Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/04/2003, PH2 - CONSIDERATION OF A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE PROJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING PAR ADcouncil ` aagenaa Repom CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director Prepared By: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE PROJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING PARCELS, AND A PLANNING COMMISSION USE PERMIT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COSTCO WAREHOUSE STORE AND FUEL STATION. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt resolution certifying the Final EIR with findings of overriding considerations relative to drainage and air quality. 2. Adopt resolution granting conditional approval of a Use Permit to allow a 140,000 square foot warehouse store and a fueling center, based on findings, and subject to conditions, code requirements and mitigation measures. CAO RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission recommendations with an exception that the original mitigation measure wording for TR-MM 2a (timing of Calle Joaquin realignment project) remain as originally proposed in the EIR.. DISCUSSION Situation The current requests before the Council include certification of the Final EIR and a Use Permit. The EIR includes the development of the Costco site and addresses future development of 2 additional parcels at Los Osos Valley Road (see Attachment 1). The Use Permit includes the development of a 140,000 square foot warehouse store and development of a three island fueling station. EIR Process Upon receipt of the application for construction of the Costco warehouse retail store, staff completed a preliminary review of the project and determined that it would require the preparation of an EIR. An environmental initial study was initiated, but was not finalized because it was determined that an EIR was required for the project. The determination to require a?' -( 1 i I Council Agenda Report—Costco Warehouse Store ER/U 173-00 Page 2 an EIR without finalizing the initial study was done consistent with Section 15060 of the CEQA Guidelines. On December 11, 2001, the City Council approved the workscope for the EIR, authorizing staff to send out a Request for Proposal (RFP) to prepare the EIR. Based on the Council-authorized RFP process, Morro Group was selected to prepare the EIR. The consultant contract was officially executed on May 1;2002 and preparation of the document commenced. On June 5th, 2002, Community Development Department staff held an EIR scoping meeting with neighbors and other interested persons. The meeting was not mandatory, but was held in order to gain early public testimony and to help staff and the environmental consultant understand the potential concerns related to the project. Morro Group of San Luis Obispo completed the Draft EIR and began the 45- day public review on March 24, 2003. Extensive time was spent preparing the sections of the EIR relating to traffic since in depth analysis involving coordination with Cal Trans, City engineering staff, and the sub-consultant (Higgins and Associates) was required. On April 23, 2003 the Planning Commission held a public meeting to hear public testimony during the open comment period for the Draft EIR. CEQA does not require that a public meeting be held during the public review period, but does encourage it. The CEQA Guidelines state that the public meeting allows for "direct communication between the reviewers and the lead agency" and "provides an opportunity for members of the public to learn of the concerns of other people testifying about the project". On June 16`h, 2003, the Morro Group completed the Final EIR. 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. The Planning Commission reviewed the Final EIR and project Use Permit on July 9, 2003 (see Planning Commission meeting minutes, Attachment 3). At that time, the applicant requested a continuance to a date specific in order to analyze the potential public improvements and associated costs necessary to implement the proposed EIR mitigation measures. Since the request for continuance was not announced until the start of the public hearing, the Planning Commission collected public testimony but withheld taking an action. The item was rescheduled to September 24, 2003. Planning Commission's Action At the September 24th 2003 hearing, the Planning Commission voted to recommend certification of the EIR and approval of the Use Permit to the City Council (See Planning Commission Minutes, Attachment 5). The attached Planning Commission report (Attachment 2) further describes the project and summarizes the issues. The motion to recommend certification of the EIR included the following changes to mitigation measures and project conditions: �2-Z Council Agenda Report—Costco Warehouse Store ER/U 173-00 Page 3 1. Visual Resources Mitigation Measure # 5 was changed to allow the applicant to pay the appropriate in-lieu fee for the purposes of providing a public art display in the immediate vicinity as an alternative to providing a wall mural on the building. 2. Traffic Mitigation Measure 1: timing was changed from 12 months to 15 months. 3. Traffic Mitigation Measure 2-A #1 was changed to allow an alternative interim alignment for the realignment of Calle Joaquin North that meets City and State design standards, to be approved by the Director of Public Works. 4. Condition #8 was changed to read: "if adopted by the City Council as proposed by the Planning Commission...the fueling station does not conflict with the City's ordinance." Regarding the Planning Commission modification to TR-MM-2a, staff has had further opportunity to review the proposed wording change and believes that further refinement is necessary. The Planning Commission was trying to respond to Costco's request that some flexibility be developed in the requirement to have construction contracts complete for the Calle Joaquin realignment project prior to issuance of building permits. It was not Costco's intent to provide language for an "or" provision to the Calle Joaquin realignment. Rather, they requested that if, under their own volition, they could design an interim realignment that met City standards and did not require Army Corps of Engineers permitting, that they would be allowed to construct that interim alignment at their own cost, receive building permit issuance, and still pursue the Calle Joaquin realignment project through the Corps. Staff recommends that the original mitigation measure wording remain as originally proposed because we believe that the Public Works Director has the authority to approve an interim solution while Costco pursues the completion of the full Calle Joaquin Realignment. Statement of Overriding Considerations The EIR concludes that the project will result in significant and unavoidable Class I environmental impacts in terms of: 1. Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation — cumulative impacts due to the existing deficiency associated with area drainage; 2. Air quality — due to construction activities, long term operation emissions and cumulative impacts. In order to accept the project as submitted, the City would be required to adopt a statement of overriding considerations for these impacts. The Planning Commission considered the project and determined it was appropriate to adopt a statement of overriding considerations. Additional discussion regarding the Class 1 impacts can be found within the attached Planning Commission Staff Report, Attachment 2. The following is the proposed statement of overriding considerations: �-3 Council Agenda Report—Costco Warehouse Store ERIU 173-00 _Page 4 _ The significant effects identified in the Air Quality, and Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation sections of the EIR will not be fully mitigated to a degree of insignificance with the incorporation of all of the identified mitigation measures included in the EIR. However, the City Council finds that the adverse environmental effects are acceptable and makes a statement of overriding considerations for those significant and unavoidable environmental impacts because: a. Mitigation strategies required for the Costco project component (alone) reduce the developments impacts to cumulative drainage to a less than significant level. Development of additional parcels will be required to have additional drainage accommodations based on the type of development proposed in the future. The unavoidable significant drainage impacts result from inadequate drainage beneath US 101 at the convergence of Froom Creek and San Luis Obispo Creek. Future road improvements that will widen the Los Osos Valley Road overpass at US 101 will include plans to increase the drainage capacity of the culverts beneath US 101 and will therefore reduce the potential for drainage impacts at this site in the future; and b. All projects of this size and scale are likely to produce significant temporary air quality impacts due to construction dust and construction vehicle emissions. Mitigation strategies help to reduce project emissions and ultimately put the air basin in closer compliance with established State and federal standards to the greatest extent possible with a development project of this scale; and c. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan for this specific location and the social and economic benefits of this project outweigh the adverse environmental impacts resulting from air quality and drainage. The addition of the store within City Limits will be a significant addition to the City's tax revenue while responding to a regional demand for goods and services that is currently found outside of the City. A regional center at this location will further contribute to the revenue base of surrounding businesses while customers utilize area restaurants and related goods and services. Furthermore, the new retail use will add more than 200 jobs to the City while providing a greater variety of commercial goods and services within the City. EIR Adequacy In reviewing the EIR, the Council should focus on whether the document adequately evaluates all identified environmental impacts, and provides appropriate responses to earlier comments. If the document adequately evaluates environmental issues and appropriately responds to comments, then the Council should certify the EIR. The Final EIR must be certified prior to approval of the project analyzed in the EIR. Regardless of the Council's recommendation on the use permit (even if it is to deny it), the Council could support certification of the EIR. In other words, the Council can recommend that the EIR be certified even if it did not support approval of the use permit. Council Agenda Report—Costco Warehouse Store ER/U 173-00 Page 5 Use Permit Evaluation Ordinance 1405 was approved on December 4, 2001, establishing maximum building size and maximum parking requirements for large-scale retail establishments within all commercial zoning districts. If the proposal complies with Chapter 17.40.020 (H) of the Zoning Code, a retail establishment of up to 140,000 square feet of gross floor area may be allowed if the City Council determines that it meets the following standards: 1. The proposed use will serve the community, in whole or in significant part, and the nature of the use requires a larger size in order to function. 2. The building in which the use is to be located is designed in discrete-elements that respect the scale of development in the surrounding area. 3. The new building is designed in compliance with the City's Design Guidelines for Large-Scale Retail Projects. The Planning Commission found that the Costco project is consistent with these findings and recommended approval of a Use Permit to allow a 140,000-sqaure foot warehouse store to the City Council. General Plan Consistency In considering approval of the Use Permit the Council should base its decision on consistency with the General Plan. The vicinity of Los Osos Valley Road and US 101 has been considered within the 1994 General Plan Land Use Element as an appropriate site for large retail stores and warehouse stores. Therefore, the policy question of whether a regional draw warehouse store is appropriate in San Luis Obispo and more specifically on this property, has been previously answered. The subject properties are identified on the General Plan map as General Retail and identified on the Zoning Map as Commercial Retail. The attached Planning Commission staff report further evaluates General Plan consistency. Alcoholic Beverages and Motor Fuel Sales As part of the approval for the Costco Warehouse Store and fueling station, the Council should consider the following: 1. Do a warehouse store and a fueling station within the same parcel constitute a "Service Station"under Section 5.36.020? Municipal Code Section 5.36.020 .(a) prohibits the concurrent sales of fuel and alcoholic beverages at a service station. Section 5.36. 020 (b) defines a "service station" as: "...any business where motor fuel is offered for retail sale, whether or not in conjunction with any other use or activity".' As determined by staff research, the City's ordinance was designed to limit the 1 While Section 5.36.020 remains in effect,Section 17.08.040,which allows for concurrent sales of beer and wine,is not triggered. The City Council, in response to concerns raised by service station operators at the October 7`s 2003 meeting that Section 5.36.020 is contrary to later enacted state law,directed staff to prepare additional amendments to the code in order to comply with current state law and allow concurrent sales of alcoholic beverages from service stations with approval of a Use Permit. Those amendments are expected to be considered by the Planning Commission in January 2004 and by the City Council in February 2004. i Council Agenda Report—Costco Warehouse Store ER/U 173-00 Page 6 convenient sale of immediately consumable alcoholic beverages at a quick serve gas station and mini-market.Z In the early 1980's warehouse stores were relatively unknown. Price Club opened in San Diego in 1976. Costco began operations in Washington in 1983. By the late 1980's warehouse stores were known in California, but none sold fuel. Costco began selling fuel from some of its facilities in 1996 (see article from Cincinnati Post and excerpt from Costco financial statement, attachments 8 and 9). The sale of fuel from the proposed Costco could be compared to other shopping centers such as the Laguna Shopping center where a fuel station exists within a larger center in conjunction with grocery stores and restaurants. Purchasing fuel and alcohol at a Costco store for immediate consumption is not convenient, nor is it allowed. The fueling center is a separate use located approximately 480 feet from the only store entrance (that is over 1-1/2 "football fields" in distance). The alcohol is not refrigerated or packaged for immediate consumption and is located at the rear of the warehouse store. Customers cannot pay for fuel inside the store, or interact with the store while waiting for fuel or pumping fuel. The fuel is membership only and not available to all members of the public. The Costco store and the fueling center, although within the same parcel, operate as two clearly separate uses. For these reasons, staff believes that the ordinance limiting the concurrent sale of motor fuel and alcoholic beverages from a service station does not and never was intended to apply to a warehouse store such as with the current proposal. The approval of a fueling center or service station at this site is a discretionary approval that can be regulated by the City Council based on General Plan Policy, and the criteria established in the EIR. Should the Council approve the Use Permit for this project, its action should include a finding that the definition of"Service Station" in Section 5.36.020 does not, and never intended to, apply to a warehouse store that also sells gasoline. CONCURRENCES The requirements of various City departments have all been incorporated into recommended conditions of approval. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may approve the project, with modified conditions. 2. The Council may deny the project Use Permit if it finds it inconsistent with the general plan. 3. The Council may continue discussion if additional information is needed.. Specific direction should be given to staff and the applicant. ATTACBMENTS Attachment 1- Vicinity Map 2 Council will recall the legislative history of the'ordinance was considered at its October 7's meeting.The legislative history materials presented to the Council at that time and incorporated herein by reference(see council reading materials). / d—/ Council Agenda Report-Costco Warehouse Store ER/U 173-00 Page 7 Attachment 2- Planning Commission Staff Report July 9, 2003 Attachment 3-Planning Commission Minutes from July 9, 2003 Attachment 4-Planning Commission Staff Report and action Resolution September 24, 2003 Attachment 5- Planning Commission Minutes from September 24, 2003 Attachment 6- Draft Resolution approving the Use Permit with findings, conditions, and code requirements Attachment 7- Draft Resolution Certifying the project EIR Attachment 8- Cincinnati Post December 12, 2002 article Attachment 9-Excerpt from Costco financial statement Attachment 10- October 7"' 2003 City Council hearing minutes Council Reading File: November 1, 1988 staff report regarding concurrent sales of gasoline and beer and wine April 10, 1986 study regarding public health issues associated to the sale of alcoholic beverages at Gasoline stations. March 1986 Study of off site purchase and consumption locations of convicted drunk drivers. November 15, 1988 staff report regarding concurrent sales Distributed to Council: Costco Development Plans, Final EIR GACD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Special Projects\Costco\COSTCO EIR\Council rptTinal EIR Council Report.doc ♦ ;,;:��,. ++ a�'► ��� *i .� ♦ ilii ' ,. �.� Ira � rr+ +�► . gyp► • �rf WPO 1-1 1 . .. ++� . {s t*��1 i1♦j i1�I �Ii'►j ' ��1 +������* +�►�� L �� i�iii*iii+i{°`eft♦~iii�+ ,�� ��*��� ��+•►i �'�. .�• + ♦�«ii+�** *i*+ •i`,� is i ♦ i i T�i • ♦ II ~ii+► iii `�♦����♦����i�j,�� �I�f.+ �**i}�1 iii`♦1;1�'!t�' ai � fig ♦��►f�1i►. usW�nW� � .A r VICINITY MAP ARC 173=00 s J � Attachment 2 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM a i BY: Phil Dunsmore,Associate Planner(781-7522) MEETING DATE: July 9,.2003 FROM: Ronald Whisenand, Deputy Director(Development Review)el CITY FILE NUMBER: ERIU 173-00 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 2002051036 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1540 Froom Ranch Way SUBJECT: Consideration of a Final Envirortmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project site and surrounding parcels, and a Planning Commission Use Permit for the Development of a Costco Warehouse store and fuel station. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution that: 1. Adopt a resolution that recommends the City Council certify the Final EIR with findings of overriding considerations relative to Drainage and air quality. 2. Adopt a resolution that recommends the City Council grant conditional approval of a Use Permit to allow a 140,000 square foot warehouse store and a fueling center, based on findings, and subject to conditions,code requirements and mitigation measures. BACKGROUND: Situation The current requests before the Commission are the Final EIR and required Use Permit. The Use Permit (per Section 17.22.010 of zoning regulations, Table 9, Uses Allowed by Zones) includes . the development of a 140,000 square foot warehouse store and development of a three island fueling station. The EIR includes the development of the Costco site and addresses future development of 2 additional parcels at Los Osos Valley Road. Normally action of the Use Permit would not require action by the Council. However due to the Council's desire to certify the project EIR and the community interest with this project, staff is recommending that final action by the Council be required. Data Summary Applicant: Costco Wholesale,Todd Bartock Representative: Mulvanny G2 Architects, Jeffrey Wilson a - 9 ATIACHMEW 2 Costco Final EIR and Use Permit Page 2 Zoning: Commercial Retail (C-R) General Plan Designation: General Retail Environmental Status: A Final Environmental Impact Report(EIR) has been prepared. Proiect Description The Costco Project includes the following components:. 1. Costco Warehouse Store; 1540 Froom Ranch Way The main component of the warehouse store is a 140,000 square foot membership retail store with an attached tire center and food service on a 14.85-acre parcel (Parcel 2 as shown on attached vicinity map). The main building floor area is 134,915 square feet and the tire center is 5,200 square feet. Development of this component involves the processing of a Planning Commission Use Permit. 2. Costco Membership only,self-service fueling station A three-island fueling station is proposed on the same parcel as the warehouse store (parcel 2). The fueling station will contain an option for future expansion to include a fourth island. Each island is designed with two double-sided gasoline dispensers, for a total of twelve fueling pumps, or sixteen fueling positions if a fourth island were added. The station is proposed at the southeast corner of the site between the proposed Costco building and existing Home Depot. A gas station, or service station as they are identified in the Zoning Ordinance, requires the processing of an Administrative Use Permit. Since the item is already at the Commission level, this item should be considered by the Planning Commission and not at a.separate administrative hearing. 3. Vacant Commercial-Retail Parcels Parcels 1, 3 and 5 as shown on the attached vicinity map are included in the review of the EIR, however no development plans are pending on parcels 1 and 3 and parcel 5 is not considered a development parcel since it is located at the base of the Irish hills behind the proposed Costco site. Parcel 5 is, however, a proposed site for construction of a drainage basin for Costco. Parcels 1 and 3 are located adjacent to Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR). Parcel 1 is approximately 8.08 acres, located between LOVR and the proposed Costco site, and Parcel 3 is approximately 8.63 acres located between Home Depot and LOVR. Parcels 1, 3 and 5 are zoned C-R, as is the proposed Costco site on parcel 2. For the purposes of evaluation in the EIR, the parcels 1 and 3 are evaluated for retail development based on approximately 140,000 square feet of general commercial uses in multiple buildings on both parcels. 140,000 square feet was estimated to be the maximum commercial buildout of the sites considering parking, circulation, setbacks and site utilities. Previous Review The Architectural Review Commission has conceptually reviewed the Costco project on February 19`h and April 15d, 2002. The ARC offered direction to the applicant on building elevations and site design details, with a final design to be reviewed by the ARC following I ' MACHMEW2 Costco Final EIR and Use Permit Page 3 publication of the Final EIR. The project is scheduled to return to the ARC on August 4, 2003. On April 23, 2003, the Planning Commission held a hearing during the required public review period for the Draft EIR. The Commission discussed the Draft EIR and fielded public input. The Commission had fairly extensive comments at this meeting, which are summarized in the approved minutes and are a key component of the Responses to Comments in the Final EIR. EVALUATION The Commission's action on the Final EIR is advisory to the City Council. In reviewing the EIR, the Commission should focus on whether the document adequately evaluates all identified environmental impacts, and provides appropriate responses to earlier comments. Additionally, the Commission should review the Use Permit for the Warehouse store and fueling station. Again, as stated above, staff is recommending that the entire project (Use Permit and EIR) go to the City Council for final approval_. This section of the report is intended to provide the Commission with direction on their role in the review of the project. The following paragraphs serve as an outline to the Commission for the order of considering project components. 1. The Final EIR EIR Adequacy 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 during the public review period have been incorporated into the Final EIR. The responses to comments were prepared by the consultant and reviewed by city staff. The Commission needs to review and consider the information contained in the Final EIR to determine whether it is complete and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); this review process is known in CEQA as certification. The Commission makes a recommendation to the Council who takes a final action on certification of the EIR. If the document adequately evaluates environmental issues and appropriately responds to comments, then the Commission should recommend to the Council that the EIR be certified. The Final EIR must be certified prior to approval of the project analyzed in the EIR. Regardless of the Commission's recommendation on the use permit(even if it is to deny it), the Commission could support certification of the EIR. In other words, the Commission can recommend that the EIR be certified even if it did not support approval of the use permit. Costco Final EIR and Use Permit Page 4 Highlights of EIR Changes Changes to the text of the document made since the review of the Draft EIR are incorporated directly into the Final EIR. Therefore, the Final EIR consolidates changes into the body of the main document, and it is not necessary to have a copy of the Draft EIR to understand the changes. The Final EIR is printed in a legislative draft format with deleted text crossed out and new text.in italics. In addition to comments made by the Planning Commission, 17 comment letters were responded to in the Final EIR. These letters include responses from other public agencies and the project applicant. In addition to some grammatical edits and typo corrections, some of the more significant changes or additions that were made include: Section IL Summary A paragraph was added to explain how the orientation of the project site relates to true north (Page II-1, A) and refinements were made throughout the EIR to clarify the orientation of the project site. A description of why the site was chosen by the applicant was added (page II-1,B). A description of various acronyms or abbreviations has been added to help the reader understand the EIR Summary table (page.II-2, D& E). Mitigation measures related to Air Quality, Biology, Cultural Resources, Traffic, Air Quality, Noise and Visual Resources, have been edited in response to comments. Most changes involve text edits and clarification rather than modification or elimination of applicable mitigation measures. The EIR summary table, pages II-3 to II-24 is the easiest place to identify the changes to the mitigation measures. Section V Impacts and.Mitieation Measures Amendments have been made to each of the potential impact discussions and mitigation measures as discussed below. Please note that typographical corrections or corrections that do not directly change the mitigation measure are not mentioned below. Biological Resources: Page V-38, BR-Impact-3: Discussion was added to describe a bioretention area (instead of a bioswale) in lieu of a closed culvert. A graphic was added to show how the bio retention area works. Mitigation measures BR/mm-3a and 3b were amended to address the bioretention. Cultural Resources: Page V-43, CR/mm-4: a mitigation measure was added to address paleontology. Transportation: With transportation being the most complex and perhaps most significant of the EIR discussion, many edits were done to the body of text on pages V-45 throughV-92 in response to comments from the City Public Works Department and transportation engineers. The graphic illustration, Plate 9 was amended to display the potential alignment of Calle Joaquin. Mitigation measures were amended as follows: 1. TR/mm-2, page V-66, has been amended and split into two parts with a new section "a" and "b" to clearly delineate timing and responsibility of these significant traffic mitigation components. These mitigation measures discuss the re-alignment of - � , 1��1nnryryaflfla11 Costco Final EIR and Use Permit Page 5 Calle Joaquin, Coordination of traffic signals and potential lengthening of the southbound US-101 off ramp. 2. TR/mm-3, page V-69, has been amended to clarify implementation, timing, and future reimbursement for construction of a sidewalk on the northeast side of Los Osos Valley Road opposite the project site. This sidewalk is important in that it provides pedestrian access to the project site. 3. TR/mm-4, page V-70, has been amended to clarify the improvements that will be required to install a new project site driveway, aligning it with existing Garcia Drive. 4. TR/mm-5 &6, page V-71-72,has been amended to describe improvements to turn lanes on Los Osos Valley Road and Froom Ranch Way. 5. TR/mm—7,page V-73, has been amended to clarify the applicant's contribution to potential improvements to the Los Osos Valley Road interchange at US 101. 6. TR/mm- 9, page V-79, has been amended to mitigate the coordination of left turn capacity from the project site. This mitigation measure requires an additional traffic study to determine the most appropriate solution. 7. TR/mm-10, page V-85, (cumulative impacts) has been amended to be consistent with mitigation measure 7. Former mitigation measures 10 and 11 on pages V-85 and 86 have been deleted in response to City Public Works comments. Transportation impact fees will compensate for mitigation measures 10 and 11. Air Quality: The Air Pollution Control District (APCD) commented on the draft EIR and recommended minor changes for proposed mitigation measures. Some of the more significant changes included: AQ/mm-11, page V-109 -V110, removal of requirement to locate an electric vehicle charging station since hybrid vehicles are becoming more popular than a fully electric vehicle. Bicycle parking is clarified and a mitigation measure to utilize a portion of the lot to share with a "Park and Ride" facility has been added. Noise: The Draft EIR considered cumulative traffic noise impacts to be potentially significant to existing residences adjacent to Los Osos Valley Road opposite the project site. The suggested mitigation was the installation of a sound wall. At the public hearing to review the Draft EIR residential property owners expressed concern regarding the construction of the wall. Staff agreed that the negative aesthetic impacts of the construction of a wall would outweigh the benefits of noise reduction. Additionally, the City's General Plan was adopted for this vicinity with Overriding Considerations with respect to noise impacts at this location. The EIR has been amended to delete N/mm-3, page V-119, which required the construction of a 6-foot tall concrete block wall at the northerly side of Los Osos Valley Road. Public Services and Utilities: In response to comments from the City Utilities department, Mitigation measures PS/mm-1 on page V-131 and PS/mm-3 on page V-133 were amended to clarify the intent of the measures. "2'1�3 Costco Final EIR and Use Permit Page 6 Visual Resources: Mitigation measures in the Visual Resources section were revised in response to comments from the Planning Commission. Notable amendments include: VR/mm-5, page V-151, requires public art to be installed on the southeastern elevation. The mitigation measure was amended to allow more flexibility in the type of art that may be installed. Other amendments to the Visual Resources section include the addition of figure V-15 and figure V-16 that show how the project may impact views of the Irish hills. Section VIII.Mitigation Monitoring Plan Since this EIR considers several parcels, this section has been amended to clarify which development will be responsible for each mitigation measure. Section A, Introduction,page VIII-1 describes this change. Additionally the mitigation-monitoring plan has been updated to reflect the amended mitigation measures. Significant& Unavoidable Impacts The EIR concludes that the project will result in significant and unavoidable Class I environmental impacts in terms of: • Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation — cumulative impacts due to the existing deficiency associated with area drainage; • Air quality — due to construction activities, long term operation emissions and cumulative impacts. In order to accept the project as submitted, the City would be required to adopt a statement of overriding considerations for these items. The Planning Commission should consider the project and determine if it is appropriate to adopt a statement of overriding considerations. Staff offers the following discussion regarding the Class 1 impacts: Drainage,Erosion and Sedimentation:. Projects within the area could create a potentially significant cumulative impact due to increased flows in the Froom Creek channel at US 101. Development of the additional parcels 1 and 3, combined with the existing Home Depot project, and new housing development to the west will create cumulative impacts to the existing drainage pattern that cannot be feasibly mitigated without extensive re-construction of the Los Osos Valley Road overpass at US 101. The existing box culvert that allows Prefumo and Froom Creek to pass under US 101 to San Luis Creek is currently too small to accommodate the existing drainage at this site. Costco itself will mitigate its site drainage through the use of a retention basin and an on-site bio-retention area designed to allow water to percolate into the site. Costco as a stand-alone project will create little impact on the project area in creating additional significant off-site drainage, however M additional development at this site would be considered a significant, unavoidable impact since area drainage cannot be accommodated in it's present condition. In order to alleviate the problem the box culvert below US 101 would have to be modernized and enlarged. This would also involve Costco Final EIR and Use Permit Page 7 a re-construction of the overpass at Los Osos Valley Road. An excerpt from the EIR describes how Costco contributes to the cumulative drainage impacts: "This contribution to the cumulative impact at the Froom Creek culvert under US 101 would be an indirect effect resulting from correcting the drainage deficiencies that currently allow some of the Froom Creek tributary flows to divert to the Prefumo Creek system. The Costco project includes the required peak flow detention, and does not have any improvements that would alter flows across LOVR. The Costco contribution to this cumulative impact is, therefore, insignificant." (Page V-21 Costco Final EIR) A project of this scale is beyond the scope of mitigation for individual property development. Reconstruction of the overpass and the culvert is a component of the Project Study Report (PSR) currently under way with Cal Trans. A statement of overriding consideration is an appropriate option for Class 1 impacts associated with drainage. Air Quality: Although mitigation is recommended to reduce construction vehicle emissions, emissions from the project construction will exceed CEQA significance thresholds. After mitigation these impacts will still be above the APCD's threshold, therefore resulting in a Class 1 impact. These thresholds are established by the County APCD and can be found in tables V-18 through V-21 of the EIR. Additionally, long term and cumulative operational emissions resulting from vehicular traffic and business operation will exceed the APCD's threshold even though mitigation is proposed to reduce these impacts. However, mitigation measures recommended for dust control (PM 10 measures) will reduce impacts to a Class 2 level. The Air Quality section of the EIR and recommended mitigation measures have been designed consistent with contemporary standards for pollutant and dust control and the Air Pollution Control District has reviewed and approved the proposed mitigation measures. It is common with a project of this scale to produce construction and cumulative operational impacts that cannot be feasibly mitigated to a less than significant level. With incorporation and implementation of proposed mitigation measures it is appropriate to adopt a statement of overriding considerations for Air Quality impacts. 2. Planning Commission Use Permit The Zoning Ordinance requires approval of an Administrative Use Permit to establish a fueling station (defined as a service station) and requires approval of a Planning Commission Use Permit to establish a commercial retail store greater than 45,000 square feet in size. The Use Permit includes the following components: 1. Allow the 140,000 Square foot Costco Wholesale Store and tire center. 2. Allow a three island fueling center. Use Permit Evaluation Ordinance 1405 was approved on December 4, 2001, establishing maximum building size and maximum parking requirements for large-scale retail establishments within all commercial zoning districts. A Planning Commission Use Permit is required for all retail establishments r I 1AA1uu11,nnMAnMnA,, Costco Final EIR and Use Permit Page 8 over 45,000 square feet, and within the C-R zone the maximum size retail warehouse store allowed is 60,000 square feet. If the proposal complies with Chapter 17.40.020 (H) of the Zoning Code, a retail establishment of up to 140,000 square feet of,gross floor area may be allowed if the Planning Commission, and ultimately the City Council, determines that it meets the following standards: 1. The proposed use will serve the community, in whole or in significant part, and the nature of the use requires a larger size in order to function. 2. The building in which the use is to be located is designed in discrete-elements that respect the scale of development in the surrounding area. 3. The new building is designed in compliance with the City's Design Guidelines for Large-Scale Retail Projects. The proposed project submitted by the applicant is for the construction of a 140,000 square foot commercial building to be used by the Costco Wholesale Corporation on a 14.85-acre parcel. The building is proposed at the west comer of the parcel, facing Los Osos Valley Road (LOUR). The main entrance would be located on the east comer of the building. The tire center is proposed along the southeast side of the building adjacent to the main entrance. Truck deliveries would take place on the south corner of the building facing Home Depot. An outdoor food court and seating area is proposed next to the main entrance on the northeast side of the building. The 140,000 square feet is the maximum that our ordinance allows; however this does consider the square footage of the tire center and the food court. The following discussion compares the proposal with the above-mentioned required findings- 1. indings1. The proposed use will serve the community, in whole or in significant part, and the nature of the use requires a larger size in order to function: Based on staff research and community interaction, many residents claim that they are awaiting the arrival of a Costco store to avoid their commute to the Santa Maria location. Based on local demand, the proposed use does appear to serve the community while keeping additional tax revenue within the City. At the same time, the proposed use has the potential to attract a regional demand, therefore resulting in a potential increase of local restaurant, entertainment and even other retail uses. A Home Depot store and a Costco store will also work together to create what is considered a "Power Center". The nature of a Costco Warehouse store is that it works as several retail shops under one roof, the tremendous variety and the warehouse-like style contributes to the necessity of the excessive size. 2. The building in which the use is to be located is designed in discrete-elements that respect the scale of development in the surrounding area: The proposed project would be developed between an existing large retail store and single family residential development. As proposed, the building elevations are divided into discrete elements through the use of alternating roof planes, extensive landscape and setbacks, and a some variations in the elevations. The proposed use will be adjacent to the existing Home Depot and will share a similar building setback. The design, however, appears far superior and achieves significantly more articulation, landscaping and relief to help break up the mass of the building. The building wall facing the residential area however is not designed in discrete z-/p Costco Final EIR and Use Permit Page 9 elements and will contrast with adjacent single-family homes. Fortunately, this side of the building would contain extensive tree landscaping, a 70 foot setback, and be established on a grade that is approximately 10 feet lower than the rear yards of the residential neighborhood. The scale of development does respect the scale of development in the surrounding area. Additionally, large retail development was considered for this site as part of the General Plan Land Use Element update. When the Commercial-Retail designation was assigned to this property, large retail was assumed within the Land Use Element EIR. The Architectural Review Commission will additionally review the site for compliance with finding#2. 3. The new building is designed in compliance with the City's Design Guidelines for Large- Scale Retail Projects. The building design will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission for consistency with the City's design Guidelines for Large-Scale Retail Projects. Fuel Station The applicant is proposing to include a three-island vehicle fueling facility at the southern corner of the property. Each island is designed with two double sided gasoline dispensers, for a total of twelve fueling pumps, or sixteen fueling positions if the service station expands to include a fourth island. The applicant's project description does mention that the desire to potentially add an additional island. Use of the fueling station will be for Costco members only and the station will be self-service with a card-activated pump. Chapter 17.08.030 regulates service stations subject to several conditions. The conditions pertinent to the proposed project include: 17.08.030 A: premises adjoining residential zones shall be screened from such zones by a six foot-high landscaped visual barrier. —The Costco fueling center is proposed on the opposite side of the warehouse store from the residential area. The building and it's accompanying landscaped setbacks and screening walls will completely separate the fueling center from nearby residential. 17.08.030 D: Pump islands shall be located at least I5 feet from any street right of way line or setback line, except that cantilevered roofs may extend to a point at least 5 feet from such lines. — The proposed pump islands are located approximately 150 feet from the right of way line at Froom Ranch Way. Does the fueling station produce significant environmental impacts at this location? Citizens have voiced a concern regarding development of a fuel service station on a site that is above a known City utilized aquifer. Additionally, adding hardscape above the aquifer may interrupt the normal percolation into the site that recharges this aquifer. With this concern, special attention was given to the proposed.fuel station development and potential drainage and biological impacts. The EIR did not find development of the fuel station to be an unavoidable significant impact, however significant mitigation is required for development of the fueling station. Mitigation measures BR/mm, 2, 3and 3b on page V-39 require a bio-retention area that will eliminate the possibility of fueling station spills from entering the creekways. Current a77 MACHN 2 Costco Final EIR and Use Permit Page 10 permitting requirements for a facility of this nature will also require tanks and plumbing equipment for the gasoline to pass a stringent set of reviews that include but may not be limited to the following additional agencies: City of SLO Fire, San Luis Obispo County Environmental Health Department, San Luis Obispo Certified Unified Program Agency, San Luis Obispo Air Quality Management District, California Accidental Release Program, State Water Resources Control Board, California Environmental Protection Agency and the US EPA. Alcohol and Fuel sales Municipal Code Sections 5.36.020 (a) and 17.08.040 regulate the concurrent sales of motor fuel and alcoholic beverages. Section 5.36.020 (a) strictly prohibits the sale of M alcoholic beverage from a service station. Section 17.08.040 of the City Zoning Regulations prohibits the concurrent sale of alcoholic beverages other than beer and wine. Although the two sections of the Municipal Code are not totally consistent, section 17.02.040 c would mandate that the more restrictive standard(5.36.020 (a) with its total prohibition) would apply. A component of the Costco Warehouse store is the sale of a variety of alcoholic beverages including beer and wine. Both ordinances were designed to limit the convenient sale of immediately consumable alcoholic beverages at a quick serve gas station and mini-market. The Costco scenario could be compared to other shopping centers such as the Laguna Shopping center where a fuel station exists within a larger center in conjunction with grocery stores and restaurants. Purchasing fuel and alcohol at a Costco store for immediate consumption is not convenient, nor is it allowed. The fueling center is a separate use located approximately 480 feet from the only store entrance. The alcohol is not refrigerated or packaged for immediate consumption and is located at the rear of the warehouse store. Customers cannot pay for fuel inside the store, or interact with the store while waiting for fuel or pumping fuel. The fuel is membership only and not available to all members of the public. The average trip into the Costco store itself, even if only for a few items, will take well over an hour even for the most dedicated shopper. The Costco store and the fueling center, although within the same parcel, operate as two clearly separate uses. Staff believes that the ordinances limiting the concurrent sale of motor fuel and alcoholic beverages do not apply to the current proposal. Other options include subdivision of the fueling station site to separate the property from the Costco Warehouse store. The approval of a fueling center or service station at this site is a discretionary approval that can be regulated by the Planning Commission based on General Plan Policy, the Zoning Ordinance Sections 17.08.030 and 17.08.040 and based on criteria established in the EIR. Parte Along with maximum size standards, Ordinance 1405 adopted maximum parking standards in order to avoid an unnecessary sea of asphalt that is common to large retail uses. For retail warehouse stores over 45,000 square feet, the standards allow a maximum of one space per 200 square feet of gross floor area, with the exception for more spaces if structured multi-level -/4 i MARK 2 Costco Final EIR and Use Permit Page 11 parking is used. With a proposed 140,000 square foot gross floor area, Costco is allowed 700 parking spaces. The current site plan proposes 700 parking spaces, maximizing their allowed parking. Unlike most stores however, the parking spaces at Costco are 10 foot wide each, 1-foot wider than standard requirements. This allows large items to be loaded into vehicles without conflicts. General Plan consistency The Environmental Setting section of the EIR discusses consistency with the General Plan starting on page IV-1. The table that begins on page IV-3 discusses individual General Plan policies relating to development of the Costco site and surrounding parcels. Where appropriate, mitigation is referenced to show how the project will be consistent with the General Plan following implementation of mitigation measures. The vicinity of Los Osos Valley Road and US 101 has been considered within the General Plan Land Use Element EIR as an appropriate site for large retail stores and warehouse stores. The subject properties are identified on the General Plan map as General Retail and identified on the Zoning Map as Commercial Retail. Other than the EIR discussion, the following General Plan policies relate directly to the development of the Costco project site: LU 3.1.1 General Retail- Purpose and included uses The City should have areas for General Retail uses adequate to meet most demands of City and nearby County residents. General Retail includes specialty stores as well as department stores, warehouse stores, discount stores, restaurants, and services such as banks. Not all areas designated General Retail are appropriate for the full range of uses. LU 3.1.2: General Retail-Locations for Regional Attractions The City should focus its retailing with regional draw in the locations of downtown, the area around the intersection of Madonna Road and Highway 101, and the area around Highway 101 and Los Osos Valley Road. On page IV-10, the project EIR describes the project as inconsistent with Open Space policy 13.2.1. This policy requires that urban uses locate within the City's Urban Reserve Line. The Costco store and fueling center is all proposed within the Urban Reserve line, however a portion of the proposed drainage retention basin is located within a parcel outside of the urban services line. No built structures, driveways, access paths or other project-associated features are proposed within this vicinity. The Planning Commission should determine whether the retention basin (a portion of which is already constructed) constitutes an urban use outside of the urban services line. The graphic on the following page identifies the proposed basin and the urban services line at the rear of the proposed Costco site. -0 ATTEHMENT 2 Costco Final EIR and Use Permit Page 12 Pro o ed Cost •.- ln'] . ;' 15' — �! 30 F B1 _ _. :.. +m _ - 3.ACREZ*W Proposed Basin ALTERNATIVES Final EIR The City has the following options in responding to the conclusions of the EIR: • Disapprove the project because it has significant environmental effects; • Require changes in the project to reduce or avoid a significant environmental effect; • Approve the project despite its significant environmental effects, if the proper findings and statement of overriding considerations are adopted. An agency is not required to select the most environmentally superior alternative. The EIR identifies four alternatives to the submitted project including: 1) the no project alternative; 2) the different locations alternative (Froom Ranch East, Dalidio property, Froom Ranch North; 3) the different characteristics alternative (proposed project with alternative mitigation such as on-site relocation, multiple store fronts or watershed improvements); and 4) the different front parcel use alternative (residential or small pedestrian-friendly shops). In forwarding a recommendation on the project to the City Council, the Commission may indicate a preference for one of these alternatives over the submitted project. Use Permit 1. Recommend that the City Council deny the request. If the Commission recommends denial of the project, findings should be specified. �2 -Zd ATTRCHN 2 Costco Final EIR and Use Permit Page 13 2. Continue the request. If the Commission continues action, then specific direction should be given to staff and the applicant regarding further information needed. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The comments and recommendations of various City departments are incorporated into the EIR. RECOMMENDATION A. Adopt resolution A, recommending the City Council certify the final EIR, based on findings and; B. Adopt resolution B, recommending the City Council approve the Use Permit to: 1) allow a 140,000 square foot warehouse store; and 2) allow a three island fueling station, based on findings, and subject to conditions, code requirements and mitigation measures. Attached: Vicinity Map Latest Costco Site Plan Meeting Minutes, April 23, 2003 Ordinance No. 1405 Letter from Diehl & Rodewald RE: Sales of Alcohol &Fuel Planning Commission Resolution A, recommending certification of EIR to City Council Planning Commission Resolution B, recommending approval of Costco Use Permit The final EIR was previously distributed to the Planning Commission and additional copies can be reviewed or purchased at the Community Development Department. G\Pdunsmore\Spc6al Projects\Costco\COSTCO EIR\Ftnal EIR.Use Pemtit(PC report).doc SAN LUIS OBISPO Attachment 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 9, 2003 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 9, 2003, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Jim Aiken, James Caruso, Alice Loh, Michael Boswell, Carlyn Christianson, and Chairperson Orval Osborne Absent: Commissioner Allan Cooper Staff: Associate Planner Philip Dunsmore; Transportation Associate Peggy Mandeville, Deputy Public Works Directors Tim Bochum; Supervising Civil Engineer Rob Livick, Deputy Community Development Director Ronald Whisenand, City Attorney Jonathon Lowell, Community Development Director John Mandeville, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The Minutes of February 26, and March 26, were accepted as amended. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, felt there are too many managers and department heads making decisions without careful thinking_ and merit and without the proper public comment. There were no further comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 1540 Froom Ranch Way. ER and U 173-00; Review of the Final EIR and request to allow a 140,000 square foot warehouse store and member-only fueling center; C-R zone; Costco Wholesale, applicant. Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore noted the applicant is requesting a continuance because they are lacking information on the City's Traffic Impact Fees. They have requested the item be continued to such a time that those fees have been calculated. o2-2Z Planning Commission Min. , MACHMER 3 July 9, 2003 Page 2 Planner Dunsmore noted the staff would review the final EIR for these sites, as well as reviewing some of the use permit findings. He presented the staff report recommending that the Planning Commission formulate a recommendation to the City Council to certify the Final EIR with findings of overriding considerations relative to drainage and air quality, and adopt a resolution granting conditional approval of the use permit to allow a 140,000 square foot warehouse store and a three-island fueling station. He noted the EIR includes development of the Costco site and addresses the future development of two additional parcels at Los Osos Valley Road. He clarified that the Planning Commission previously reviewed the Draft EIR and comments from that hearing are incorporated into the Final EIR being considered. Deputy Director Ronald Whisenand noted that the Public Hearing would still be held and testimony would still be taken since the project has been advertised. Mary Reents, Project Environmental Consultant, responded to letters pertaining to the Draft EIR and addressed issues from the public regarding mitigation for the project. She noted that the letters address visual issues regarding parcels 1 & 2, and issues such as lighting, landscaping, traffic & circulation and drainage for the Costco site as well as the cumulative area. She stated that Caltrans had comments and concerns regarding Calle Joaquin, which have also been incorporated into the Mitigation Measures. She explained that air quality impacts were determined in the EIR to be a Class 1 or significant, unavoidable adverse impacts, which could be mitigated to a great level, but not into a level of insignificance. She mentioned the noise mitigation has been modified to include baffling on the roof equipment so noise could be reduced. She noted that CEQA is not concerned with views from private properties, but views from public roads. She stated they have added some language into the mitigation so the Chumash Council who represents the Native Americans could be involved with the monitoring. She responded to a concern about how the rainfall data was calculated for the drainage models. She recapped the. four specific issues of visual resources to parcels 1 & 3. Planner Dunsmore noted the two key points for the Commission to consider are whether the EIR meets CEQA guidelines for certification, and does the proposed use meet the General Plan and zoning criteria for this particular site. Commr. Aiken asked if the proposed basins are the same type of basins that the Regional Water Quality Control Board use. Ms. Reents replied there are a variety of designs for bio-swales/bio-retentions and explained that it depends on the site characteristics/soils characteristics and location on how well they would last over time. She felt the one selected appears to be an appropriate design. Commr. Aiken questioned if the design of these basins limit the flow of water. Ms. Reents replied yes, and explained that it retards itself. �2 Planning Commission Min. NUNN 3 July 9,2003 Page 3 Commr. Caruso asked if the relocation of Calle Joaquin, the 101-ramp extension, and the work on Garcia are all required before they are able to open. Ms. Reents replied yes. Tim Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Works, explained the project requirements to be met before they can open, which are identified in the EIR. Commr. Caruso asked what the Caltrans requirements are. Mr. Bochum replied that Caltrans is requesting them to relocate Calle Joaquin and extend the actual stacking area on the ramps, and that they pay a fair share of the cumulative impact at the LOVR interchange. Commr. Caruso felt that the building, no matter how well it is dressed up, is not compatible with the hillsides and felt the threshold of significanceis much lower than is stated in the document. Commr. Loh felt the retention pond is important and should be addressed in the EIR. She noted there is no explanation on where the water that is in the retention pond would go and felt there should be a calculation on how much water will be discharged and tentatively stored in the retention pond. She expressed a concern about how much water is going to be on LOVR, and felt that another retention pond might be needed on sites 1 & 3. Ms. Reents explained there is a preliminary drainage plan, designed by the applicant, which shows where all the water is going to be conveyed. Commr. Loh commented that she prefers the pedestrian circulation and landscape plan that was previously presented that had an orchard look. Todd Bartock, Costco Representative, explained there have been workshops with the ARC and noted their comments have been incorporated into this landscaping plan. He noted the plan that Commr. Loh prefers received comments from the ARC about eliminating the orchard look in the parking lot and going with a group of trees. Planner Dunsmore noted access will be provided between the two properties at Duval Ranch Way and the Costco parking lot area. Commr. Christianson commented that the two summary tables regarding Traffic Impacts are not correct and do not match the actual text. She expressed concerns about the fuel station being located above a City aquifer and questioned if they have concerns with potential contaminated leakages going into the aquifer. Ms. Reents explained the people who regulate oil and gas have come up with a new design that has a tank within a tank, which supposedly works. Planning Commission W. j'`RACH y E 3 July 9, 2003 Page 4 Commr. Christianson asked about the long-range impacts on this whole area and wondered if widening LOVR is something that the Planning Commission reviews again or something that happens as an administrative item in the TIF. Deputy Director Bochum replied this would be part of the TIF program, which has a sub- component in there that is called "Congestion Relief." Commr. Christianson asked the City Attorney to address the concurrent sales of alcohol and fuel and wondered if the Planning Commission needed to address this. Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney, explained the City's ordinance contains a provision that regulates concurrent sales of fuel and alcohol from a service station. In looking at the ordinance more closely, he found a second provision within the Municipal Code that also prohibits the sale of alcohol concurrently with fuel, and this second provision applies to all alcoholic beverages. The first provision in the zoning ordinance is not as restrictive, which applies only to hard liquor, but permits sales of beer and wine. He noted this is the City's ordinance and the City is the one that is charged with interpreting what "Service Station" means, so the Commission does have some flexibility. Commr. Boswell felt jobs are being developed at a faster rate than housing for these jobs, and wondered what the specific reference would be and why would this not rise to the level of Cumulative Impact. Planner Dunsmore replied that the reference comes from the General Plan Land Use Element EIR, which adopted the statement of overriding considerations for the Jobs Housing Relationship. Commr. Boswell explained that because this is a higher level of EIR, it does not have to be considered as a Significant Impact since the finding has already been made in a prior EIR. Planner Dunsmore agreed, and explained the property was dedicated for Commercial- Retail, so this was taken into consideration. Commr. Aiken commented about the intersection at Calle Joaquin and noted the cost of developing this segment of Calle Joaquin must be in excess of one million dollars. He felt aligning the existing Calle Joaquin would be a far less significant impact on both private property and potential other environmental issues, and would get the traffic off LOVR and avoid the conflict at the southbound Highway 101 on-ramp. Deputy Director Bochum gave a brief summary on how they evolved to where they are at the present time. Commr. Aiken questioned if the proposed new alignment would include a new on-ramp created to the southbound 101, with the existing southbound onramp eliminated. Deputy Director Bochum replied yes. Planning Commission Mir,, MACHN 3 July 9, 2003 Page 5 Mr. Bartok briefly explained that the questions surrounding the traffic impacts and the cost associated with them is the reason they are asking that this be continued for another two months. He gave a brief overview on some of the architecture for the project. Deputy Director Whisenand requested confirmation from the applicant that their request for a 2-1/2 month delay includes their agreement to extend the time periods for EIR processing, as provided for in the California Environmental Quality Act. Mr. Bartok replied yes. Commr. Aiken expressed appreciation for toning down the colors to earth tones. He commented that the food service is predominately on the northeasterly side of the building, which would get early morning sun only, and noted the prevailing winds parallel that building in this location. He recommended they look into how these prevailing winds affect this area. Mr. Bartok responded they have thought about this thoroughly and noted a great deal of this is operational issues. Commr. Caruso noted a letter had been submitted that expressed a concern with truck traffic coming around the driveway and the frequency that the trucks would use that driveway. Mr. Bartok replied that it is mitigated in the EIR that they are never allowed to use that driveway as truck access. Planner Dunsmore reiterated that the Mitigation Measure states that circulation is not allowed around the outside. Mr. Bartok explained the road is for fire access and emergency vehicles only. PUBLIC COMMENTS: MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, SLO, commented that this land was originally agricultural land and requested the Commission curb the Big Box mania that exists. Anne Russell, Diehl & Rodewald Corp., Representative for Service Stations, presented information on the sale of alcohol in service stations. She noted under the City Ordinance, Chapter 17, hard alcohol and fuel are prohibited from being sold at the same location and noted that there are several conditions in this ordinance that Costco cannot meet. She requested that the rules be the same for her clients as they are for Costco, whereas they can sell fuel and alcohol. Michael Sullivan, SLO, presented a letter to the Commission and commented that the staff report refers to the financing for the interchange at US 101 and LOVR, noting he is unfamiliar with the TIF Program. He asked if there is a nexus for those other contributors to build something that is being impacted by these other specific properties. ,?-Z6v Planning Commission Mi, — MACHO 3 July 9,2003 Page 6 He felt the County is right about the Cumulative Impacts at Pico Lane, and felt they should be addressed. He noted the grading plan is not clearly shown and should be to see if it is consistent with the General Plan Policy for grading. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Aiken moved to continue this item to a date certain, September 24, 2003, to satisfy the applicant's request and provide further direction. Seconded by Commr. Loh. Commr. Caruso gave direction to give a side-by-side analysis of the pros and cons or both sides of this argument over fuel and alcohol sales. Planner Dunsmore replied that they would provide additional analysis. Commr. Boswell commented on the responsibilities the Planning Commission has over the definition of what constitutes a service station and wondered if they are supposed to be making this determination. He requested some information that explains how they have handled this in the past and to give an idea on what the precedent is for making these determinations on what a use is. He felt it would be in the benefit of the applicant to provide some factual information that this Costco is going to significantly serve the need of the community. Commr. Loh felt the findings meet the standards. She commented on the sale of fuel and alcohol and noted that Costco is a warehouse, which would be a separate building from the fuel station, and felt they are different from the ordinary service station. She mentioned that she would like the retention pond to be included and noted how badly it is needed. Commr. Aiken requested a clarification of what Commissioner Boswell's concerns, expressing his feeling that there is confusion between standards and findings. He suggested that the findings be reiterated in the resolution. Deputy Director Whisenand agreed that they should be included in the resolution. Chairperson Osborne commented that when they bring back the report he would like to see the question of the alcohol and fuel sales be dealt with, and noted it should be more than just this scale of this business versus the scale of other businesses in town. All Commissioners concurred to continue this item to a date certain. AYES: Commrs. Christianson, Aiken, Loh, Boswell, Caruso and Osborne NOES None ABSENT: Commr. Cooper ABSTAIN: None -z7 I Attachment 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT rrEM# 3 -BY: Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner(781-7522) MEETING DATE: September 24, 2003 FROM: Ronald Whisenand, Deputy Director (Development Revie� CITY FILE NUMBER: ERN 173-00 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 2002051036 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1540 Froom Ranch Way SUBJECT: Consideration of a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project site and surrounding parcels, and a Planning Commission Use Permit for the development of a Costco warehouse store and fuel station. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution that: 1. Adopt a resolution that recommends the City Council certify the Final EIR with findings of overriding considerations relative to drainage and air quality. 2. Adopt a resolution that recommends the City Council grant conditional approval of a Use Permit to allow a 140,000 square foot warehouse store and a fueling center, based on findings, and.subject to conditions, code requirements and mitigation measures. BACKGROUND: Situation The Planning Commission considered this item on July 9, 2003. At that time the applicant requested a continuance to a date specific in order to analyze the potential public improvements and associated costs necessary to implement the proposed EIR mitigation measures. Since the request for continuance was not announced until the start of the public hearing, the Planning Commission collected public testimony but withheld taking an action until the project could be rescheduled. As previously described in the attached staff report (see Attachment 4), the current requests before the Commission are the Final EIR and required Use Permit. The Use Permit (per Section 17.22.010 of zoning regulations, Table 9, Uses Allowed by Zones) includes the development of a 140,000 square foot warehouse store and development of a three island fueling station. The EIR includes the development of the Costco site and addresses future development of 2 additional parcels at Los Osos Valley Road. Normally action of the Use Permit would not require action by the Council. However, due to the Council's desire to certify the project EIR and the community interest with this project, staff is recommending that final action be taken by the Council. MACH K 4 Costco Final EIR and Use Permit Page 2 Data Summary Applicant: Costco Wholesale,Todd Bartock Representative: Mulvanny G2 Architects,Jeffrey Wilson Zoning: Commercial Retail (C-R) General Plan Designation: General Retail Environmental Status: A Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared. Proiect Description See attached staff report Previous Review At the Planning Commission Hearing of July 9`h the EIR and Use Permit details were presented by staff and evaluated by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission should refer to the previous staff report to review the evaluation of the project's issues. Additionally, the Planning Commission asked staff to prepare additional information on the issue of concurrent alcohol and motor fuel sales, and the Commission asked the applicant to provide additional information on site drainage. Since the previous hearing, findings supporting approval of the Use Permit to allow the warehouse store and fueling station have been added to the draft resolution. Alcohol and Fuel sales The City Council has directed staff to analyze the Municipal Code as it pertains to the concurrent sale of alcohol and fuel sales, specifically to assure that the code's intent is clearly stated and not vague in its application. Staff has concluded that the code was adopted as a measure to help reduce the incidence of drinking and driving and to reduce the potential for"stop and rob"crimes that are common to mini-markets. The code's intent was to limit the concurrent sale of motor fuel and alcohol from a single point of sale such as a fuel station developed with an adjacent mini market. The code was not intended to regulate supermarkets or warehouse stores that happen to have fuel stations that share the same or adjacent properties. Staff has worked with the City Attorney in introducing revised language for the existing Municipal Code, clarifying the code's intent and defining concurrent sales. A warehouse store and fuel station sharing the same property, each having independent transactions would not be classified as concurrent sales. Site drainage At the July 91h Planning Commission Hearing several questions arose regarding site drainage. One concern was that the hillside drainage basin would to be enlarged, while the parking lot and warehouse store itself did not provide for a drainage basin. This containment .strategy is consistent with recommendations contained in the hydrology study and mitigation measures included in the EIR. The theory behind the drainage plan is to over-retain the hillside drainage while allowing the developed site drainage to leave the site as soon as possible by means of the existing swale near the front of Los Osos Valley Road. A revised civil engineering plan that - ATTACHMENT 4 Costco Final EIR and Use Permit Page 3 implements the proposed EIR mitigation measures and describes the sites drainage will be available at the Planning Commission hearing. In addition to a bioswale to help remove contaminants from site drainage, an oil water separator or similar device will be required for drainage leaving the fueling center. Proposed Changes to the EIR text On September 8` staff received a request to amend a section of the EIR in order to clarify issues pertaining to secondary growth impacts due to the re-alignment of Calle Joaquin. The Morro Group, the primary EIR consultant, submitted the request. This amendment is not a significant change to the document, because it does not result in new significant impacts or additional mitigation measures, therefore re-circulation of the EIR is not required. The amendment to the EIR will result in a new section to be added to Section VII, Environmental Analysis under heading B., Project Impacts (see attached revised section and Morro Group letter, attachment 2). The amendment simply adds a new section titled "New Land Use Trend" and discusses how the realignment of Calle Joaquin will potentially affect future land uses. The revision is requested for inclusion in the public record to ensure all potential secondary effects are adequately addressed. ALTERNATIVES Final EIR The City has the following options in responding to the conclusions of the EIR: • Disapprove the project because it has significant environmental effects; • Require changes in the project to reduce or avoid a significant environmental effect; • Approve the project despite its significant environmental effects, if the proper findings and statement of overriding considerations are adopted. An agency is not required to select the most environmentally superior alternative. The EIR identifies four alternatives to the submitted project including: 1) the no project alternative; 2) the different locations alternative (Froom Ranch East, Dalidio property, Froom Ranch North; 3) the different characteristics alternative (proposed project with alternative mitigation such as on-site relocation, multiple store fronts or watershed improvements); and 4) the different front parcel use alternative (residential or small pedestrian-friendly shops). In forwarding a recommendation on the project to the City Council, the Commission may indicate a preference for one of these alternatives over the submitted project. Use Permit 1. Recommend that the City Council deny the request. If the Commission recommends denial of the project, findings should be specified. ARACHMENT 4 Costco Final EIR and Use Permit Page 4 2. Continue the request. If the Commission continues action, then specific direction should be given to staff and the applicant regarding further information needed. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The comments and recommendations of various City departments are incorporated into the EIR. RECOMMENDATION A. Adopt resolution A, recommending the City Council certify the final EIR, based on findings and; B. Adopt resolution B, recommending the City Council approve the Use Permit to: 1) allow a 140,000 square foot warehouse store; and 2) allow a three island fueling station, based on findings, and subject to conditions, code requirements and mitigation measures. Attached: Draft Planning Commission meeting minutes of July 91h, 2003 Letter from Morro Group, inc. Re: Proposed Revisions to EIR, Section VII Planning Commission Resolution A, recommending certification of EIR to City Council Planning Commission Resolution B, recommending approval of Costco Use Permit Staff Report prepared for July 9`h, 2003, containing the following attachments: Vicinity Map Latest Costco Site Plan Meeting Minutes, April 23, 2003 The final EIR was previously distributed to the Planning Commission and additional copies can be reviewed or purchased at the Community Development Department O\Pdunsmore\Special Projects\Costco\COSTCO EIRTinal EIR.Use Pemtit(PC report).doc � -3� ATTACHMENT 4 Costco Final EIR and Use Permit Page 4 ALTERNATIVES Final EIR The City has the following options in responding to the conclusions of the EIR: • Disapprove the project because it has significant environmental effects; • Require changes in the project to reduce or avoid a significant environmental effect; • Approve the project despite its significant environmental effects, if the proper findings and statement of overriding considerations are adopted. An agency is not required to select the most environmentally superior alternative. The EIR identifies four alternatives to the submitted project including: 1) the no project alternative; 2) the different locations alternative (Froom Ranch East, Dalidio property, Froom Ranch North; 3) the different characteristics alternative (proposed project with alternative mitigation such as on-site relocation, multiple store fronts or watershed improvements); and 4) the different front parcel use alternative (residential or small pedestrian-friendly shops). In forwarding a recommendation on the project to the City Council, the Commission may indicate a preference for one of these alternatives over the submitted project. Use Permit 1. Recommend that the City Council deny the request. If the Commission recommends denial of the project, findings should be specified. 2. Continue the request. If the Commission continues action, then specific direction should be given to staff and the applicant regarding further information needed. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The comments and recommendations of various City departments are incorporated into the EIR. RECOMMENDATION A. Adopt resolution A, recommending the City Council certify the final EIR, based on findings and; B. Adopt resolution B, recommending the City Council approve the Use Permit to: 1) allow a 140,000 square foot warehouse store; and 2) allow a three island fueling station, based on findings, and subject to conditions, code requirements and mitigation measures. Attached: Draft Planning Commission meeting minutes of July 9 h, 2003 a -3Z MACHMEW 4 Costco Final EIR and Use Permit Page 5 Letter from Morro Group, inc. Re: Proposed Revisions to EIR, Section VII Planning Commission Resolution A, recommending certification of EIR to City Council Planning Commission Resolution B, recommending approval of Costco Use Permit Staff Report prepared for July 9t', 2003,containing the following attachments: Vicinity Map Latest Costco Site Plan Meeting Minutes, April 23, 2003 The final EIR was previously distributed to the Planning Commission and additional copies can be reviewed or purchased at the Community Development Department. G\Pdunsmore\Special Projects\Costco\COSTCO EIR\Final EIR.Use Permit(PC report).doc - 33 Kesomuon -A PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.5373-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 15409 1500,and 1521 FROOM RANCH WAY (APPLICATION#ER 173-00) 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`h, 2003, for the purpose of considering the Final EIR for the Costco Project and future development of adjacent parcels on Froom Ranch Way; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding a recommendation to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the Final EIR; 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 Project Final EIR which includes 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: 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 Visual Resources, Air Quality, Cultural and Historic Resources, Geologic Hazards, Hazardous Materials, Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation, Noise, Transportation, Public Services and Utilities, the approved mitigation measures contained in the EIR 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.. 4. The significant effects identified in the Air Quality, and Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation sections of the EIR will not be fully mitigated to a degree of insignificance with the incorporation of all of the identified mitigation measures included in the EIR. However, the Planning Commission finds that the adverse environmental effects are acceptable and makes a statement of overriding �2 - 3� ARME 4 Resolution No.5373-03 ER 173-00 Page 2 considerations for those significant and unavoidable environmental impacts because: a. Mitigation strategies required for .the Costco project component reduce the developments impacts to cumulative drainage to a less than significant level and; b. Mitigation strategies help to reduce project emissions and ultimately put the air basin in closer compliance with established State and federal standards to the greatest extent possible with a development project of this scale. 5. The General Plan Land Use Element EIR prepared in 1994 adopted an overriding consideration for potential noise impacts that may occur from increased traffic due to development of this site as a regional serving commercial site. Therefore elimination of mitigation requiring a sound wall between Los Osos Valley Road and existing residences is justified. Furthermore, construction of a sound wall will produce significant visual impacts to existing residences. Section 2. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council certify the Final EIR for the project. On motion by Commr. Caruso, seconded by Commr. Cooper, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Aiken, Cooper, Caruso, Osborne, Loh and Christianson NOES: Commr. Boswell REFRAIN: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 24`n day of September, 2003. on d Whisenan Planning Commi cion Secretary � - 3� ResolutionP`Bff" ENT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5374-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT FOR A 140,000 SQUARE FOOT WARHOUSE STORE AND A FUELING CENTER AT 1540 FROOM RANCH WAY APPLICATION# 173-00 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`h, 2003, for the purpose of considering Application U 173-00, a Planning Commission Use Permit to: 1. Allow a 140,000 square foot Warehouse store; and 2. Allow the establishment of three-island fuel station. WHEREAS, said 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 bylaw; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Project's Final EIR which includes 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: 1. The EIR adequately addresses the proposed project, and can be used in taking a final action on all aspects of the project, including the use permit. 2. The use of the property for a large scale, regional serving retail store is consistent with the General Plan, which identifies this vicinity as appropriate for such development. 3. The proposed use is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding uses with implementation of the conditions of approval and the mitigation measures contained in the EIR. 4. The scale of the building is compatible with existing uses in the area and maintains the appropriate relationships with surrounding buildings and the adjacent residential area. 5. The proposed use will serve the community, in whole or in significant part, and the nature of the use requires a larger size in order to function. The proposed use has the potential to attract ITACHIMENT Resolution No.5374-03 Page 2 a regional demand, therefore resulting in a potential increase of local restaurant, entertainment and even other retail uses. The nature of a Costco Warehouse store is that it works as several retail shops under one roof, the tremendous variety and the warehouse-like style contributes to the necessity of the excessive size. 6. The building in which the use is to be located is designed in discrete-elements that respect the scale of development in the surrounding area. 7. The new building is designed in compliance with the City's Design Guidelines for Large- Scale Retail Projects. 8. The fueling station does not conflict with the City's ordinance as it pertains to.the regulation of concurrent alcohol and fuel sales on one site. This is because the proposed use is a warehouse store with a separate fueling station and the purchase of alcoholic beverages and motor fuel cannot be performed at the same time nor under one transaction. Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of application U 193-01, subject to the following conditions and code requirements: 1. All mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR shall be included as conditions of approval, and are incorporated herein by reference. 2. The Development of the Costco site shall be subject to review by the Architectural Review Commission for consistency with, the City's design Guidelines for Large-Scale Retail Projects. 3. Pedestrian access to the Costco property shall be linked with De Vaul Ranch Drive, subject to coordination with the City and adjacent property owners. Code Requirements: Note: The following code requirements are included for information purposes only. They serve to give the applicant a general idea of other City requirements that will apply to the project. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list as other requirements may be identified during the plan check process. Additionally these code requirements were formulated prior to release of the project final EIR. The final EIR supercedes the code requirements where a conflict occurs. Public Works 1. All conditions and requirements of Parcel Map SLO 00-041 per City Council Resolution #9061 (2000 Series) that were deferred to development shall be considered as included as conditions of approval for this development as applicable. 2. Any outstanding conditional approval items from Parcel Map SLO 00-041 that required performance of said item prior to occupancy shall be noted on the building plans as needing to be completed prior to occupancy. ATTACHME4 Resolution No.5374-03 Page 3 3. Drainage calculations shall be submitted for review and approval to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Building Official. 4. Any off-site easements for grading, drainage, slope banks, access, utilities, etc. shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance. 5. Proposed detention basin grading outside the city limits shall be approved to the satisfaction of the County Building and Planning Department prior to the issuance of any city permits that show or require the off-site grading. 6. The building plans shall include a complete grading, drainage, and erosion control plan. 7. 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 result 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 requires 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. 8. Driveway improvements,pavement, utilities, pedestrian walkway and bikeway improvements, etc., along the proposed northeasterly property line shall be constructed to accommodate a possible future public street, as provided for as a condition of the parcel map, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 9. Traffic impact fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Traffic impact fees are applicable to both the retail store and the gas station. Gas station impact fees shall be based on the final approved plans and APCD permit approvals for the number of nozzles (dispensers). 10. Truck routes for grading import and/or exports and material deliveries shall be established for northerly and southerly destinations in accordance with the circulation element and shall be noted on the building/grading plans. 11. The building plans shall be consistent with the recorded map and improvement plans for street naming, public and private easements, utilities, streets, and dedications. Utilities 12. 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 the Wastewater Impact Fees are based on the size of the water meter(s) serving the development. -2 -33 A RACHMER 4 Resolution No.5374-03 Page 4 13. Appropriate backflow prevention will be necessary on any connection to the City water system if the property includes an active well. All backflow preventers shall be approved by the University of Southern California Foundation for Cross-Connection Control and Hydraulic Research. The project shall be coordinated with the County Cross-Connection Inspector, Henry Ruiz, who can be reached at 781-5567. 14. Due to the proposed gasoline station at the site, industrial waste/wastewater pretreatment requirements may apply. The project shall be coordinated with the City's Industrial Waste Coordinator for specific requirements. 15. A separate connection to the public water main shall be required for automatic fire sprinklers. The fire service lateral shall include a USC approved backflow preventer appropriate for the proposed use. The backflow preventer shall be located as close to the public right-of-way as possible, in direct alignment with the connection to the public water main. The backflow preventer can be located no further than 25 feet from the right- of-way line without prior written approval of the Utilities Engineer. If the fire service supports one or more fire hydrants; the USC approved backflow preventer shall also include detector capabilities(double detector check assembly). The FDC may be located behind the backflow prevention assembly, in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. The location and orientation of the FDC shall be approved by the Fire Department. A monthly service fee of$22.40 shall be required if the property does not have a connection to the City system for domestic use.. 16. 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. 17. 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. An appropriately sized reclaimed water main shall be constructed from the proposed alignment of the City's reclaimed water distribution system in Los Osos Valley Road to the end of Froom Ranch Drive, to serve as a public reclaimed water main. If reclaimed water is not yet available, the on-site 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 public reclaimed water distribution system. Appropriate backflow protection shall be installed with this connection to the satisfaction of the County Cross Connection Inspector, Henry Ruiz, who can be reached at 781-5567. 18. One tree required per 35 lineal feet of street frontage or any part thereof. Trees are to be 15 gal size and planted to city specifications Choose a species from the Master Street Tree list. a -3� ATTAGHMEW 4 Resolution No.5374-03 Page 5 Fire 19. Code Requirement: Access shall be in accordance with Article 9 of the California Fire Code. Access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet. Access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of a 60,000 pound fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. 20. Condition: Prior to combustible construction all-weather access shall be provided. All- weather access will include the first lift of asphalt. 21. Code Requirement: Water supplies shall be in accordance with Sections 901 and 903 of the California Fire Code. An approved water supply connected to the City distribution system and capable of providing the required fire flow for fire protection is required. The fire flow shall be determining using Appendix III-A of the California Fire Code. 22. Condition: Applicant shall provide a fire flow analysis verifying that adequate water is available for firefighting. Onsite water mains shall have an internal and external loop design. 23. Code Requirement: Fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with Section 903.4 of the California Fire Code. The location, number and type of hydrants connected to the City system shall be determined using Appendix III-B of the California Fire Code and the approved City Engineering Standards. 24. Condition: The location and distribution of fire hydrants shall be reviewed and approved prior to installation. 25. Code Requirement: Fire protection systems shall be in accordance with the California Fire Code and California Building Code as amended by the City. 26. Condition: Structures shall be provided with an approved and monitored fire sprinkler system(Service station canopy included). All fire protection equipment; valves and controls shall be located in a single location for rapid access and operation. Location of all such equipment shall be approved prior to installation. 27. Code Requirement: Buildings undergoing construction, alteration or demolition shall be in accordance with Article 87 of the California Fire Code. 28. Condition: Fire extinguishers shall be provided for buildings under construction. Combustible debris, waste material or rubbish shall not be accumulated within buildings or burned on the site. 29. Code Requirement: Automotive motor vehicle fuel-dispensing stations shall be in accordance with Article 52 and UFC Standard 52-1.Such operations shall include both publicly accessible and private operations. Flammable and combustible liquids and LP- gas shall also be in accordance with Articles 79 and 82. �V /o MACHMEW 4 Resolution No.5374-03 Page 6 30. Condition: Portions of the proposed project shall comply with one or more of the CUPA program elements (i.e. UGT's and Business Plans). Transportation 31. Bicycle Parking: The applicant shall provide the amount of long- and short-term bicycle storage as called'for by Section 17.16.060 of the City Zoning Regulations. a. Short-term bicycle storage (racks) shall comply with the design and location provisions of the adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan (reference Section IV.C, page 12). Consistent with these provisions, bike racks should be located close to and viewable form the building's main entrance. A location between the entry and the proposed tire sales outlet underneath the arbor appears to be an appropriate location. Alternatively, integrating the bike parking with the south end of the outdoor food service seating area might also be considered. (For additional guidance, applicant should refer to draft Community Design Guidelines recently acted on by the ARC.) b. Long-term bicycle storage shall be provided by installing fully enclosed lockers or reserving a dedicated lockable room within the structure for bike storage. c. The dimensioned location, type and orientation of all bicycle parking facilities and information that documents compliance with the above provisions shall be provided on the project plans considered by the ARC. 32. Connection to Adjoining Subdivision: The north end of the drive aisle (possible future public street)that separates the Costco building site from the nine-acre parcel fronting Los Osos Valley Road shall be designed to provide for pedestrian and bicycle access from the adjoining residential subdivision and street. 33. Pedestrian Connection: Provisions shall be incorporated into the site plans to provide for extension of a public pedestrian walkway between this project site and the adjacent residential neighborhood (Tract 2401), along the northwesterly boundary of the site (near the westerly corner of the site). 34. Truck Circulation: The project plans shall show the intended circulation route for delivery vehicles. The project's site plan shall be modified to achieve the following objectives: A. Establish a delivery vehicle circulation plan that avoids routing trucks along the parking lot aisle adjoining the residential subdivision. B. Consider.securing a turn around area to the rear of the Home Depot building (on the "not a part" parcel) to achieve above objective. 35. Pedestrian Connection to Transit Stop and Improvements: Project plans shall clearly identify a.raised pedestrian walkway that extends from the planned transit stop on Los Osos Valley Road to the main building entrance. Unless required of the adjoining Home Depot project,applicant shall install transit stop sign and shelter, to the approval of the City Transit Manager. Resolution No.5374-03 Page 7 36. The Access Easement: The 30-foot wide easement area shown adjoining the DeVaul tract should be limited to emergency access, drainage, and utilities. Public access should be precluded at this point. 37. An accessible path of travel shall be provided from all public rights-of-way to the proposed store. Provide a complete connection to the accessible pedestrian paths and from the access easement to be secured from Tract 2401. 38. The building plans shall show the extent of any proposed offsite improvements required for the connection to Tract 2401. Offsite improvements shall be coordinated with the approved Tract 2401 improvement plans to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 39. Show the gas station future island expansion on the landscape plans to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 40. The parking lot shall be designed in accordance with the parking and driveway standards. Complete parking lot plans have not been made available for review at this time.. Striping, maneuverability, grading, drainage,traffic controls,pavement structural sections, and accessibility will.be reviewed when complete plans have been provided and soils engineer recommendations are available for review. 41. Engineered grading plans will be required per the adopted grading ordinance in effect at the time of building and/or grading permit application. The grading plans shall include the quantity of cut and fill required for this development. If cut and fill quantities are not balanced, the plans shall clarify the borrow and/or deposit areas as applicable. 42. An updated soils engineering report shall be provided for this development at the time of building permit application. Attached.Mitigation Measures, Costco/Froom Ranch Final EIR, June, 2003 On motion by Commr. Caruso, seconded by Commr. Cooper, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Aiken, Cooper, Caruso, Osborne, Loh and Christianson NOES: Commr. Boswell REFRAIN: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 24`h day of September, 2003. Z4:44� on Whisenand Planning Commission Secretary Kesotuuon -t► p PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.5373-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 15405 1500,and 1521 FROOM RANCH WAY (APPLICATION#ER 173-00) 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`s, 2003, for the purpose of considering the Final EIR for the Costco Project and future development of adjacent parcels on Froom Ranch Way; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding a recommendation to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the Final EIR; 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 Project Final EIR which includes 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: 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 Visual Resources, Air Quality, Cultural and Historic Resources, Geologic Hazards, Hazardous Materials, Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation, Noise, Transportation, Public Services and Utilities; the approved mitigation measures contained in the EIR 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. 4. The significant effects identified in the Air Quality, and Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation sections of the EIR will not be fully mitigated to a degree of insignificance with the incorporation of all of the identified mitigation measures included in the EIR. However, the Planning Commission finds that the adverse environmental effects are acceptable and makes a statement of overriding MACHU�, Resolution No.5373-03 ER 173-00 Page 2 considerations for those significant and unavoidable environmental impacts because: a. Mitigation strategies required for the Costco project component reduce the developments impacts to cumulative drainage to a less than significant level and; b. Mitigation strategies help to reduce project emissions and ultimately put the air basin in closer compliance with established State and federal standards to the greatest extent possible with a development project of this scale. 5. The General Plan Land Use Element EIR prepared in 1994 adopted an overriding consideration for potential noise impacts that may occur from increased traffic due to development of this site as.a regional serving commercial site.. Therefore elimination of mitigation requiring a sound wall between Los Osos Valley Road and existing residences is justified. Furthermore, construction of a sound wall will produce significant visual impacts to existing residences. Section 2. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council certify the Final EIR for the project. On motion by Commr. Caruso, seconded by Commr. Cooper, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Aiken, Cooper, Caruso, Osborne, Loh and Christianson NOES: Commr. Boswell REFRAIN: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 24`h day of September, 2003. 'k7onaid Whisenan Planning Commi cion Secretary ,2-qY DRAFT Attachment 5 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., Cadyn 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 of 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. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 994 Mill Street. Use Permit Appl. U 60-03: Request to allow additional and upgraded rooftop wireless telecommunications equipment; 0 zone; Verizon Wireless, applicant. (Continued from September 10, 2003.) (Tyler Corey) Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending approval of the use permit, based on findings and subject to one condition. He explained this is a Draft Planning Commissic. Les ATTACHMENT t September 24, 2003 Page 2 modification to an existing wireless telecommunications facility on the roof of the building. Commr. Aiken questioned the visibility of the panels. He felt the enclosure or support structure for these antennas is discontinuous and allows for viewing of existing antennas. .He suggested the enclosure or wall be extended to act as a parapet or screen wall that would screen the existing mechanical equipment as well, and asked if staff or the ARC had considered this. Planner Dunsmore explained this had been considered by both staff and the ARC. However, there are satellite dishes that must have a line of sight and cannot be located behind the RF transparent wall. Arlin Nichol, General Dynamics and applicant's representative, explained that he has been working with the Verizon radio engineers for almost a year trying to develop an aesthetically pleasing design that would be compatible with the existing design of the structure. He explained the purpose for this project is to convert to a panel antenna design, which provides for much greater capacity from this particular location, as well as greater sensitivity. The ARC recommended a full perimeter screen wall, which Verizon was agreeable to. He reiterated that the microwave dishes cannot be covered because they are very high frequency and very direct line of sight type of communications antenna, and provide back-and-forth communications to some of the mountain top sites surrounding San Luis Obispo. He noted the screen wall is 10-feet tall; the proposed panel antennas will be located behind the screen. PUBLIC COMMENT MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, opposed rooftop antennas because they are unattractive. COMMISSION COMMENT Commr. Loh moved to-approve the use permit as proposed, with a height.exception at certain areas.. based on findings and subject to conditions, with finding 2 modified to read " . . . architecturally compatible in scale and design with the building. Seconded by Commr. Aiken. AYES: Commrs, Aiken, Cooper, Caruso, Osborne, Loh, Boswell and Christianson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carries on a 7:0 vote. 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) Draft Planning Commissic �,i �spMCHMENTt September 24, 2003 Page 3 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 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. WHY Commr. Cooper questioned statutes statin(ithe at there should be a separation criteria of 1000 feet between any concurrent saleslet. He did not understand how 5,000 square feet relates to this issue, and askeissue 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.. 2- y7 Draft Planning Commissic sites ATTACHMEQ September 24, 2003 Page 4 Planner Dunsmore explained that Section 5.36 is a complete prohibition of alcoholic beverages. Section 17.08, which is not currently in effect,mMehrallows 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. o2-`?�� Draft Planning Commissi� es ��C��� September 24,2003 A v Page 5 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-rbet4evafd. 1-05 0so5 VAIIL. (QOAO t bSPGLfAI�Y �^�'��� Iq�.�dsuMc 7aCts MS>cq0 6f: Pins• 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. .2 -V7 Draft Planning Commissio. ites MACHME 5 September 24, 2003 Page 6 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. z _�o Draft Planning Commissio, .;rtes �� September 24, 2003 Page 7 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. Commr. Cooper moved to have the City Council consider modification to lanqua-ge 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 on the same parcel serving alcoholic 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. 3. 1540 Froom Ranch Way. U and ER 1.73-00: Review of the Final Environmental Impact Report and proposal to construct a 140,000 sq. ft. (+/-) warehouse store, member-only fueling center, and ancillary site improvements; C-R zone; Costco Wholesale (Todd Bartok), applicant. (Phi!Dunmore) ,2-�/ Draft Planning Commissic .ites �IIA�� �r1N19� September 24, 2003 Page 8 Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report, asking the Commission to adopt a resolution recommending the City Council certify the Final EIR with findings of overriding considerations relative to drainage and air quality, and grant conditional approval of the Use Permit allowing a 140,000 square foot warehouse store and three-island fueling center, based on findings and subject to conditions, code requirements, and mitigation measures. He noted the EIR addresses the development of the Costco site, as well as future development of two additional parcels at Los Osos Valley Road, a total of 32 acres of land with commercial development potential. Planner Dunsmore discussed a minor change to the EIR text, recommended by the EIR consultant, noting it is not considered a significant impact, therefore, recirculation of the EIR is not required. He explained the amendment simply adds a new section titled "New Land Use Trend" and discusses how the realignment of Calle Joaquin will potentially affect future land uses. He also noted the revision has been included in the public record to ensure all potential secondary effects are adequately addressed. Commr. Cooper questioned the issue of Traffic Impact Fees, noting some inconsistencies in the text such as the responsibility of TIF fees by the front parcel applicants. He noted this issue was the main reason the EIR was not certified at the previous hearing. Deputy Public Works Director Tim Bochum, explained that both the Costco and the front two parcels will be responsible for paying fair-share contributions toward the LOVR interchange project improvements. He referred to the two mitigation measures, noting they are structured so that the applicant(s) will either pay a fair-share mitigation fee determined by the City, or if the city-wide Transportation Improvement Fee Program is amended by the time of Council approval, they will pay that established TIF fee. Commr. Boswell questioned Finding 8, which addresses fuel and alcohol sales issues, and suggested changing the language of that finding. Attorney Trujillo suggested adding language to that finding as follows: "If adopted by the City Council as proposed by the Planning Commission . . . the fueling station does not conflict . . ." Todd Bartok, applicant, submitted a letter he received electronically from the City's Public Works Department that further clarifies the Traffic Impact Fees, and breaks them down in an understandable format, and stated that he is satisfied with the TIF dollar amounts. He requested an interim alignment option so that if they are unable to obtain proper wetland permits through the Army Corps of Engineers, there would be an alternative to the solution, at the sole cost of Costco for its project. Planner Dunsmore discussed the issue of Public Art and input from the ARC regarding the potential for putting money into a fund for the entire site (Home Depot, Costco, and the Madonna parcels) resulting in one very nice piece of art either at this location or at a more appropriate location. Commr. Cooper felt the mechanism for such an option is the public art in-lieu fee. Draft Planning Commissic ;tes ���191� September 24, 2003 Page 9 Ian Adam, Fusco Engineering, explained that off-site drainage would be collected in a detention basin, which will have regulated discharge at Los Osos Valley Road. Drainage will be collected into a proposed storm drain system that leads to LOVR, and those flows will not be combined with the water quality efforts made from the project itself (drainage area 1). He then explained the drainage from the gasoline service area will be collected into a specific system that treats all runoff from the gasoline area into a storm drain insert (versus an oil/water separator) and into a bioswale system (drainage area 2). Drainage area 3 will be discharged into a second storm drain insert, which would then discharge into a proposed swale system that joins up to the regional swale. He explained the preference for a swale is because they are designed to take flows from a pinpoint source (oil/water separator) and gradually even out the flows; the bio- retention concept introduces more ponding which is susceptible mosquito issues and regulatory issues. Commr. Cooper asked if the vegetated swale parallel to Los Osos Valley Road is incorporated into the proposed berm system. Planner Dunsmore responded that the berm system is for the retail pad in front of the proposed Costco, and is not part of this project. In response to questions from Commr. Boswell, Mr. Adam clarified that the storm drain insert is a vortex sieve system, and the sieve can be sized to remove pollutants of certain sizes. They are equipped with an oil/water entrapment device at the top, and perform much better than oil/water separators. He noted there is a formula and calculation for water quality treatment (a legal regulatory definition), and the storm drain inserts will be sized specifically for the area.. Commr. Loh questioned the pedestrian linkage to DeVaul Ranch. She asked if this was intentionally omitted from the plans. Jeff Wilson, architect, responded that there have been detailed discussions with the ARC regarding the existing sidewalk from LOVR going down the south side of Parcel 1 along Froom Ranch Way. The ARC asked if there could be a continuous linkage from LOVR back to the center of the site. To address the ARC, Mr. Wilson noted he wants to work with the adjoining property owner to come up with a location that allows a connection between the residential area to create a series of spines that will connect all the parcels together and make it easy for pedestrians to circulate throughout the site. PUBLIC COMMENT MaryBeth Shroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, opposed the Costco development, and the concurrent sale of alcohol and fuel. Brett Cross, 1217 Mariner's Cove, had concerns with the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and did not feel the mitigation measures proposed are "to the greatest extent possible". He suggested that Costco provide, as mitigation, free delivery within a 25-30 mile radius of the store to cut down on the traffic impacts, since this a regional 2-S-3 Draft Planning Commissic ^ .ites ARRC ME9 September 24, 2003 Page 10 draw. He expressed concern with the potential for cut-through traffic occurring, and questioned why solar panels are not proposed to address energy issues. Michael Sullivan, SLO, felt the EIR remains deficient and does not meet CEQA requirements. He expressed his confusion that parcels 1 and 3 are included as part of the EIR since specific development proposals for those sites have not been determined. He explained that CEQA requires a tiering sequence be identified for environmental review, which has not been done for this project. He felt the mitigation proposals in various instances are too vague or ineffective, and that there are instances of improper deferral of mitigations. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commr. Osborne questioned if the interim realignment of Calle Joaquin should have been addressed in the EIR. Planner Dunsmore responded that the applicant has recently offered this option as a way to temporarily avoid the impacts associated with the wetlands and the additional permits that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. It is not known if this scenario would avoid additional environmental impacts. Mary Rentz, EIR consultant, noted that secondary impacts were considered for any type of alternative alignment of Calle Joaquin. However, it could not be addressed in detail since plans have not yet been established, but previous EIR's were tiered off of, such as the 1989 EIR for the Madonna General Plan Amendment in the County of SLO. She explained that a thorough vegetative survey was performed as part of that EIR so they are aware of wetlands, secondary impacts, and areas that can be mitigated. She noted the specifics of the mitigation measures have not yet been established because the alignment and alternative alignment must first be staked so exact acreages can be calculated and exact locations determined. Commr. Osborne asked for advice on the advisability of certifying and EIR given that so many issues remain to be resolved in a detailed way. Attorney Trujillo responded that the staff report indicates the amendment is not a significant change to the document and does not result in new significant impacts or additional mitigation measures. He explained that if any Commissioner disagrees with those statements and have a factual basis for it, that would be grounds to re-circulate the EIR. Commr. Caruso moved the staff recommendation for the Use Permit and EIR with two changes as follows: Change to TR MM 2-A which would add language to the new #1 of the Final EIR to read: 1. Realign Calle Joaquin South to Calle Joaquin North . . . .or an alternative interim alignment that meets City and State Design Standards, to be approved by the Director of Public Works. Change to VR MM 5: Alternatively the applicant can pay the appropriate in-lieu fee for the purposes of providing a public art display in the immediate vicinity. Change TR MM 1 from 12 months to 15 months. Change Condition S. to read: "If adopted by the City Council as proposed by the �-S'y Draft Planning COmmisSk ,.Butes ATTACHM IS September 24,2003 Page 11 Planning Commission the fueling station does not conflict with the City's ordinance . " Seconded by Commr. Cooper. Commr. Boswell had concerns with the Statement of Overriding Considerations in that there was no benefit side that the City is required to weigh against the cost side. He felt the Commission could act on it, but the language should be incorporated in the recommendation to the Council. Attorney Trujillo clarified that a textbook example of a Statement of Overriding Considerations 1) summarizes each of the impacts; 2) identifies the specific factors justifying the project despite the impacts (social, economic or any other factors); and 3) points out where in the record the evidence is that supports those findings. Commr. Boswell noted he could not support the use permit because he did not feel the finding has been made that "the building in which the use is to be located, is designed in discrete-elements that respect the scale of development in the surrounding areas. Commr. Christianson felt the economic benefits of a Costco will be substantial. She also felt the project fits into the scale of development in the surrounding area since there is a large store on one side and a large residential development on the other side. Since it is at the far rear of four large lots, she felt that once those lots are built out, Costco would become nearly invisible, and supported the project. AYES: Commrs. Aiken, Cooper, Caruso, Christianson, Loh and Osborne NOES: Commr. Boswell. ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carries on a 6:1 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION 4. Agenda Forecast Mike Draze gave an agenda forecast, noting several upcoming regular and special hearings to review the Housing Element Update, including an October 1St Town Hall Meeting. It was clarified that the Housing Element will be the last item at regular meetings. With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. to the special Town Hall Meeting on October 1, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber. Respectfully Submitted, Diane Stuart Management Assistant z -SS Resolution "B" k \ - Attachment 6 RESOLUTION NO. (2003 Series). A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT FOR A 140,000 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE STORE AND A FUELING CENTER AT 1540 FROOM RANCH WAY APPLICATION # 173-00 WHEREAS, the City Council 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 November 4th, 2003, for the purpose of considering Application U 173-00, a Planning Commission Use Permit to: 1. Allow a 140,000 square foot Warehouse store; and 2. Allow the establishment of three-island fuel station. WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the Project's Final EIR which includes the mitigation monitoring program prepared for the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff and the Planning Commission, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings: 1. The EIR adequately addresses the proposed project, and can be used in taking a final action on all aspects of the project, including the use permit.. 2. The use of the property for a large scale, regional serving retail store is consistent with the General Plan, which identifies this vicinity as appropriate for such development. 3. The proposed use is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding uses with implementation of the conditions of approval and the mitigation measures contained in the EIR. 4. The scale of the building is compatible with existing uses in the area and maintains the appropriate relationships with surrounding buildings and the adjacent residential area. 5. The proposed use will serve the community, in whole or in significant part, and the nature of the use requires a larger size in order to function. The proposed use has Resolution «B,. Attachment 6 RESOLUTION NO. (2003 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT FOR A 140,000 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE STORE AND A FUELING CENTER AT 1540 FROOM RANCH WAY APPLICATION # 173-00 WHEREAS, the City Council 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 November 4th, 2003, for the purpose of considering Application U 173-00, a Planning Commission Use Permit to: 1. Allow a 140,000 square foot Warehouse store; and 2. Allow the establishment of three-island fuel station. WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the Project's Final EIR which includes the mitigation monitoring program prepared for the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff and the Planning Commission, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings: 1. The EIR adequately addresses the proposed project, and can be used in taking a final action on all aspects of the project, including the use permit. 2. The use of the property fora large scale, regional serving retail store is consistent with the General Plan, which identifies this vicinity as appropriate for such development. 3. The proposed use is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding uses with implementation of the conditions of approval and the mitigation measures contained in the EIR. 4. The scale of the building is compatible with existing uses in the area and maintains the appropriate relationships with surrounding buildings and the adjacent residential area. 5. The proposed use will serve the community, in whole or in significant part, and the nature of the use requires a larger size in order to function. The proposed use has o�-S 7 Attachment 6 Resolution No. [ Page 2 the potential to attract a regional demand, therefore resulting in a potential increase of local restaurant, entertainment and even other retail uses. The nature of a Costco Warehouse store is that it works as several retail shops under one roof, the tremendous variety and the warehouse-like style contributes to the necessity of the excessive size. 6. The building in which the use is to be located is designed in discrete-elements that respect the scale of development in the surrounding area. 7. The new building is designed in compliance with the City's Design Guidelines for Large-Scale Retail Projects. 8. A warehouse store with a fueling station does not constitute a service station under section 5.36.020 and is consequently not subject to the prohibition of concurrent alcohol and fuel sales because: a. In 1982, when the predecessor provision to section 5.36.020 was adopted by the City Council, warehouse stores were not contemplated, as Costco was not yet in existence and Price Club in San Diego was only a few years old. b. In 1988, when the predecessor provision to section 5.36.020 was affirmed by the City Council, while warehouse stores were known, the inclusion of-fueling stations at warehouse stores was not contemplated (Costco, founded in 1983, added its first fueling station in 1996). c. In adopting the predecessor provision to section 5.36.020 in 1982, and in affirming that provision in 1988, the City Council was concerned with drinking and driving, increased potential for robberies from gas stations selling alcoholic beverages, conflicts between cars and pedestrians, and visual blight. d. The proposed project is similar to a gas station being located adjacent to a supermarket that sells alcoholic beverages. One significant difference between the two situations is that the proposed project would occur on a single parcel while a gas station and an adjacent supermarket are on two separate parcels. e. The proposed project is very different from a gas station with a retail component in that: 1. there is a separation of 480' between the fueling station and the entrance to the retail store where alcohol can be purchased; 2. fuel and retail items must be paid for separately and at different locations; 3. one must park one's car to purchase retail items, one cannot shop while one's car is being fueled; 4. alcohol is sold unrefrigerated and in large containers or quantities not convenient for immediate consumption; 5. fuel and other items can only be purchased by members of the club and sales to the general public are not allowed. f. On October 7, 2003, in response to concerns raised by gas station operators that the prohibition on fuel and alcohol sales is unfair to them in light of the proposed Costco application and is not in compliance with state law, the City Council directed staff to prepare amendments to the City's zoning regulations that comport with state law. The proposed draft amendments are expected to be presented to the City Council within the next couple of months. Attachment 6 Resolution No. [ ] Page 3 g. The proposed project will provide retail services not presently available in San Luis Obispo. h. The proposed project will provide tax revenues to the City. i. The proposed project will fulfill the General Plan expectation for this particular site. j. This project will assist in the implementation of necessary traffic improvements along the Los Osos Valley Road/101 Corridor. 9. City Council finds that interpreting section 5.36.020 to apply to a warehouse store with a fueling station would lead to absurd consequences because of Finding No. 8 above. 10.City Council finds that interpreting section 5.36.020 to apply to a warehouse store with a fueling station will not further the purpose of the ordinance and will not meet changing conditions such as the development of warehouse stores with fueling stations. Section 2. Approval. The City Council does hereby approve application U 173- 00, subject to the following conditions and code requirements: 1. All mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR shall be included as conditions of approval, and are incorporated herein by reference. 2. The Development of the Costco site shall be subject to review by the Architectural Review Commission for consistency with the City's design Guidelines for Large- Scale Retail Projects. 3. Pedestrian access to the Costco property shall be linked with De Vaul Ranch Drive, subject to coordination with the City and adjacent property owners. 4. The project applicant 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 project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review. Code Requirements: Note: The following code requirements are included for information purposes only. They serve to give the applicant a general idea of other City requirements that will apply to the project. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list as other requirements may be identified during the plan check process. Additionally these code requirements were formulated prior to release of the project final EIR. The final EIR supercedes the code requirements where a conflict occurs. Public Works 1. All conditions and requirements of Parcel Map SLO 00-041 per City Council Resolution #9061 (2000 Series) that were deferred to development shall be �'S`� 1 Attachment 6 Resolution No. [ ] Page 4 considered as included as conditions of approval for this development as applicable. 2. Any outstanding conditional approval items from Parcel Map SLO 00-041 that required performance of said item prior to occupancy shall be noted on the building plans as needing to be completed prior to occupancy. 3. Drainage calculations shall be submitted for review and approval to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Building Official. 4. Any off-site easements for grading, drainage, slope banks, access, utilities, etc. shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance. 5. Proposed detention basin grading outside the city limits shall be approved to the satisfaction of the County Building and Planning Department prior to the issuance of any city permits that show or require the off-site grading. 6. The building plans shall include a complete grading, drainage, and erosion control plan. 7. 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 result 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 requires a permit. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To 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. 8. Driveway improvements, pavement, utilities, pedestrian walkway and bikeway improvements, etc., along the proposed northeasterly property line shall be constructed to accommodate a possible future public street, as provided for as a condition of the parcel map, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 9. Traffic impact fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Traffic impact fees are applicable to both the retail store and the gas station. Gas station impact fees shall be based on the final approved plans and APCD permit approvals for the number of nozzles (dispensers). 10.Truck routes for grading import and/or exports and material deliveries shall be established for northerly and southerly destinations in accordance with the circulation element and shall be noted on the building/grading plans. 11.The building plans shall be consistent with the recorded map and improvement plans for street naming, public and private easements, utilities, streets, and dedications. a -GO Attachment 6 Resolution No. [ ] Page 5 Utilities 12.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 the Wastewater Impact Fees are based on the size of the water meter(s) serving the development. 13.Appropriate backflow prevention will be necessary on any connection to the City water system if the property includes an active well. All backflow preventers shall be approved by the University of Southern California Foundation for Cross- Connection Control and Hydraulic Research. The project shall be coordinated with the County Cross-Connection Inspector, Henry Ruiz, who can be reached at 781-5567. 14.Due to the proposed gasoline station at the site, industrial waste/wastewater pretreatment requirements may apply. The project shall be coordinated with the City's Industrial Waste Coordinator for specific requirements. 15.A separate connection to the public water main shall be required for automatic fire sprinklers. The fire service lateral shall include a USC approved backflow preventer appropriate for the proposed use. The backflow preventer shall be located as close to the public right-of-way as possible, in direct alignment with the connection to the public water main. The backflow preventer can be located no further than 25 feet from the right-of-way line without prior written approval of the Utilities Engineer. If the fire service supports one or more fire hydrants, the USC approved backflow preventer shall also include detector capabilities (double detector check assembly). The FDC may be located behind the backflow prevention assembly, in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. The location and orientation of the FDC shall be approved by the Fire Department. A monthly service fee of $22.40 shall be required if the property does not have a connection to the City system for domestic use. 16.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. 17.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. An appropriately sized reclaimed water main shall be constructed from the proposed alignment of the City's reclaimed water distribution system in Los Osos Valley Road to the end of Froom Ranch Drive, to serve as a public reclaimed water main. If reclaimed water is not yet available, the on-site 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 public reclaimed water distribution '92__0 Attachment 5 Resolution No. [ ] Page 6 system. Appropriate backflow protection shall be installed with this connection to the satisfaction of the County Cross Connection Inspector, Henry Ruiz, who can be reached at 781-5567. 18. One tree required per 35 lineal feet of street frontage or any part thereof. Trees are to be 15 gal size and planted to city specifications Chose a species from the Master Street Tree list. Fire 19.Code Requirement: Access shall be in accordance with Article 9 of the California Fire Code. Access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet. Access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of a 60,000 pound fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. 20.Condition: Prior to combustible construction all-weather access shall be provided. All-weather access will include the first lift of asphalt. 21.Code Requirement: Water supplies shall be in accordance with Sections 901 and 903 of the California Fire Code. An approved water supply connected to the City distribution system and capable of providing the required fire flow for fire protection is required. The fire flow shall be determining using Appendix III-A of the California Fire Code. 22.Condition: Applicant shall provide a fire flow analysis verifying that adequate water is available for firefighting. Onsite water mains shall have an internal and external loop design. 23.Code Requirement: Fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with Section 903.4 of the California Fire Code. The location, number and type of hydrants connected to the City system shall be determined using Appendix III-B of the California Fire Code and the approved City Engineering Standards. 24.Condition: The location and distribution of fire hydrants shall be reviewed and approved prior to installation. 25.4. Fire Protection Systems and Equipment: 26.Code Requirement: Fire protection systems shall be in accordance with the California Fire Code and California Building Code as amended by the City. 27.Condition: Structures shall be provided with an approved and monitored fire sprinkler system (Service station canopy included). All fire protection equipment; valves and controls shall be located in a single location for rapid access and operation. Location of all such equipment shall be approved prior to installation. 28.Code Requirement: Buildings undergoing construction, alteration or demolition shall be in accordance with Article 87 of the California Fire Code. 2-.6.6z, Resolution No. ( ] Attachment 6 Page 7 29.Condition: Fire extinguishers shall be provided for buildings under construction. Combustible debris, waste material or rubbish shall not be accumulated within buildings or burned on the site. 30.Code Requirement: Automotive motor vehicle fuel-dispensing stations shall be in accordance with Article 52 and UFC Standard 52-1. Such operations shall include both publicly accessible and private operations. Flammable and combustible liquids and LP-gas shall also be in accordance with Articles 79 and 82. 31.Condition: Portions of the proposed project shall comply with one or more of the CUPA program elements(i.e. UGT's and Business Plans). Transportation 32.Bicycle Parking: The applicant shall provide the amount of long- and short-term bicycle storage as called for by Section 17.16.060 of the City Zoning Regulations. a. Short-term bicycle storage (racks) shall comply with the design and location provisions of the adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan (reference Section IV.C, page 12). Consistent with these provisions, bike racks should be located close to and viewable form the building's main entrance.. A location between the entry and the proposed tire sales outlet underneath the arbor appears to be an appropriate location. Alternatively, integrating the bike parking with the south end of the outdoor food service seating area might also be considered. (For additional guidance, applicant should refer to draft Community Design Guidelines recently acted on by the ARC.) b. Long-term bicycle storage shall be provided by installing fully enclosed lockers or reserving a dedicated lockable room within the structure for bike storage.. c. The dimensioned location, type and orientation of all bicycle parking facilities and information that documents compliance with the above provisions shall be provided on the project plans considered by the ARC. 33.Connection to Adjoining Subdivision: The north end of the drive aisle (possible future public street) that separates the Costco building site from the nine-acre parcel fronting Los Osos Valley Road shall be designed to provide for pedestrian and bicycle access from the adjoining residential subdivision and street. 34.Pedestrian Connection: Provisions shall be incorporated into the site plans to provide for extension of a public pedestrian walkway between this project site and the adjacent residential neighborhood (Tract.2401), along the northwesterly boundary of the site (near the westerly comerof the site). Z-C�3 Attachment 6 Resolution No. [ ] Page 8 35.Truck Circulation: The project plans shall show the intended circulation route for delivery vehicles. The project's site plan shall be modified to achieve the following objectives: A. Establish a delivery vehicle circulation plan that avoids routing trucks along the parking lot aisle adjoining the residential subdivision. B. Consider securing a tum around area to the rear of the Home Depot building (on the "not a part" parcel) to achieve above objective. 36.Pedestrian Connection to Transit Stop and Improvements: Project plans shall clearly identify a raised pedestrian walkway that extends from the planned transit stop on Los Osos Valley Road to the main building entrance. Unless required of the adjoining Home Depot project, applicant shall install transit stop sign and shelter, to the approval of the City Transit Manager. 37.The Access Easement: The 30-foot wide easement area shown adjoining the DeVaul tract should be limited to emergency access, drainage, and utilities. Public access should be precluded at this point. 38.An accessible path of travel shall be provided from all public rights-of-way to the proposed store. Provide a complete connection to the accessible pedestrian paths and from the access easement to be secured from Tract 2401. 39.The building plans shall show the extent of any proposed offsite improvements required for the connection to Tract 2401. Offsite improvements shall be coordinated with the approved Tract 2401 improvement plans to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 40.Show the gas station future island expansion on the landscape plans to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 41.The parking lot shall be designed in accordance with the parking and driveway standards. Complete parking lot plans have not been made available for review at this time. Striping, maneuverability, grading, drainage, traffic controls, pavement structural sections, and accessibility will be reviewed when complete plans have been provided and soils engineer recommendations are available for review. 42.Engineered grading plans will be required per the adopted grading ordinance in effect at the time of building and/or grading permit application. The grading plans shall include the quantity of cut and fill required for this development. If cut and fill quantities are not balanced, the plans shall clarify the borrow and/or deposit areas as applicable. 43.An updated soils engineering report shall be provided for this development at the time of building permit application. Attachment 6 Resolution No. [ ] Page 9 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. David F. Romero, Mayor ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jona4wKP. Lowell, City Attorney ATTACHMENT a r_ Y a > a c E 3 0 � U C' O = o ._. m Q a a ° W N O O y Q C .b 00 co y U 7 Y -4y V 0 73 r- 0v NY° `oa 4 0 - ° x 'oDo 0 C ••1 FL o > E v°di Ny aa o � Aa v .S 'O v b o °Y _ o 5 o Gv y 4. cul E.. V vi �u l: U � ° v�' � o ° Cly e ° A Z c a a y aO aNi o .S m N N p y c z m 2 U m N N = v a m a N >> y7y1 C �Y 'D N O U ?j' L o. �.. �. C' E •� E c°+ � L ° :° o 3 °c Ea �' ca a._ > eo 3 c � I03t = o0 c Z =.S .° ° ° _ r � E p ° a°i oEc ° c •> ❑ o ca. env ti � pE • a N Y Y L 3 A d A n v o m� ° 3 `o a L ° W e W om o . v X U v� a •a mm e E c ° o ai - o c y ° ° o a S o 0 0 -U o � N y U y M am E = ` 0 5 o o a a Q c s� cE a ° W 'o 'o E o o c EG�, as � E ` y � � Am30QQ � 00 r € x w w € € o � � e Q 0 c a A v ° cn Y obi o K w 'aj G ccIZ p3 vi `i C E 0. O C ° > V m Q N y •� 0 Y C a' ° �. E 3 ° E y J,�•• o e O S Qz U N = O y ? A > > c v fftzC C N a N Q O 0 C O C Oj U a U a .E c >, A V Q U 'O Z-(o 4 ATTACHMENT L a 3 7 m � d a ° y °.3 4 m Q a � aV S c > a o `oC y Sc o a m .Q .� o f E '� E 0. c �. Q y 3 c .: N G7 O. 7 b G aj y y t � iz Eas @ $ E a c m c a " ° o 00 to yy ^ E co C U o G V b v y c E U c �Q m ° ob a 00 0 -14 t',oO. E e € 3 eg > 9y `c ° O mou ° pI_ rpoo. yaU .83E94.. � .. cr rnys oyaa d co ' .�`c++• `- m 6, .moi. o ° ¢ c o y '� d 'O & L U ° y C C y iC O 7 E y O �. rJ -O 5 ;C m O m L'. rJ ''� y G. 0 0 0 ° p C p W 0 0. F 0. c 'E a Via z a ^ E 0. p p .a = "> A y ° '. o' a°'i E F 0.Up.,� �:° E c `d ° o [[ v p o y ° x� y E o c yds � r V] 'J V] U m 0. 0.F 5 Q ¢ U W O £ 0 p v £ p L V] �. V1 E •cay En E00 Q v ° o p a) W Q E o F e a° a U � ° o OQ C .. Q o X �. o Z a ayi i u c 0 0 U g" Q o F 2 -07 ATTACHMENT b a Q a E Q 0 4 m u �i c m o i a C U C O OQ CO u . U O � L O_ O O Q 4 E i 0 y G _ C -^. V 0 C Gy 3 O C •oD y of y y a`i C Q u Q J Op h `� d � � � � > A F4 y ys m e 'gam o u y � qo � 0; 33 ° � ¢ �°Zt8 ° 5 t 3 o cap > + e > 'v E 00 o;0 O V �` N y •Q �' d V ° Ecc x ° ° p 30 �L .m a °: ahtry � m ^ .; tk d8 � O v ao 0.� p d Z °j h G 'E > ° �+ `0 E y m ° w y y ° v o v -d :i � cm t •.� .ti ae a a z € o F, • sc `n o a CA Rk E `c e c g o .. � z a C z A O � V o- U - ATTAC(1ME Ilp Q s a E m a .. o �. ate' obi �'i Q Q v O o q1 N v b G. m ` Z.iy � � 4 � ` v Q Q o � oN Ceq D E 0. V = o L d V Q �¢Ctj FL o C � � � tz p w d Q v 50 q� o ,000aa., � 4� y = •aim °Q' � 01 � � ° � � o 5 G C QC3 .,Z Q y .E y 6p Q .t3 Y •C y V .. 9 cEi a v & ° 8 ° > o . o � 'c_ o � � i ° � � % Eoo a� ° a�6 m ^4 oVi .. �' ae v O = o W v� c� S l Q eo ado. E $ � 0 8 'y• � N o °u � a 4` & a .< o'3 ^o • ° �� qqS G y �_ U � h o � o� oa@ o �q off, n o � m � — 4 y.y d Q u ? Q 'C y to 0 722 .0 ci 'O ci m ,L u � F 0 • s o0 m o a e Q4 a E Q o e 0 a ° C u a O � L 0 U e � � Q• a c a a E U U U d a a h ^ _ a Z .aC y a Ow U o �• e � .Cry � •y c 6 = L � � O U ca � Z C v d eao mcg o:=col Z `e � o 0'0p :, = C; y a m Co ^a a $_ •mZt m � � ° c eD W m o .3 i 'a ►� o yz � ecE co :. a oeLc a E � — " W �p O y '� o� ¢> cai �i •° y N p v' 'C E•� a v. G, C U q �.' L �' L J z ° •ice• aoCE2 c 000ao L% a s y o .° ul C o ° C a a 0 3 o• d `0 AE � 0 b E GU a � >1 �� Z ECO .1 .._, .:ice .0. o O w a.= a u • O (� U � (� �4r O A vOi .� L L o r .° c o a ° `3 o y aU .1Z a 0 ° � o c� o � ¢ m � O0 -o'a C .0 a Od ° > L N C cc r- a X E a ? ° U � _a ['j � � z acai � y '• r � y 2 0 ai Y V73O U Fara — oL > y3 as cc ca U ° T•� a •4 Q� p o ,� a •o5 � y b � o • .d .. .E ° x X X d L U ° w .. O i > I � a ATTACHMEN 00 _J q a c E y •� G a � '�, �.... II. o y •. �0 G y G q O U �O q E a... .b U p •pc U� O 10 '� y U C7 y>•C. o y C. .0 N y b LOro 1yy� .X O V C cy U y a C 7 — `� O OD q U O.Z ti 0 0O' lGn O y c y ` €Co 0 '� �• ?' cc q L — ••n y o ^' A 'C'• •' ;7 C� y > a Ci • C L > m V O U Cco y c G ai 9 E c � n: a c y o o o O V = 0 .2 c :5 r. �' € °i � c0 cc c a °Da o °=oO 0 Ev ' a 3 e0 d —U = O Ocr n aon. ,L? E") - o c o o m y' c oco m 0 0. CI- °' 0°s �0 co o. P. q $ 0 . yc .E oo - yco y 3 o b `0 = az o � �oA CO 2 � a ooicoob - 0 .4 3pe Gr 9 G O O'— o Iti 16; y ^ — O E0 o oC o > yn 3 a o am N ,E > � bwb3 > E - L N n v r v=ie c o r C 7 ti vi ooU O.� o y G p g y i j c 10, c 4 v. G � t8 —p _ O cc G co 7 + O G q O '� q •� ZQ 'u r0 Q G V1 •� ct �„ 7 •1 L o O U C c0 o 0 A ° >Ql ? •° Z-71 ATTACiMENT e 'e 1 y a e EISI U MM� I� 5 a m m �--� 4 .O N C ti .V. FS Gv Y oca On -0 .m , J I. o' C-n Off' O ��i of U "p 'fl O C O d C "-' "$ C •� Q N O �+ lWj ^ 6 Q 'O Q rz 06 0 oc - co. 6aoZs Q . 4' p,Q .O "`�. w •�`,• .�. a 'Cj � a 5 ate .° a _ .° c , � y q 4 � @ Q o � W U a W C y ^J r.O kj -cc c.. p � ice` C iC4.,� � v t � v, a •^, m c .D .--, ❑ o � �, -$ � A' `� v Q 'o o `0i ^ 'r .0 p o c u tiLQ3 c o 3 c' eaeo m GQ a •=° �' o m W € 0. c CIO m 4 • .0 Uo .R o m ,5 > .5 4-rz Z, -o 4 o v o o s a m e _ y o a U g v - 4 m = i c 3 rl bpU c° o N � �. 4e o d a c w 5 O c i C C O C yO "� Eo ' 7v = � 7yp Eco - � � � V V £ •C a y .� £ C W f'�i U O \\ V h 0 0 N b p .0 y N 0 •i: :: K v C MU U oc W .� a A U GO 'ow h l 0 4 u r7 \ € 0 F F c C o f=/1 G O N C C •- � p� oo O C C GY z C � O W U p U a � e o v. o 0 o Ea c y 6 C � C u qqC $ c o p ¢ E0 E W O V y U O m m � � crib Q 9 N N bmD 'y� C G C a £ ?off : v 'to io ° a> � o G . & .c m N > o x •o o M p m y•_ t t°O >N Y iC C CC � � U .N.• W Q �Or. 2 Q ¢ N O O o0_o i ti U W c 0 ti U c '.5 c _ i � .0 > o w • > u . w � a� � Ly y c � . � � mw y � S � c�� �. O y .b O G 'v, oqi m G R.:••�. 'G co c rn c 30 EarAN >0E � n mu � � +. o ` o• orJUNRm '" C •� ° C w y v G , �• O cj o s co co— OD U O -2 tu 13 [+ g O r v ' � c N ,�� b0•C •g � oU E bL� � m pp 'o � pD " q :�• 3U � � � ho `° O •� :: � c � .5000 .5 � � eo .y^• 'oo .l .,°c E aai o A o B E s � a ° ° i 5 Q^ N O ,L ° Q Q Cp V �' 5 O O W °°y N 0•_ •� ^ N7 �y'y 10 E 0. + � O � A �E�•• � O r U y • i.y U ow W'.r b G tQ �.N. y C N O O i y ^ N rs ❑ L n ? titi as � aa0w0 a � MQa ax > 0 a C1 � ' S U S I U v p m m p 3 U ca a-o U U v N y C'C' o E-F o e o 0 0 0 „a M U cn CIO ° co O 0' p y SJ .0 7 J w W O Q ° v n• o � b oc`i c cn �. u > oQ a 0 E od ^ m C a C u C EL w -� u E s c m N E u v go c E3 a �sa z o� ° x a12 U 2 Fa A 1ACHMEN 1 a ? a a c E U U 7 � OCO 7 'm •m C G U U U O C U d m m O m G O U ° oQ � Uo ° y h = tQa a ° 6 ORA °? 3 E ' � o •5 `o � .cam V '4 ¢ x 'e „ ' c o co u ca 'm btu H G � F ay a E r a oo ;o & a 0.. �gCJC. � r •2 � ^1...' O O, C ° ° 3 0 > U � ° d ; 6Z > as � O c o y o 0 0o: a > o 8 e 0 C o u W U to U U y 'O O S � ' 3 0 0 pU m o a -0, G a m o y c ^ yeoo o G c o ° $ � Dr E n o - 0. U e ° e rca E� m o cc eoc >, y GO Em a y .Nq Chze° �og5^� QdUaO°. E a vr-m D 9) Cas4E W pa 4mc� .5U U40.0U 'J yoy�. 8 .0 G — N M p t,j U V F m C m y n o F e s o r a 0 o. o ° = c. o E a C U U .O U O e rj W V] U E c� .� d B � v a c_ y d U C to •C C ^ .7 U C m a E CIO C o G ca 0. Qt x u ° rnO .0 3 ° a .7 7 U Ems- > "0r. a ° Ca m p ^¢>> o 1" m L a ' a O 2-� ATTACHME H Q 1 � u E 7 y w � C C u a op o y mQ y . G c wC7 O C s � ^y c o E o o � 0 5 E °' o c ° c y o y to 'fl c d O L O 5 +, i 4 m c m c o a W v E a y i 99 ax .W0 o °: '- .5 s° abi t d o v Qa � '� d61 � 3mo 0 - ao � i4o ° oo E v a 00 G •° T« E y v ° 6 j g i> 1 8 o .00m Sul °m _-O COt00U � t > 4 ; .5 (3 y z o o ° u W J e ¢ - G 7a 4 c T •a 7 p C m 1p" O G cr q L] C:: N Q 64i 'b co i: op 7B ° c O o •• :e 0 t ve� c � c .� a� m3m � o _� � i � as cp :� .. .op � •vpE ?r � :? o ,a :: > 'fl maox ems, 'Cas. ::] a Aj c = ti o a a°. a C ° Q o ` y cc .SUooycpOSE00 Do 0-'Do ° 3� ° = � 0. m c v A O fl o v_ a c g � Q > � m mo v c� a c � � ° o .? C $ q ate_ 1y h x v3 .fl° � Ee � � .� � � � � �• y � � 0. p .� � y � ° a � 8 ,y � � � 3 > mq c o E w o p v C = O i ca 9 C ty EL ~ m .� O ^s y ,� U S ,ecoa3 � °c 0 0 ` E mac ' 0. yUoL� am > 0. u0. v, .omv, v, �, � asy � EE �a ^ oma, E � - fx � c o o as 5 v g E Q p r Ec ° o .a •o m C CO E p p0. u a, � v meati °y C d � � � y .3 � � a°i •� e o � o p w o •vy .o � Z i G w Cl) C m g ._ C u r� ocE Y � W 40C; AVoo ATTACHNE , Ca a c G U U C c u a Z: U � oyQUOb £ C P.� '50 � � 1g & OAC ti e L' �' v ° O y m ° 4 w v0. c i ° oZ p, o o a m � > - m d Qa m ° CLOP qm o b G 5 a C � o Q 'O m 5 W ° n '� � m C7 'Sk^ 15 0. , O � � ii � aaaiO z ° 3 00 ° F C•� � V � 'B i '` F °u 5 � CF F p v o .y y o c o E > ° a c 7 S r i 7 L O O m a9 'm m 3 Wc o w U > Co c F- y and y C a _ o 0 Q 'd i � � e3 y •�� � Q ti O '�q 0 00 •• V p LiD C O C O O 0 C ^ O c A F O y � N A i a0G O •�' W 7C a m ° rYmo0 Fo` � c F3c > o ATTACHMENT G 6 a o }a � u83 � 8 � oc $ mmv � Ps ° � c 120 sk ° o :a ;� .o NII ysiR: .xb O ` . ., M1 m •vv �• 13 .x = LD 0 a3 a o m a �a p M . � o y - E 'e •e g u U o^ p m o m m u-- E` e : o & � i - �o yDa n > E p � € yy >1 3 ° .Q •3.. O ° GLL 3 ^O Y ._". ` „ ` is u Z. eL F orb y�J' °a 4. obi h F• 2 (D '� ',�'��� m m •_ a £ 3 a a `ooh Qo'� ' � = @ y •. 0. 7 .c v ED C�7oa�aeoma °uScp mmav v -.4Q, C6cs F v r fiA G O O O a v c o p z a o C a '> 1 m oo 1 •'i C6 00 r.. ° Oct () +2 � 'pip � ✓• O � Q p^ 1. a u p Ia. LZ o p ° _� � U ° = Z-77 AT TACHMENT (o Q a e V 7 N F a v O ° 1>31t co of b b ^ O O C O N �. ♦ O �' d d d ¢� rz C3 .E c: �' ° C E 7 C C C C O O W Q m 0 >, O t 0 a z � U `` t. •°i E O C°i '� ? T.� C "O •C ° O m �'O ,U m O .01 es m ^ N% w O ° b • o.t p cy. �.'a=L me H N m $ 'go a = `o ¢ pa m o oRD 2 cc ma := n 9 c cEi .t c o �.occ �ow , r.- Om .°U° oEcm 0 E $ o e a Q `o (7 $ 0 - -c 4 v N E ._ O L3 a3i o ? v ° a ° y 'j C<O t E C X O E j 00 C ° O > S O chi ;C L`. m � > vUE � ° c � ty � of s C 0 E U N ° fl O Q ,0 O Ta m 7 C 0. 3 � E .,aUca v, q Y W jh £ T Q o .c.= N V Y a a ^ � W.o •� tio x s y o v o U W 0 coy 0 OOr. ° C) r- 10 _ V •` 2 C a O F ° Q. > F 3 o U \ MACHME| 7 ( � ) \ � ) � \ 2 . - \ k \ ] \ ) - : = ; I � f\ o \} \ - � 0 \ \ \ \\ ) \ r § @ © / § 2 / � \ k \ + | ƒ\ k \ /\ . CO a ƒ § r / \ cn . ( � \ ' E _ \ 96 a � \ \ \ rj\ \\ § � r \ \ ci ) j-- 2- ATTACHMENT I C � ti a e u. U Q! C C a .D �J Z �t O 70 � Vi b 6�` O= f0U CO 0 0o^ L Vl q co O 0 Ci ,ND y r ?r o ao4 c .8 q U X000 q C �'"' y U o � 0 0 � U y p q O O''� y 'yOy b y `� Esa o c ° aQ � y a a� a� 7 G 3 � - Uoo � U83 yop c ^000 �CC .� O `d wo nc C m � q yy Q L - q E 3 Cb TSL 0 • q V ° — G C U ° C C .0 G .N i 0 S m E c os � q o > • E Ca G ym 'C _gr°bv • Vj q o Q � a 3 2 v o v p CD cc,, U �. U 0 0 efC eEUi CV 'o rON y ❑O0. •1"� m0a. y 7Z Cyya � 0 °°r oc r C a O 9 . .term opq p° WcHi .mcccy O a C7 V7 'tEGcaU$7 U .1 •Oq� Loo ti 0 ° E� ° LxoC ° oyE .cc s G 'C q o y ' Qti c o aOi �J a ;� a ° > > a a ❑ Q aqi o sg °c c o ° °' v a ti U � v o E 6 � F- E o '�, : F- 8Q c� U < �; •E ... � � ac"L. E g.�4w oboe: a n q a p d ti ff S ^ •> aim d o w CZ -j CL r aa ° aw m. 00 `o p 0 0 V] O m i Fn 5 0. � � C H .. Q cc ° C C6 y ° m a E E 'z ° -- O 8 96 o p = a VuR U C y c Q U 2-�0 u m a E 0 9 ATTACHMENT C� O '0 .O 'b ° -9 :: O' -r5 W m 7 y C3 '� O •y 7 t D �i UOro cc y = m m o U > me ° y • E cU D y D a. E6.c_ .3 E m a c a ° o •Oi n Cl 00 g E E y w .� X _ m Fe E mv y b3 aci °U° ' U13 = °y' y = 6w a ° c oa=i0 : Q � � � E � • c o � y ° '� o F a E � y ° ptn gg.y Ea c � Ela ° oa _ S p m o F v p r •O :� :O .Ci fA a � U 4r y � � � E' ej ti LA 'O > O O m M A y 'o b •� C C i7 �.° S O ,O C O C N y , C E WO L U U O S v. O O a� q ❑ U all � �-, y O ,C O E ,��, � '.: � c •- c > e r� � c o p .,., y o 0 3 ... y4. � ° e yEe � C U o 3N .� y � � — Q0 IOU • L 'C 'O O m a .D .C l] O 'y > U O O y N C G —� `� p y c°i B d � E oU' I. o � 7 o m .c ° E m U y c > y q $ OUo c " ° °� E Ur. n 2 c ° 0 3 wr. >_$ a °ad>^Vi pcy o `° $ m•^4! oVI � U mm mw c .OE �8 $ 'm pc „ -2 Cay rEEmco .0 . a , 6 C.es C D � Q m y � Y ° E � oma ' e ° y U oL m y Eo = 9 � oc v ' = yE aDE =' E � ° ao ° EE0 O E m .pC• S O y U d S y O " ° y QoQ °o � a > EQ v .E °nS oHor n S � 0 aC3 i € s � � cc 214 a U a E e 0 0, a e � a o co ti A v v 0 U Q a r a C a c & £ U U V U U � C G G ` G Y a o 0 00 0. 00 0 m R. O U E 0. � ° y �N O v G C � 4 '�JC O cr CY £ ° oQ m n c DE ma s `o o _ o o +� �gr 0 to z rn 0 5 0 3Ot° v O $ E .0 m � a — 5 N rA �. 'J 4^ b t.�. U ,0 e.CL'C Q5 O p 0 O z hmu 400 ' o Ga + a � s � °. Ea oc 0 ° ° Ll c � '� fl � 4e .a 0 ° Om � cm U O O > .. Q C CCL N Lti. b m ti O 1 F C 0 o U OU C0cr Q r� o °' � 'E W ° ?= `m ` 'y E• � .o � a3i L m H Q E o 3 E aai Q a o c°> ci £ c o £ w £ .= O £ O •� y a £ w = ` o r 0. o e c C o o c c �- 'Gq G .G y 'b m °t�. cca o � C G w C 2:1 O E a C 0 E O 0 � •oVi m .-. � N 2 '-Ci v p °' „ d b > O O b til 0 q U Cw CE°Eh El 0. � 1:4. " cy � cc d d o Z Mw.v Z 4 $ r S Ss A7ACHME;' , (0 o U U_ 7 a O C � � .7 h � � L• C COS O •C C • 0. O..0 � C •E ° ° � o uz ° Qo rcl. U y 0 � — d Q a ti ^ •7 p V y C q U � " y � � 5 CUR -0 -5 c o v C � � � � d va as O � � fl o >o. c 4Ci 'L .°. °c F U E v q v u, Wbco E ou ;. O a Q. N ° o 0 b d .Wr 'b.cg) ,� o o m o .o ° oo .E ° o "c oP. � g CO � 00 r. .4z� Q `am ° o .° � � W m o c � . _ .2 cum c c o c � W•_ o x c v �� ° O y eE oj chi E" 3 ^ '$ COO >01 C-) F 'y ° :._ E a> o O 3 E c ej O c ° .r N V e3w � Ca3 � s L � Y 0 0. ; rz U � y C z w "0 o O 3 o Q o be a ° aiE o o c .4 c 2 q W U O C00 G U U C rz o c € = o U fl V1 b = C Vl (fl O Z- �� MAHE O _ N a c c U V 7 U .m96 Ir- Q ` O=D q E o g on � UW v 'r a U � a O �' Lcm .> � C6 00 cc ac ai ° cO, Co ° QQ � `� fl m ° rc � � e3E v3 0 .0 F0s `O o mG y 'o`go ° °° ° o4, w c c a m v3 c a w 7 0 0 -0 3°c ° c � ro C3 °>: v " yN 'O° �>v> O 15 2 96 L CO aa o ca .� :: v ° .- ase a > c m > Qn Cd u ° � > . a O � Y n Jlz ° z �GWUnn77�»i c�amL aLE € � 0.owsrpEn a c " am 'O m � -o Uayyi a � o � ca'C°moCCco°] FLK>° ,o-x '�. a°°- o � CcE � . Wa o ° 3 ° ^dc o � E r.tn 'C 'E .50 'Cc ,C ° Oe N -5 m > O ^ Oar ? r �ec N p t -0 i � 'O O k O a £ U O v C v c =>, 0 Cy — m a y U U O p p p O L a cc N p„•S .5 w •� rn �' F w E >1 L L '°O 00 O d ^^ v O W b N � •,. > .� � EV .S E m ?a N O $ 5 . � � � n. � E o, o N oo °"' a�� `� Cp E .E '_' -ya�e a0 E E _ Q a 0 a a E 'w pU '° N ` 0. q 0 i E � LI� vL aL o 0 0 L N V � N G E F O a E E N 5 o 0 .m � o .a cc 0 0 00 y eN3 C —Ui V w ,> y ` z G C U O d P .� ° 0 'moy .. ° ° b v E a m 9 .E C4 a O C M. 0 > C w U >— ° e g 6 c c a Q IX "a C re o N •c c > o E > o i p •� O s - '° a o u0 � � c `u0 N "a > ° 00 0 0 M w 5 E U .. E •mo � F' o ao O 0 OU r ° L ° U v Z $� ATTACH MEST (O Q N ti a G C G C G £ U U V U U � OD m 00 C C •N Vii N N aq C G G C. C d a m d w c 0 cm N V 0 a> ° `o $ FL. m o ° o co -S n�a y y i m3 ° 3 �- v g E o m co ,0 O y O ° ` °m ° a" «N. :O .� 0 Q' 0 0. 0 E a � 3m ° ._ p `d c i � ,O q N £ mm 3 9. a.10 s � b tF ° °� � � a ° E = ao 0 as co > aEi4z a e c o ° ° :5 c N.c `o •S c Q'='9 N e a3i .4 'n .. o 8sO. m ° 5 cx 0. y $ Er�° 'O 0 °� c •E °' c° ° 2 0` ' � c £ °c to e ° y 0 m y m ° �°' o ° o S ° ° °0 .0 0 e ° ° co £ u c `� � y o` 5 °' ° 0 m 2 a ° c a°i N ` 00: u ° 0.� € -C E0 CO ee —_ ° .` ° 0 'c ._ aN ^ c N4 - �' > c V ° 'Ci C ° L N v U = U .2 f� '� 0 N O U C �Nq N .D C Ua cu 'D 3 m V d 0 EC) Ed w a a� o 0.bx � LC7 c a« � � o � O a o •5 ° a •$ O. N 4°., V N o O. ° N0 0 a o pp a°i G �•� m N 0. 0 ° p �p `�T '� '> ° cc -C 0 0 .G •C 7 G .= 3 p ' m C V V cy, C '. y p rJC o Q" yv .o ° o ° N a r m y A. rz ° mom = c c y o f I S > I g v •T c . o N ? I o F E� I ° o 0 •N p £ a C m m £ .D Y •'_ p P y c o c £ a b `9' 00 v b 4 y y y'A C .p-1 w 0.b > n.•E m 4 F C : ° u o ' py moD m rz o0 0) 0 0 0 0 0 c m:� � t � aci sa. •S m � :�' � m v .�vi 0 0 � e b ° . 2 'fl 7 U U .°. U V. U U ° CY. .J N ° b ° •� Q4 cr— 0 3 a W w ° N t_ C 7 T �°., 7 cp c=0 O p Q W g 4 •t om. N — ° o ccc 0 P yQ 0 E - c 0 0 cmU v Yi O i C 8 aE . O rj�O > >'1' p ' N .0 vy °° Ro PE � S�. �°v O (QV y cv ° t,2 � s28 N > 'xs p . -0 -0 Qc _ L'v C3 w O > ° E C T O > > b 7 .� ..°] y V N LZ.i N U N m U L. N p •Vl 7 rr y � m o fl � e0 � .c° a v� y � e E o` � � 0 rt ° `u O > 3 41 N V L V j� cd C. Cc ATTACHME ti fi +. Ca c c c e G U U U U a UD 00 W OD V cl) u a d v v v 'D >> R v v v d `. z d > b 0. b ° v R ^ rL C p y C r W xJ' C y o v ° m O v Ov O r C i cL S E r o y r v p u R = o a` L O r C 3 R is r m o E _ C C E O .� O O 4� '� v v O pp . y C N d C .O C 7 L ' r r l,. O .yL G. =< ° O yU 0. crv v c ._ � mR � � 00-C ° a3 R � EDR L R OD 0rzd � o E s >v ? cc -0 . w E ccs a R Ov 0.v ti v >m 5 W '5 1J• B b l ° E v < n � m � yray — o ° < oov - '� R 4R R v7i O v ,�i tn� 'n ° .0 �v, V 'C ORO c7 R ti d c O v ^ o R p Q E v., y O .w .7. ° a Ci C C.r R R �75 w. cr al.") 0> �,'� O J > E N a a a c a L ° ° a E E > c c3 L > a R'�.0 CU m°. O.'a u FF t F v O O ° G C co .0 .0 cd w �... m 'd L r � R b v. 00 cc a. t. R Nyyj v O 4 O' `o o > Cdm > = 0 .0 z v v > y e o R c a v > v v V w •> 7 ( .. yr Y o' > U UC U .� u' rte^ •° U C C6 v ^ L > C p, y a O N > Q U i6 ti v C4 p ti 'o O S cc L CO= O U N. v 7 y L U .^ E y L C W 0 co G tj v m Ep E m :9 a m v v .= ° _ = 0) 4T E R 7 R o E rj o ° cr0 U C •E h 'J NR y > U Orr > b d U r 3 Q ( 2 , § 7 \ \ \ � ) } 2 � - � | ■ 2 � � ) % & ) - � E § ( _ § t § ) § g k ) 2 $ u § ] 2 2A \ § o 7C 2\ ■ / § .c & � j / rz ) 2 » $ $ kk \ - T 'E \ ) § - = - � } / .§ } 4 ! ' I \ \ § \ 2 ) f4ZQl = X22 as k im \ ; � in 0 B \\ / \ \ 2-W Resolution "A" Attachment 7 RESOLUTION NO. (2003 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL CERTIFIYING THE FINAL EIR FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1540, 1500, and 1521 FROOM RANCH WAY (APPLICATION # ER 173-00) 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 24h, 2003, for the purpose of considering the Final EIR for the Costco Project and future development of adjacent parcels on Froom Ranch Way; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding a recommendation to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Project Final EIR and recommended certification of the EIR to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council 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 November 4th, 2003, for the purpose of considering the Final EIR for the Costco Project and future development of adjacent parcels on Froom Ranch Way; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff and the Planning Commission, presented at said hearing. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council and the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following findings: 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 Visual Resources, Air Quality, Cultural and Historic Resources, Geologic Hazards, Hazardous Materials, Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation, Noise, Transportation, Public Services and Utilities, the approved mitigation measures contained in the EIR will avoid or substantially lessen the identified adverse environmental impacts of the project to a level of insignificance and Resolution No. [ ] Page 2 have been incorporated into the project. 4. The significant effects identified in the Air Quality, and Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation sections of the EIR will not be fully mitigated to a degree of insignificance with the incorporation of all of the identified mitigation measures included in the EIR. However, the City Council finds that the adverse environmental effects are acceptable and makes a statement of overriding considerations for those significant and unavoidable environmental impacts because: a. Mitigation strategies required for the Costco project component (alone) reduce the developments impacts to cumulative drainage to a less than significant level. Development of additional parcels will be required to have additional drainage accommodations based on the type of development proposed in the future. The unavoidable significant drainage impacts result from inadequate drainage beneath US 101 at the convergence of Froom Creek and San Luis Obispo Creek. Future road improvements that will widen the Los Osos Valley Road overpass at US 101 will include plans to increase the drainage capacity of the culverts beneath US 101 and will therefore reduce the potential for drainage impacts at this site in the future and; b. All projects of this size and scale are likely to produce significant temporary air quality impacts due to construction dust and construction vehicle emissions. Mitigation strategies help to reduce project emissions and ultimately put the air basin in closer compliance with established State and federal standards to the greatest extent possible with a development project of this scale. c. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan for this specific location and the social and economic benefits of this project outweigh the adverse environmental impacts resulting from air quality and drainage. The addition of the store within City Limits will be a significant addition to the City's tax revenue while responding to a regional demand for goods and services that is currently found outside of the City. A regional center at this location will further contribute to the revenue base of surrounding businesses while customers utilize area restaurants and related goods and services. Furthermore, the new retail use will add more than 200 jobs to the City while providing a greater variety of commercial goods and services within the City. ATfACHME Resolution No.[ Page 3 Section 2. Certification. The City Council does hereby certify the Final EIR for the project. 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. David F. Romero, Mayor ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jo a P. Lowell, City Attorney Attached: EXHIBIT A: Mitigation Measures Z' Go The Cincinnati Post — - Page 1 of 3 Attachment 8 + li ENQUIRER POST ( WCPO I CIN WEEKLY I Classifieds Cars Homes I Jobs I CustomE Ct The'ChIlemnah.Post ��'D ���N�E F? too NLINE EDITI DN a C+ HOME NEWS- ENTERTAINMENT SPORTS REDS BENGALS LOCAL GUIDE MULTIMEDIA ARCHIV BUSINESS Motley Fool Fuel for growth Post Featui Perry:Site Seeing Number of Kroger stores selling gasoline nearly — doubled in 2002 THE POST Store at the Cincinnati.Com By Greg Paeth Ky Post Post staff reporter ;. AP News News Summary Subscribe t News Kroger Co. is convinced that selling gasoline with groceries can add up Business to more convenience, more customers and more revenue for the ro ME Linin country's largest grocery store chain. Living Personal Fi Opinion Sports Kroger operates 75 percent more fuel centers at its grocery stores than Search it did at the end of 2001, having added 150 this year. `•t Back Issues HGTV Contact Us In Greater Cincinnati, the number nearly Following suit doubled this year from 11 at the end of Like Kroger, Seattle-based SPORTS 2001 to 21 today, including the newest Costco considers gasoline Lottery Nur Bengals one at the Kroger in Covington's Latonia sales to be one more way contact us Reds neighborhood. to attract customers to its Golf Guide warehouse-style, avid. Hockey David The company plans to add a fuel center membership-club grocery to its Hyde Park store next spring, operation. sob ENTERTAINMENT locating it near the former site of the cre Movies now-demolished Jeckle's restaurant, °Usual) put them Jon f Dining Y we Menus wherever we can," said Alex_ Local Events Gasoline sales may help position Kroger Costco Chief Financial Video Games as a conveneince center, but they won't. Officer Richard Galanti. He LATEST B necessarilybe a profit center. TECHNOL, P said 176 of the 300 Costcos in the U.S., including the . P.-Diady_ CLASSIFIEDS in very low margin, like just about one in Springdale, sell fuel. using Sm Jobs Labor Cars eveything else in the supermarket business," said Lynn Marmer, vice • Finnish 1 Homes Y "It's abillion-dollar business to—Cut-90 General president of corporate affairs for the for us and it's another value • S&P_Nea company. for members to help them Motor cc save filling up their vehicle," • Ahold Sc In a report filed in August with theI said Galanti, whose chain $117.2 M Securities and Exchange Commission, first began selling gasoline • Putnam,_ the company called the fuel centers "a about six years ago. Face civi low profit margin item" and said it Microsof expects to see its gross profit margins decrease as it sells more Lawsuits gasoline. • Ohio sue Cancellai • Diebold 1 Kroger isn't alone in its new emphasis on blending groceries and Electroni gasoline. Papers • Gates Sh Longhon More than 16 percent of the country's grocers--from major chains to System small single-store operations—have added gasoline sales to their • Sony,ca product mix this year, according to the Food Marketing Institute, a on'Smart Washington, D.C., research firm. Z-fl http://www.cincypost.com/2002/12/17/krogerl2l7O2.html 10/28/03 The Cincinnati Post - Page 2 of 3 Attachment 8 Spokesman Todd Hultquist said the percentage jumped from about 2 percent in 2000 to 8 percent last year and 16 percent this year. Selling gasoline continues a broader trend that began in the 1980s, when grocery stores began to offer other products and services in addition to food. Video rentals, floral service, banking and bakeries were among the products and services that have been added over the years at Kroger and elsewhere, he said. Fuel sales give consumers "one more chance to take care of something else at one location," Hultquist said. Fuel centers also provide grocery stores with another weapon to compete against convenience stores that typically sell gasoline and a limited selection of groceries. Some grocery chains that offer gasoline have even created their own convenience stores at the fuel pumps, which may be only 100 yards from the grocer's full-line store, Hultquist said. Kroger's gasoline business has grown quickly since its launch in late 1998 at a City Market grocery in Colorado. "This really offers our customers one-stop shopping convenience," said Gary Rhodes, a spokesman for the Cincinnati-based grocery chain. "It's another way to draw customers in." Gas sales also provide the company with another opportunity to build loyalty, a prized attirubte in the competitive grocery business. There are also cross-promotional opportunities to offer discounts on gasoline at the grocery store register. Rhodes said that Kroger, which has 2,249 stores in 32 states, has more supermarket fuel centers than any of its traditional grocery competitors. For the current year, the company estimated that it would sell about 1.3 billion gallons of gasoline, roughly one percent of all of the gas purchased in the country. The company has experience selling gasoline, as nearly all of its approximately 800 convenience stores sell it.already, said Art Wulfeck, manager of communications. "We're certainly in it for the long haul," he said. Publication Date: 12-17-2002 Email this story to a friend -4� Search our site by keyword: Search also:News I Jobs I Homes I Cars I Classifieds I Obits I Coupons I Events I Dininc En#rEr•Plast•17WCP0•($II Wwkly Movies/D)iDs I Video Games I Hotels I Golf I Visitor's Guide I Maps/Directions I Yellow_P: CINCINNATI.COM ENQUIRER POST WCPO CIN WEEKLY Classifieds I Cars I Homes I Jobs I Custoi z- 9 z. http://www.cincypost.com/2002/12/17/krogerl2l702.htm1 10/28/03 i Attachment 9 THE COMPANY Costco Wholesale Corporation ("Costco" or the "Company") began operations in 1983 in Seattle, Washington. In October 1993, Costco merged with The Price Company, which had pioneered the membership warehouse concept in 1976, to form Price/Costco, Inc., a Delaware corporation. In Janu- ary 1997, after the spin-off of most of its non-warehouse assets to Price Enterprises, Inc., the Company changed its name to Costco Companies, Inc. On August 30, 1999, the Company reincorporated from Delaware to Washington and changed its name to Costco Wholesale Corporation, which trades on the NASDAQ under the symbol "COST". Costco operates a chain of membership warehouses that sell high quality, nationally branded and selected private label merchandise at low prices to businesses purchasing for commercial use,personal use, or resale, and also to individuals who are members of selected employee groups. The Company's business is based upon achieving high sales volumes and rapid inventory turnover by offering a limited assortment of merchandise in a wide variety of product categories at very competitive prices. As of December 2001, the Company operated a chain of 385 warehouses in 35 states(284 locations),nine Canadian provinces(60 locations), the United Kingdom (11 locations, through an 80%-owned subsidiary), Korea (five locations), Taiwan (three locations, through a 55%-owned subsidiary) and Japan (two locations), as well as 20 warehouses in Mexico through a 50%-owned joint venture. CONTENTS Financial Highlights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Letter to Shareholders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Map of Warehouse Locations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Number of Warehouses/Ancillary Businesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Quarterly Results of Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Ten Year Operating and Financial Highlights . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations . . . . . . . 10 Report of Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Report of Independent Public Accountants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Consolidated Financial Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Market for Costco Common Stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Dividend Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Directors and Officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Additional Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Attachment 10 City Council Meeting Page 11 Tuesday,October 7,2003,4:00 p.m. confessed that he,too,would like to make some adjustments to the map but noted that he too will support it In response to inquiry from Vice Mayor Mulholland, City Attorney Lowell clarified that the Conditions of Approval require a Homeowners Association and CCR's approved by the City Attorney. ACTION: Moved by Schwartz/Ewan to approve c:'Adopt Resolution No.9490(2003 Seri2sl approving the tentative map,with conditions,and based on findings motion passed 3:1:1 (Mulholland opposed, Romero recused). At approximately 10:45 p.m., ice Mayor Mulholland called a break,at 10:50 p.m. Mayor Romero reconvened the meeting,motion to go beyond 11 but only with item 5. Council continued Liaison Reports and Communications to the next regular meeting. 5. AMENDMENT OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND ZONING REGULATIONS RELATING TO SALES OF ALCOHOL FROM SERVICE STATIONS ITA 108-03). Council Member Settle disqualified himself due to a potential conflict of interest(owns property within 500 feet of the proposed Costco project)and left the Chamber. Associate Planner Dunsmore presented the staff report. Mayor Romero opened the public hearing. Mary Beth Schroeder,2085 Wilding Lane, urged the Council to not create any loopholes and not to allow a big box store to sell alcohol. Anne M.Russell,attorney.representing several locally owned gas stations(see correspondence on file in the Office of the City Clerk)asserted that the 1982 ordinance is invalid and illegal. She argued that the proposal creates a loophole for Costco and advised the Council to repeal the ordinance, revise the Municipal Code and avoid a lawsuit Deron Brewer, 1348 Nipomo Street(owner of San Luis Chevron and Foothill Chevron),said the law was started to prevent robbery and argued that because gas station robbery prevention has improved over the years,there is no longer a concern_ He urged the Council to treat local business people fairly and apply the law evenly. Mayor Romero closed the public hearing. City Attorney.Lowell provided background on the current law and explained that the Council reaffirmed it in 1988 for a variety of reasons, including the fact that they didn't appreciate the State taking away the City's authority. He added that the law will remain in effect unless repealed by the Council, or called by the Court invalid. He advised that there is the chance that Ms. Russell's clients may wish to test the law in Court. Council discussion ensued. Council Member Ewan pondered whether there is really any meaning to the ordinance and questioned whether the prohibition of concurrent sales is even valid. He suggested that the Council may want to consider dropping the law and adopting something more in keeping with current State law regarding the sale of beer and wine. Vice.Mavor Mulholland spoke in opposition to the proposed action because it will accommodate Costco and discriminates against local businesses that have lived with and abided by the rules foryears. z�y Attachment 10 City Council Meeting Page 12 Tuesday,October 7,2003,4:00 p.m. Mayor Romero said he was not comfortable with the risk of having our ordinance tested in Court and overturned. Council Member Schwartz remarked that he was not convinced that the City has a legal problem and offered that the Council should go along with the Planning Commission recommendation. Citv Attomev Lowell proposed that staff come back with a review of the use permit process and explore how zoning regulations could be properly amended. CAO Hamaian added that staff did what they were directed to do, but in light of new information and the testimony, he asked the Council to provide further direction. Police Chief Linden voiced concerns about what a change in the current prohibition might have on the community, particularly because of the amount of underage drinking problems. She asked the Council to give her the opportunity to do some research and bring back information in an organized format about the impacts of drinking and driving before Council acts to repeal or modify the 1982 prohibition. CAO Hamaian explained that it would not be possible to do all of this before considering the Costco EIR. He noted that the Council will still have to make a determination based on the rules currently on the books and decide whether or not they apply to Costco. City Attorney Lowell advised that the Council has the ability to interpret its own ordinance, but cautioned them that the one they may be relying upon may no longer be valid. ACTION: Moved by Mulholland/Ewan to table the matter and ask staff to come back with more information at a later date,which would include a revised proposal consistent with state law re alcohol sales at service stations,a definition of"service station" and research that the Police Chief can find regarding drinking and driving; motion passed 3:1:1 (Schwartz opposed,Settle recused). COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS Deferred because of time. COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Romero's Communication item continued to October 21 u. There being no further business to come before the City Council,Mayor Romero adjourned the meeting at 11:50 p.m.to Tuesday,October 21,2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo. Lee Price,C.M.C. City Clerk APPROVED BY COUNCIL: 10/21/2003 LP:jo - - -----_---------- (Allen Settle Costco Project mitigation rr ures — Page 1 From: "BRETT CROSS" <brettcross@hotmail.com> To: "Dave Romero" <dromero@slocity.org>, <kschwartz@slocity.org>, "john ewan" <jewan@slocity.org>, "C Mulholland" <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <asettle@slocity.org> Date: Mon, Nov 3,2003 5:51 PM Subject: Costco Project mitigation measures This is really an opportunity for the City to do something different than RECEIVED what everyone else (cities) has done to try and decrease the trip generation from a Costco Wholesale. Costco is a unique retailer in that trip generation NOV 4 203 could be significantly reduced by requiring online ordering and free delivery of the products within a area the includes the major population SLO CITY CLERK centers of San Luis Obispo County; Los Osos, Morro Bay, Santa Margarita, Atascadero, Paso Robles, Five Cities area. The EIR estimates that Costco will generate 9,402 daily and 11,226 on Saturday. The EIR also indicates that air quality impacts cannot be mitigated and are considered a class 1 impact which requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Trip generation could be significantly reduced even if a small percentage of shoppers were to order online. A 20% ordering rate would result in 1900 trips per day being eliminated. This number is far greater in my estimation than the cumulative number of trips and pollutants reduced by all of the mitigation's being required for project. The City of San Luis Obispo prides itself on being innovative and doing things different.This is your opportunity to truly do things differently and continue to make San Luis Obispo a wonderful and unique place to live. Sincerely, Brett Cross _ RED FILE MEETING AGENDA DA *OTEM #Rfffi� , COUNCIL ,TCDD DIR . 'CAO Z'FIN DIR ACAO &FIRE CHIEF 8'ATTORNEY lapw DIR ,2"CLERK/0RIG 21'POLICE CHF ❑ DDERT HEADS -Iff REC DIR .2 -'UTIL DIR /r -,2"kR DIR - ---- — Allen Settle - Costco � � From: "D. & E. Dollar" <ddollar@pacbell.net> To: John Ewan <jewan @ slocity.org>, Allen Settle<asettle@slocity.org>; Ken Schwartz <kcchwartz@slocity.org>, Christine Mulholland<cmulholland@slocity.org>, Dave Romero <dromero @ slocity.org> Date: Mon, Nov 3, 2003 3:48 PM Subject: Costco RECEIVED NOV 0 4 2003 Comments on Costco SLO CITY CLERK I envision the city to have a very slow rate of growth so as to keep the high quality of life that we have. Thinking of Costco, it does not fit.The whole process whereby Home Depot and this proposed Costco, came into the city is wrong.The county did a very backhanded process to get their way, not the wishes of the city. We need to cut our losses and stop this project. 1. Deny the EIR The cumulative number of "insignificant" impacts is unacceptable, especially when you go back and look at the Home Depot project, and also the housing development that is adjacent. In total, the cumulative impacts are unacceptable.Then,there are the"significant" impacts, you need again look back at Home Depot and the adjacent housing development and add those impacts into the review. 2. Housing and living wage Costco estimates that it will hire 300 employees. I would dare say that the vast majority of them will not have a living wage for our local economy. How many will earn enough to buy a home? How many homes will Costco provide for employees?This area has an economy that is not in step with housing costs. Approving a project like this,just makes the problem worse. Require Costco to either pay a living wage for our local economy or provide housing for 75%of their employees. 3. Visual Impact Require a much smaller footprint. The project has very poor efficiency as far as land use- build two story parking lots and store with large RED FILE freight elevators. All the hardscaping makes for drainage and visual M ING AGENDA impacts. ITEM.# 4. The EIR does not address visual impacts from nearby city open space DA ( Irish Hills. I feel that this large commercial site degrades the Open Space experience. City streets are not the only places to be part of the viewshed. 5. Mitigation When) look at page after page of mitigation - I see a project that shouldn't be. Way too many impacts.The site was challenged from the beginning (Home Depot) because of wetland and drainage issues. Nature has a way of letting us know,that we really don't control things as v'COUNCIL 7ZODD DIR well as we think, and the drainage issues will return, but who knows eCAO FIN DIR when or how. ZI ACAO ?FIRE CHIEF ETAT709NEY 12PW DIR In closing, DENY THE EIR and the PROJECT la'CLERKIORIG ;POLICE CHF ❑�T HEADS �j REC DIR _EUTIL DIR ,R DIR I Allen Settle Costco Sincerely, Don Dollar 2357 Banderola SLO 781-0118 1 RECEIVED JOSEPH W. DIEHL. JR. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION NO U 4 2003 LEPHONE' RODERICK A. RODEWALD SLO CITY CLEHi�o ) 541-1000 SHANNON G. MATUSZEWICZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW LECOPIER DOUGLAS C. CRAPO 1043 PACIFIC STREET (805) 541-6870 SAN Luis Oslsro, CA 93401 E-MAIL OF COUNSEL ADMIN@DIEHLRODEVPALD.001 ANNE M. RUSSELL November 4, 2003 VIA HAND-DELIVERY Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Counsel City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Costco/Concurrent Sales of Alcohol and Fuel Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Counsel: As you are aware, this firm represents several service station owners in the City of San Luis Obispo who are opposed to the City's approval of a use permit permitting a fueling center/service station as part of Costco's warehouse store in violation of the City's municipal code and concurrent sales ordinances. We have reviewed the staff report and the proposed resolution. Both go to great lengths to make an argument why Costco is not a service station, even thought the City's definition is so broad that Costco is clearly included. We would prefer that the fueling center be deleted until it complies with a valid concurrent sales ordinance. We understand that city staff is considering additional language to the use permit resolution to defer the effective date of the resolution so as to coincide with the effective date of an ordinance repealing SLOMC 5.36.020 and amending various zoning regulations, including the definitions of service station and warehouse store, and amending the concurrent sales ordinance. While not our preferred course, this could allow time to revise the ordinance before starting the clock on filing a lawsuit. May we suggest that if this is the course the city council is going to follow, that it also delete the findings trying to prove that Costco is not a service station when the City's existing regulations define it as such. This would include deletion of Findings 8a through e, 9 and 10. You may wish to consider keeping 8f, g,h, i and j. �aUN CIL " r—Coo DIR COCUNJ FIN DIR AO Thank you for your consideration of this request. ICAO FIRE CHIEF ❑,ATTORNt' _ DPW DIR Very truly yours ❑.CLERK ORI -pOUCE CHF- PTFiEAD� M.DIR RED FILE _ ��— ,;LDIR MEETING AGENDA _N D 5eM. RODEWAL Tom. M F' ,va. DATE 11 3 ITEM #_ ussell AMR/slc cc: clients r ' From Michael Sullivan to l..,y of San Luis Obispo -City Council ht.---gig of Nov. 4, 2003 Item PH 2 - Costco Final EIR/Use Permit Page 1 of 1 TO: FROM: RE: City Council hearing of November 5, 2003 - Item PH 2 - Final EIR/Use Permit for Costco store and fuel station The final EIR is deficient and must be repaired in order to offer proper environmental analysis and mitigation, as explained below. Abbreviations CEQA -California Environmental Quality Act FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report (for Costco project on Los Osos Valley Road) LOVR - Los Osos Valley Road 1. Cumulative traffic impacts are not properly mitigated. FEIR at p. V-88 states that southbound US 101 south of LOVR operates at Level of Service (LOS) E during the weekday PM peak hour. Widening of US 101 to provide three southbound through lanes south of LOVR is required under 10-year cumulative conditions to achieve acceptable traffic operations." Yet in spite of these severe impacts, there is no mitigation to require the Costco project to contribute money to the costs of these needed improvements. A story in the San Luis Obispo Telegram Tribune (Monday, Oct. 13, 2003, pages A-1, A-4) stated that US 101 from southern SLO city limits to northern SLO city limits will operate at LOS F(unacceptable congestion) by 2020. Yet this impact is not adequately addressed or mitigated. 2. The City proposes to allow the Director of Public Works to determine the potential environmental impact of an interim Calle Juaquin approach, which would be situated near a sensitive wetland area by US 101. This is improper under CEQA. Testimony from Planning Commission hearing of Sep. 24, 2003(Staff report p. 2-54) shows: (a) planning department staff person Phil Dunmore stated that "it is not known if this scenario (interim alignment of Calle Joaquin) would avoid additional environmental impacts." (b) Mary Rentz, EIR consultant for Costco, stated that impacts from the interim alignment of Calle Joaquin are unclear and.that "specifics of the mitigation measures have not yet been established because the alignment and alternative alignment must first be stakes so exact acreages can be calculated and exact locations determined." (Staff report p. 2-54) Under CEQA, the city is obligated to conduct an analysis of the impact from the interim alignment and to propose mitigations if they are necessary. 3. I enclose a copy of my other comments for Planning Commission hearing of July 9, 2003 concerning deficiencies and inadequacies of responses in the FEIR to comments made by me for the draft EIR. Michael C. Sullivan 1127 Seaward Street; San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 805-545-9614 `t "Caltrans is not the old Divi- five years, Caltrans has pro- Greggsion of highways, said posed more than$100 million t Albright,Caltrans director for worth of projects,all aimed at ` District 5."We're more inter- hAproving traffic flow on a four- 101 ested in moving people,not lane Highway 101. cars.We won't always have The projects include a$10 Cuesta Grade enough money to build, million extension of the Price i build,build." Street frontage road in Pismo (completed) ' SANTA Indeed,the approach of Beach and an$8 million project MARGARITA state and regional trans- to add merge lanes from Avila portation officials has Beach to Arroyo Grande. been to enhance the exist- Merge lanes provide more • ing highway rather than room for traffic to weave on and `t build more of it SAN LUIS OBISPO Over the next three to Pleasesee HIGHWAY,A4 Ma Valli is r •Construction of •Addition of merge SAN LUIS �+�r a new interchange Grading Highway 101 In SLO County lanes between Marsh OBISPO` Estimated cost and Broad streets $10.1 million, Caltrans measures the level of service on the highway by assigning letter =,— • k'- funded by the city grades.Level A means the traffic is flowing freely.Level F means the road r 1 c.,�' •Construction not is being used beyond capacity and interruptions to traffic flow are . yet scheduled occurring.Here's a look at the current and projected ratings for selected areas,if no improvements are made. SAN LUIS OBISPO STRETCH OF HIGHWAY t01 2000 2020 •Interchange 1 : • . Santa Barbara County line to Arroyo Grande city limits C D i - Improvements Estimated cost: I •Installation of cameras Southern Arroyo Grande city limits to Avila Beach undercrossing D F •$14 million, . ,' to monitor traffic Avila Beach undercrossing to southern SLO city limits D F funded by the city incidents and flow Southern SLO city limits to northern SLO city limits D F •Construction not Estimated cost: Northern SLO city limits to Highway 58 junction C C yet scheduled11 i •$100,000 Highway 58 junction to Highway 46-West junction C D t •Construction to start this fall, AVILA BEACH t to be completed in early 2004 Highway 46 West junction to northern Paso Robles C C ` Northern Paso Robles to Monterey County line k A PISMO BEACH SOURCE:Caltrans 'O _ , _ OO AVILA BEACH TO ARROYO GRANDE ARROYO GRANDE go An s •Addition of merge lanes GR Estimated cost: -- BEACH . •$8 million , , , [?Constoruction MAs 4. •Construction to begin ARROYO GRANDE of a new interchange in late 2005 Estimated cost: _ •.Interchange `� •$8.4 million,funded by the county improvements `� •Construction not yet scheduled PISMO BEACH Estimated cost: B •Extension of the street *$ 9 milon,funded by the county \ that serves as afrontage Construction not yet scheduled NIPOMO roadlparallel route ` for Highway 101 ' ' " - FSANTA BARBARA COUNTY Estimated cost: SLO/SANTA BARBARA COUNTY LINE •Widening of Highway 101 •$10 million •Bridge-widening and addition to six lanes •Construction to begin of merge lanes and a bike path Estimated cost: In late 2006 Estimated cost: t �� •$19 million •$27 million SANTA •Construction on hold, TRIBUNE GRAPHIC By BETH ANDERSON •Construction to begin in late 2008 MARIA - pending allocation of funds SOURCE:Cancans 7/9/03 City of SLO-Planning Com.wssion-Costco FEIR-Comments from Michael Sullr.ur P. 1 of 2 7/9/2003 To: City of San Luis Obispo, CA- Planning Commission From: Michael Sullivan, 1127 Seaward Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 RE: Planning Commission hearing, Wed. 7/9/03 - Costco Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) DEIR =draft environmental impact report FEIR = final environmental impact report LOVR = Los Osos Valley Rd The comments below are in response to the consultant responses to comments (by the public or agencies) on the draft EIR (DEIR) for the Costco project on Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis Obispo. 15.1 - Grading is inconsistent with City General Plan. Response states that no grading (which includes retaining walls) would not occur on slopes over 20%, but this is not clear from the grading plan (Fig. III-6b, DEIR). The FEIR should show a more clear and detailed grading plan, depicting by shading the portions with slopes over N%. 15.2 - "Information from the DRAFT PSR (Project Study Report) for the US 101/LOVR interchange is available for the City to provide a basis for calculating a pro rata fair share contribution to the interchange improvement project. If that is true, this information should be included in the FEIR so that the public can ascertain the approximate cost of the interchange and the approximate fair share for Costco, to help determine if the mitigation is feasible. Also, in the FEIR the city should explain aspects of the mitigation such as: How is "fair share" to be determined? When will the determination be accomplished? Which properties/projects are included in the fair share calculations? What is the expected timeline for completion of the US 101/LOVR interchange? (Timeline is critical, because severe traffic impacts are already occurring at the interchange.) 15.4 - The response does not adequately answer questions about cumulative impacts and the urgent need for the improvement (replacement) of US 101/LOVR interchange. Response 6.1 refers to interchange improvements as part of the LOVR interchange project (i.e., as mitigation for cumulative impacts) but gives no expected timeline for completion of these improvements nor any information about cost of the interchange project(which is likely to be about$30 million). This information is crucial and must be included in the FEIR so that the feasibility of proposed mitigation can be determined. 15,3 - Response has not provided an expanded analysis or description of the potential developments on the front two parcels near LOVR. This should be provided for FEIR. See 15.12, below, also. 15.9 - Widening of US 101 to 6 lanes could ultimately be required (within 10 years, probably), yet there is no provision for fair share contribution from Costco project for such an eventuality. Thus, mitigation is inadequate. This must be addressed in FEIR. ' 7/9/03 City of SLO-Planning Commission-Costco FEIR-Comments from Michael Sulhvwi P.2 Of 2 15.10 - Response implies that a bicycle path at base of Irish hills behind (southwest of) Costco building is not possible, but this is not necessarily true. The Costco building site could be moved just 20 feet or so to the northeast and this would provide a bikeway space, which would better connect residential areas (DeVaul and others) to Costco and Home Depot without the danger of travel along LOUR. This should alternative should be discussed and analyzed in the FEIR. The bikeway could also easily bypass the Froom Ranch buildings and the wetland area to connect to southbound bike trails e.g. Bob Jones trail. 15.12 - FEIR should discuss and analyze the alternative of housing on the two front parcels near LOVR instead of proposed commercial uses. The analysis should include traffic impacts and visual impacts. The city's General Plan calls for jobs/housing balance and also encourages lower-cost housing. These sites would be good for lower cost housing such as apartments or condos or both. The responses imply that there is sufficient other land in the city for housing including lower cost housing, but there is no proof of this. The FEIR must include data to substantiate the claim that there actually is adequate land in the city to accommodate housing of this type. 15.14 - Proposed private lands for mitigation of impacts on Congdon tarplant would purportedly have conservation easements in perpetuity as conditions of mitigation. To make the proposed mitigations effective, such conditions (the requirement for easements) must be clearly stated in the FEIR. Michael Sullivan 1127 Seaward St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 7/9/03