,whether or not in conjunction with any other use (s). Service station includes the sale and installation of tires,batteries and automotive accessories; lubrication;and the testing, adjustment and repair of motor parts, brakes,tires and accessories. Service station does not include steam cleaning, mechanical car washing, tire recapping, body or chassis repair or painting, or the sale, rental or storage of motor vehicles,trailers or other equipment." By offering motor fuel for retail sale, even if its primary operation is a retail warehouse, Costco is a"service station"under the City zoning ordinance. 2. Costco is Subject to the Restrictions of the City's Concurrent Sales Ordinance. The City's concurrent.sales ordinance applies because Costco will be conducting "concurrent sales of motor fuel and beer or wine at a single premises or retail outlet." (SLOMC §17.08.040) Costco's fuel and retail warehouse operation will be at a single premises or retail outlet. Costco will be the owner/tenant of the premises, and the owner of born the reiail fueling and retail warehouse operations. 3. Costco Cannot Sell Fuel If It Also Sells "Hard Liquor". SLOMC §17.08.040 prohibits concurrent sales of motor fuel and alcoholic beverages other than beer and wine. Costco sells many types of alcoholic beverages other than beer and wine. Costco therefore cannot also sell fuel. - ATTACHMN 4 July 2, 2003 Page 3 4. Costco Cannot Meet the Restrictive Standards of the City's Concurrent Sales Ordinance. Costco cannot meet the restrictive standards of SLOMC §17.08.040 to sell fuel along with its normal alcohol sales, unless it drastically changes its usual business practices and hours of operation, because: • Costco sells "hard" liquor, prohibited by SLOMC §17.08.040. • Most Costcos are open later than 4 p.m. and sell alcohol after 4 p.m. SLOMC §17.08.040(D)prohibits sales of beer or wine between 4 p.m. and 10 a.m. • The typical Costco devotes about 10% of its floor space to alcoholic beverages. SLOMC §17.08.040(F)requires the provision of space inside the premises for public service posters concerning the effects of drunk driving, equal to at least the area devoted to advertising beer and wine(emphasis added); • Alcoholic beverages are both sold and served at the shopping center at the comer of Madonna and Los Osos Valley Road. SLOMC §17.08.040(C) establishes a separation criterion of 1,000 feet between any concurrent sales outlet and any other establishment selling or serving alcoholic beverages. Depending on how the parcel lines are determined and measured, this may be an issue. FUEL SALES ARE NOT ESSENTIAL TO COSTCO. Not all Costco stores sell motor fuel (Santa Maria does not). Costco is a viable business without concurrent sales of fuel and alcohol. CONCURRENT SALES DO NOT CAUSE DRUNK DRIVING. City staff states that the ordinance was originally adopted to cut down on drinking and driving. We are not aware of any study or evidence demonstrating that concurrent sales of motor vehicle fuel and alcoholic beverages cause or contribute to drinking and driving. Sale of alcoholic beverages is a legal, profitable commercial activity. Costco is currently engaged in that activity. Sale of motor vehicle fuel is also legal. The sale of both at one location is not logically related to driving under the influence. It only saves time and gas for a person who wants to buy both. It has no impact on whether that person will drink the alcohol on the way home, that day or even at all. Not all people who purchase alcohol drink it themselves. The zoning regulations allow separate site sales of alcohol or fuel in most commercial zones. Two establishments next door to each other could legally exist, one selling fuel,the other alcohol. A person could buy gas r ARACHMEW 4 July 2, 2003 Page 4 at an automated pump, walk next door to a store selling vodka, and be on the road in the same time as if the person had purchased beer or wine from the service station. This is a distinction without much difference or logic. FAIRNESS REQUIRES ENFORCEMENT OR REPEAL. If the City ignores the existing ordinance, and allows Costco to sell motor vehicle fuel in addition to hard liquor, beer and wine, the City will create a competitive disadvantage for our clients and other service station owners. Our clients are not opposed to competition with Costco as long as the same rules apply to everyone. These long time business owners in San Luis Obispo only ask for fairness and a level playing field. The City should either enforce the ordinance to all who sell motor vehicle fuel,or repeal the ordinance. Very truly yours, 0D H & OD ALD e M. ssell AMR:mw cc: Clients 3,2 MACHMENT 4 JOSEPH W. DIEHL. JR. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION TELEPHONE RODERICK A. RODE%VA1.D (805) 541-1000 SHANNON G. MATUSZER'ICZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW TELECOPIER PETER ). HARRIS' 1043 PACIFIC STREET (805) 541-6870 SAN Luis Oslsro. CA 93401 'ALSO ADMITTED IN WASHINGTON STATE E-MAIL OF COUNSEL ADM LU@DIEHLRODEWALD.COM ANNE M. RUSSELL September 10, 2003 CITYI -L L!�-I---_. '.`_. — -I By Hand-Delivery Planning Commission E I 0 CUv City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 COMMUNITY DEVELOPr ENT Re: Item 6, 9/10/03 Agenda—Citywide. TA/ER 108-03: Request to Amend City Regulations Related to Service Station Mini-Marts Selling Alcohol; City of SLO Applicant Our File No. 1446 Dear Commissioners: I regret I will be unable to attend your meeting tonight. On July 9, 2003, 1 appeared before you on behalf of our clients,the owners of San Luis Chevron, Foothill Chevron, and San Luis Arco,to express our concern over Costco's proposed fueling operation in connection with its retail sale of alcohol, in violation of the City's municipal code. Costco requested a continuance on other grounds. We also now represent Madonna Shell and Laguna Shell. Lo and behold, at the meeting tonight you are being asked to amend the existing ordinances to create a loophole for Costco. By doing so, you put all of the locally owned and operated gas stations at a competitive disadvantage with Costco. The amendments before you tonight exempt Costco from the definition of service station on the basis of square footage only. (SLOMC 5.36.020, proposed amendment, "Service station includes any ancillary retail facility of 5,000 square feet or less....") Similar changes are proposed in the definitions section of the zoning regulations (SLOMC 17.100). The proposed changes to the concurrent sales(alcohol and fuel) ordinance in the zoning regulation (SLOMC 17.08.040) appear to more closely follow the state statute pre-empting the field (Business & Professions Code §23790.5) but still contain separation criteria(500-foot distance)that only Costco can meet. (An informal survey by one of my clients indicates that there is an establishment"selling or serving alcoholic beverages"within 500 feet of every gas station in town.) There is a serious question about the validity of SLOMC 5.36.020 (outright ban of alcohol sales at service stations) in light of Business &Professions Code §23790.5. SLOMC S'- 29 A InCfp4 September 10, 2003 Page 2 5.36.020 did not meet the state criteria to be grandfathered in because the ordinance banned only alcoholic beverage sales at service stations, not"a broader class of products or uses which includes alcoholic beverages or beer and wine as a named or unnamed part of that larger class" along with the sale of motor fuel, as required by the grandfathering language of B&P 23790.5(b)(4). Indeed, when the City adopted its concurrent sales ordinance in the zoning regulations in 1988, the ordinance reaffirmed SLOMC 5.36.020, "unless and until it is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction"and provided that the concurrent sales ordinance was to go into "effect immediately upon the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction which holds Municipal Code Section 5.36.020 to be invalid or unconstitutional." (Ord. 1124 (1988)) Technically, SLOMC 17.08.040 (concurrent sales) has therefore not gone into effect. The City currently has two conflicting ordinances on its books, one mandating an outright ban on sales of alcoholic beverages from service stations, which was preempted by B&P Code §23790.5, and a zoning regulation purporting to allow concurrent sales of fuel and beer and wine only, (but in actuality denying concurrent sales because the conditions cannot be met), which has never come into effect. The Planning Commission should recommend SLOMC 536.020 be repealed since it is in violation of state law and direct staff to reexamine the concurrent sales ordinance. City staff has not been able to locate the staff reports for the 1982 ordinance, which banned all alcoholic beverage sales at service stations. The staff report for the 1988 ordinance, which adopted the concurrent sales ordinance in the zoning regulations, contained one study from San Diego County done in 1986, purporting to show a disproportionate amount of buyers of alcohol from gasoline mini-marts who later consumed alcohol in a car. There was no correlation shown between concurrent sales of fuel and alcohol and drunk driving. The City staff report in 1988 either ignored, or was not aware of, a 1986 study done by Purdue University, funded by Atlantic Richfield, examining the effect of California cities banning common site sales [alcohol/fuel] on alcohol-related auto accidents in California. A copy of the 3-page summary of the study,which I received today from the California State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, is attached. This study concluded that"common site sales restrictions have no effect on the incidents of alcohol-related motor vehicle accidents." The study also concluded that "although alcohol-related accidents are positively related to the total number of retailers licensed to sell alcohol in the city, general liquor licenses appear to have a greater effect than beer/wine licenses." Finally, the study concluded that"restrictions on the issuance of on-sale beer/wine licenses rather than restrictions on the issuance of off-sale beer/wine licenses would have a greater success in reducing drunk driving_" This report was updated by Purdue University in 1991 and concluded after examining data from California cities from 1980-1989, "there appear to have been no significant differences between cities that had common site bans and those that did not, as measured before the bans were enacted. With four more yearsofdata, the ban of common site sales continues to have no measurable effect in reducing the incidence of alcohol- related traffic accidents." A copy of the 26-page updated(199 1) report, also received from the State Alcoholic Beverage Control,has been provided to City staff. We have had insufficient s- Q I. ATTACHMENT 4 September 10, 2003 Page 3 time to do exhaustive research on this subject, since we first became aware of the proposed amendments late last week. Summary The City's rush to create a loophole for Costco creates an appearance of, if not outright, discrimination against local gas station owners in favor of a newcomer. Since the original ordinance banning alcohol sales from service stations was adopted over 20 years ago, perhaps it is time to reexamine the purpose and scope of both ordinances rather than rushing to do a piecemeal job on ordinances that may have outlived their usefulness. You have the ability to approve Costco without the fueling component, and refer the issue of concurrent sales back to staff to update research, identify potential issues, and, if needed, revise or repeal the ordinance in a rational, not arbitrary, manner. Otherwise, by creating a loophole for one business, you not only create an unfair competitive advantage, you send a message to your local business owners that the services they provide are not as important as those of the box stores. ■ Don't rush to create a loophole for Costco. ■ Recommend the City repeal SLOMC 5.36.020, since it was preempted by Business & Professions Code §23790.5. ■ Refer the concurrent sales ordinance back to staff for further research. ■ Identify issues of concern. Direct staff to determine whether the concerns are reasonably supported by current research and, if so, reasonable means to address the concerns. Solicit input from gas station owners and others. ■ Revise the concurrent sales ordinance if needed and adopt it properly; otherwise recommend its repeal. Thank you for your attention to this matter. My clients only ask that the City apply its regulations in a fair and even handed manner so that all who sell gasoline are subject to the same rules and regulations. Very truly yours, DI :e . & R DEW LD Russell AMR:mw Enclosure ^r I