HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/16/2004, BUS 3 - ADDENDUM TO COSTCO EIR REGARDING TIMING OF CALLE JOAQUIN IMPROVEMENTS council °°° r
acjenaa Report s 3
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Directo�
Prepared By: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO COSTCO EIR REGARDING TIMING OF CALLE JOAQUIN
IMPROVEMENTS
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Consider and adopt the Addendum to the Costco EIR, which documents changes to Mitigation
Measure TR/mm-2a regarding the timing of off-site improvements to Calle Joaquin.
DISCUSSION
Background
Costco has received its necessary City planning entitlements to develop a new 140,000 square-
foot warehouse store and service station. Currently City staff is in the final stages of reviewing
working drawings for a building permit and improvement plans that will allow construction work
on the project to proceed. However, required off-site improvements to realign Calle Joaquin, a
traffic mitigation measure, will be delayed because of certain conditions from other agencies with
regulatory control over the issuance of necessary permits to complete the work.
A Final EIR for the Costco/Froom Ranch Development was certified by the City Council on
November 4, 2003 (SCH No. 2002051036). Included in the EIR were various traffic mitigation
measures including Mitigation Measure TR/mm-2a. This particular mitigation measure required
that Calle Joaquin-South to Calle Joaquin-North be realigned to improve traffic flow. This
mitigation measure was adopted with the certification of the EIR to reduce significant cumulative
impacts to acceptable levels for the level of service at the Los Osos Valley Road
(LOVR)/Southbound U.S. 101 ramps/Calle Joaquin-South and LOVR/Northbound U.S. 101
ramp intersection.
Because of delay in the issuance of a required permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, Costco
has requested that the City modify Mitigation Measure TR/mmn 2a to accommodate the delay.
Specifically, Costco is requesting that the City require completion of the improvements to Calle
Joaquin no later than two years after all necessary permits have been obtained and all conditions
of the permit satisfied (see Attachment 1 —Costco letter dated 10-08-04). For reasons discussed
below the proposed changes actually promise more certainty regarding the completion of
improvements than does the current mitigation measure. Staff, however, has determined that
Mitigation Measure TR/mm-2a should be modified to clarify the timing of the improvements.
City staff has prepared an Addendum to the EIR to document necessary changes to Mitigation
Measure TR/mm-2a regarding the timing of the improvements and financial guarantees to the
City that the work is ultimately completed. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
a _ I
Costco EIR Addendum Page 2
allows an Addendum process when there is a need to document a minor modification or change
to the discussion in an EIR that does not result in any new or more severe impacts on the
environment. An Addendum does not require special noticing or circulation, but must be
reviewed and considered by the Council with its discussion of the modification or clarification to
a previously certified EIR.
Correspondences from Costco and the Madonna Family
Costco and the Madonna family entered into a Purchase and Sales agreement in June of 2000
regarding Costco's ultimate purchase of the land underlying their proposed development. While
this agreement has been extended several times, a letter from the law firm representing the
Madonna family was received by the City on October 5, 2004 (Attachment 2), which provides a
final deadline of December 15, 2004 for the closing of the property to be completed.
In reaction to this impending deadline, Costco prepared a separate letter to the City dated October
8, 2004 (Attachment 1) formally requesting that Mitigation Measure TR/mm-2a be modified.
The Costco letter indicates that the company is not willing to purchase the property from the
Madonna family without having the necessary permits in hand to complete the Calle Joaquin
realignment. With the revisions to the mitigation measure regarding the timing of the
improvements, Coctco would be comfortable finalizing the property sale, moving forward with
the construction of the warehouse store, and waiting for the issuance of the permit to complete
Calle Joaquin.
EIR Addendum
Attachment 3 is the EIR Addendum prepared by City staff to clarify and document the
recommended changes to Mitigation Measure TR/mm-2a. Currently the mitigation measure
says:
Prior to issuance of occupancy permit for Costco, construction contracts and necessary
permits shall be secured in order to complete improvements of the LOUR/ Calle Joaquin
intersection. The applicant shall apply for an Encroachment Permit for all work done in
City Right of Way and the improvements shall be completed to City standards. The
necessary improvements are as follows: Realign Calle Joaquin-South to Calle Joaquin-
North, subject to approval by the Director of Public Works.
The current mitigation measure is silent regarding the actual completion of the improvements. It
requires that the plans and permits be approved for the realignment, but does not prescribe a
timeframe for its completion.
Because of the issues with delays in obtaining permits to complete the Calle Joaquin realignment,
which are discussed in detail in the attached Addendum and summarized later in this report, the
following modifications to the mitigation measure are proposed to document the timing of the
improvements and to add a requirement for a bond from the applicant to guarantee that the
improvements are completed.
3-a
Costco EIR Addendum Page 3
Prior to issuance of occupancy permit for Costco,applicant shall provide a completion
bond for the Calle Joaquin-South realignment in the amount of$1,930,000. Within two
years after issuance of all necessary permits and of the subsequent satisfaction of all
conditions necessary for commencement of construction under such permits, including
City encroachment permit and Army Corps of Engineers permit, the applicant shall
complete improvements of the LOVR/Calle Joaquin intersection. The improvements shall
be completed to City standards. The necessary improvements are as follows: Realign
Calle Joaquin-South to Calle Joaquin-North, subject to the approval by the Director of
Public Works.
The proposed changes to the mitigation measure do not affect the EIR conclusions regarding the
impact or a need for mitigation, but clarify how fulfillment of the mitigation will be
implemented. The changes allow the applicant to proceed with construction of its project, but
still provide adequate assurance to the City that the improvements will be ultimately developed
in a timely fashion. In fact, the revised mitigation measure actually provides the City with more
protection than the current measure since it adds the requirement for a completion bond. Such
bonds are a common tool that the City utilizes in allowing project construction to proceed when
there are compelling reasons that required improvements need to be delayed. An initial study
was prepared to provide substantial evidence in the record regarding the decision to prepare an
Addendum, rather than a Supplemental EIR for the changes to the mitigation measure
(Attachment 4).
Reasons for Permit Delays
There are three primary reasons for the delay in the issuance of permits for the Calle Joaquin
realignment, which are:
1. Timing of the biological surveys necessary to obtain a permit from the Army Corps of
Engineers;
2. Need for a design exception from Caltrans for the Calle Joaquin/Los Osos Valley Road
intersection; and
3. Need to acquire right-of-way from a landowner to complete improvements.
Army Corps of Engineers Permit (the Corps)
The City is close to approving the improvement plans for the construction of Calle Joaquin. The
necessary 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOS) is under review, but has not
been completed. During the process of the ACOE review of the proposed fill into the waters of
the U.S., referring specifically to wetlands within the Calle Joaquin realignment corridor, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was informally consulted with regard to any potentially
threatened wildlife species within the project area. The USFWS indicated the potential presence
of vernal pool fairy shrimp, since known occurrences were very recently reported within 1.5
miles of the project site. The USFWS requested protocol surveys_ for the vernal pool fairy
shrimp..
3- 3
I
Costco EIR Addendum Page 4
Before the Corps will issue a permit for the roadwork, these protocol surveys need to be
conducted to determine whether the vernal pool fairy shrimp are present. Whether or not the
fairy shrimp is present will impact required conditions of the Corps permit. The surveys to
determine the presence of the shrimp need to be conducted under certain conditions, namely wet
weather that results in standing water for specified time periods. Now that the rainy season has
begun, these surveys can be conducted. A final mitigation plan would be developed and
implemented if the fairy shrimp are found.
City staff and Costco have been working closely and cooperatively on proceeding with the fairy
shrimp surveys with the ultimate goal of determining appropriate mitigation and securing the
necessary permit. Completion of the surveys will likely delay issuance of a 404 permit until the
spring of 2005, but it is not anticipated that this delay will cause a significant difference in the
actual completion of the realignment improvements from original expectations. As noted in the
attached Addendum, the projected delay may be four months to one year beyond originally
anticipated timelines depending on the results on the protocol biological surveys. This is not a
case where there is an issue with a permit ultimately being obtained, but rather the precise timing
of receiving that permit.
Caltrans Design Exception
Caltrans recently identified a needed exception to allow the realigned Calle Joaquin to intersect
Los Osos Valley Road less than the agency's prescribed distance from the Highway 101 on- and
off-ramps. Caltrans has indicated its support for the exception because it is a vast improvement
over current conditions, but it will take time to formally process the exception request. The
precise timing of the Caltrans exception request is not known.
Right-of-Way Exception
To complete the Calle Joaquin road realignment, right-of-way needs to be acquired from other
property owners who hold title to properties within the alignment area. Negotiations with most
of these property owners have progressed amicably, with a couple of exceptions. A separate
item, which deals with a Resolution of Necessity regarding these right-of-way acquisitions, will
be brought before the Council at a later date.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council could leave the mitigation measure language as originally approved.
If the Council does not find the modified mitigation measure acceptable, then Costco will not be
able to close the sale of the property by the deadline imposed by the Madonna family. This
would mean that the building pad site would be available for another, perhaps less desirable,
retailer to develop.
Costco EIR Addendum Page 5
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Letter from Costco dated 10-8-04
Attachment 2: Letter from Adamson Moroski Madden &Green LLP
Attachment 3: Addendum to the Costco EIR
Attachment 4: Initial Study dated 11-4-04
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE
Final EIR for the Costco/Froom Ranch Development
G:Er\Costco Addendum Council Agenda Report
KrOCT
�'1 be ' 1 4�p,es +oU AhJnent 1
1 1 2004 49#O�LESiALE ,. Q.
LSLO CITY ATTORNEY
wa-i4-ti-
Writer's Di L✓o'
Writer's Facs
`/
October 8, 2004
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Mr. Jonathan P. Lowell:
City Attorney
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
RE: Costco Proiect, Calle Joaquin Realignment
Dear Jonathan:
Mitigation measure TR/mm-2a of the Costco warehouse project requires that all permits be
obtained and a construction contract be executed for the realignment of a portion of Calle Joaquin
prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Costco warehouse. Although this mitigation
measure would allow Costco to purchase the From Ranch Way Shopping Center property, get its
building permit and build its warehouse while waiting for the issuance of the permits for realigning
Calle Joaquin,Costco will not do so. It is too great a risk to purchase the property or begin building
the warehouse without having the necessary Calle Joaquin permits in hand. It is conceivable that the
warehouse could be completed, at very substantial investment, and Costco would not be able to
open; in fact, this very situation befell the San Luis Obispo Home.Depot.
Despite diligent efforts by Costco,its ability to obtain the necessary Calle Joaquin permits is
significantly delayed. The delay is caused by(i)timing requirements for the biological assessment
necessary to obtain the Army Corps of Engineers permit,(ii)the unanticipated need for a CalTrans
design exception and variance for the Calle Joaquin/Los Osos Valley Road intersection,and(iii)the
inability to acquire needed right of way from at least one landowner and the probable need for
eminent domain,which power Costco does not have. Therefore,Costco requests.that the timing of
TR/mm-2a be modified.
Instead of the City requiring Costco to enter into contracts for the realignment of Calle
Joaquin before a certificate of occupancy may be issued for the Costco warehouse project,Costco is
requesting that the City require completion of the improvements to Calle Joaquin within two years
after all necessary permits for such improvements have been obtained and all conditions to the
permits have been satisfied.
999 Lake Drive • Issaquah, WA 98027. 425/313-8100 • www.costco.com
3 LQ
i
Mr. Jonathan P. Lowell Attachment 1
October 8, 2004
Page 2
The California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA")requires that an EIR describe"feasible
measures which could minimize significant adverse impacts..." (CEQA Guidelines, Section
15126.4(a)(1)). "'Feasible' means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a
reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and
technological factors."(CEQA Guidelines, Section 15364;see also Public Resources Code,Section
21061.1).
Issuance of the necessary Army Corps of Engineers permit is feasible because the policy of
the Army Corps of Engineers is to balance public interests and mitigate the impacts of projects,not
to prevent projects. (See, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, General Regulatory Policies, 33 CFR
320.4(a)(1).) The nature of the mitigation that maybe required for the Calle Joaquin realignment has
been identified, and.Costco is in the process of determining the scope of the mitigation (i.e., the
presence of fairy shrimp, the filling of wetlands, and the amount of mitigation habitat that may be
required for each impact).
Similarly, CalTrans has informed both Costco and the City that the design exception and
variance will be approved because, while the location at which the realigned Calle Joaquin would
meet the south side of Los Osos Valley Road is less than the prescribed distance from the Highway
101 on-and off-ramps,it is at the location of the existing junction of Calle Joaquin on the north side
of Los Osos Valley Road, it is a vast improvement over the current.situation(Calle Joaquin and the
101 south-bound on-ramp share the SAME connection point with Los Osos Valley Road—i.e.,there
is NO separation),and the realignment is consistent with the preferred long-term improvement plan
for the Highway 101/Los Osos Valley Road interchange. The CalTrans variance may require several
more months to obtain, but it is feasible.
The acquisition of the right of way necessary for the realignment of Calle Joaquin also is
feasible. At the request of the City,Costco has been attempting to arrange for the conveyance of the
right of way to the City through private negotiations. All affected landowners appear to be amenable
to this process except two. One of them tells us it will need an eminent domain action simply
because its complicated ownership structure would preclude execution of conveyance documents in a
timely manner. Another owner believes its property to have a value at least two and one-half times
higher than the appraised value that the City is prepared to approve. Nevertheless,these acquisitions
are feasible because the City does have the power of eminent domain and the acquisition of right of
way to improve Calle Joaquin is an indisputable public purpose. The City may make the acquisition
even more feasible and probable by passing resolutions of necessity concurrently with the resolution
modifying TR/mm-2a.
To assure the economic feasibility of the project when it no longer is a condition to Costco's
certificate of occupancy, Costco proposes to replace the security of its certificate of occupancy
(which secured only permitting and contracting for,.not completion of,the realignment work)with a
Attachment 1
Mr. Jonathan P. Lowell
October 8, 2004
Page 3
performance and payment bond to be issued to the City of San Luis Obispo for the costs of
constructing the Calle Joaquin realignment. This would represent an enhanced degree of assurance
that the realignment work would be not only contracted but completed.
The Calle Joaquin realignment mitigation measure,modified as proposed,would continue to
be at least as feasible as the current TR/mm-2a,taking into account economic,environmental,legal,
social and technological factors. The remaining question under the cited CEQA definition of
"feasible"is whether the modified mitigation measure may be accomplished in a reasonable period
of time. CEQA contemplates that implementation of a mitigation measure may be deferred beyond
the point at which the project impact intended to be mitigated by such measure occurs. In fact,the
current TR/mm-2a already is an example of this deferred timing in that it does not require
completion but only permitting of and contracting for the Calle Joaquin realignment as of the time
that Costco would open for business.
The validity of this lag between impact and mitigation was confirmed in Save Our Peninsula
Committee v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.01 99. That decision
involved,inter alfa,the timing of traffic improvements intended to mitigate impacts of a residential
development, for which the developer was required to pay traffic impact fees to fund its pro-rata
share of such improvements. Despite recognizing that the County had previously failed to
implement road improvements,the appellate court reversed the trial court's determination of these
issues because CEQA does not require"that the EIR set forth a time-specific schedule for the County
to completespecified road improvements. All that is required by CEQA is that there be a reasonable
plan for mitigation. . . .On this record we find that the traffic impact mitigation fees were sufficiently
tied to the actual mitigation of the impacts of the increased traffic." (Save Our Peninsula Committee,
supra at 141.)
The proposed plan for the Calle Joaquin mitigation is far superior to that approved in Save
Our Peninsula Committee. Costco has expended nearly $500,000 pursuing the construction
drawings,environmental studies and governmental permits for the Calle Joaquin realignment and on
September 27, submitted the 100% plan check set for the specific improvements, addressing all
comments received from the City in response to the 90% set. As stated above, permits from the
Army Corps of Engineers and Caltrans are pending,and Costco expects to receive them in the spring
or summer of 2005. Appraisals and other prerequisites to eminent domain action have commenced,
and the City could obtain orders of possession for the needed property interests within approximately
60 days after entering into good faith negotiations with landowners. Construction of the Calle
Joaquin realignment through wetlands must be performed between April and November of any year.
It is very possible that the last permit or condition required for construction will not be issued or
satisfied until too late in 2005 for construction to commence and be completed during that year's
construction season. That would delay the work to the 2006 construction season and is the reason
the proposed resolution requires completion within two years after issuance of all permits and
i l
Mr. Jonathan P. Lowell Attachment 1
October 8, 2004
Page 4
satisfaction of all conditions for commencement of the work. Of course, if the issuance of the
permits or the acquisition of the right of way was delayed by some unexpected circumstance, the
timing for completion of the realignment necessarily also would be delayed, but it would remain
reasonably calculated to occur at the earliest feasible date.
We submit, therefore, that the modification of TR/mm-2a represents a reasonable plan of
mitigation that is capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period
of time.
Please contact us if you require additional information to enable you to advise the City that it
may modify this mitigation measure as Costco is requesting.
Very truly yours,
COS 0 WHOLESALE
V. ony
Corporate sel
3— q
Attachment 2
'�- A D A M S K I M O R O S K'�' PASO ROBLES OFFICE:
TELEPHONE: (805)593-0990 1200 VINE STREET
FACSIMILE: (805)543-0980 MADDEN & G R E E N LLP PASO ROBLES,CA 93446-2268
e-mail: info@adamskimorosld.com ATTORNEYS AT LAw TELEPHONE: (805)238-2300
FACSIMILE: (805)238-2322
444 HIGUERA STREET,SUITE 300
SAN Luis OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93401-3875
www.adamskimoroski.com
October 5, 2004
VIA HAND-DELIVERY
MZMayor
ero
Vichwartz
CoAllen K. Settle
CoChristine Mulholland
CoJohn Ewan
c/o City Hall
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Madonna/Costco.
Dear Mayor Romero and Council Members:
This firm represents Phyllis Madonna and the Madonna family's interests in the Costco site located
at the Froom Ranch Shopping Center.
Costco and the Madonna family entered into the Costco site Purchase and Sales Agreement in June
2000. The Purchase and Sales Agreement originally required that the property be purchased by Costco within
approximately one year. However,the closing has not yet occurred because,despite everyone's best efforts,
each of the conditions imposed on the project has,as yet,not been fully satisfied. Most critically,despite the
focused efforts of the parties,we have not been able to meet fully the condition that the required realignment
of Calle Joaquin be fully permitted and under contract.
Costco has taken on the daunting task of obtaining all permits for the realignment. Costco has
diligently worked closely with all of the permitting agencies. It was assumed that all necessary permits,
including a wetlands permit from the Army Corps of Engineers,would be in hand by no later than October
2004.
In response to these numerous delays, the Madonna family has agreed to extend the closing date a
number of times. Most recently,the Madonna family agreed to extend the closing to the end of October 2004
on the assumption that Calle Joaquin would be fully permitted.
Unfortunately, as your staff is aware, at the last moment it was learned that completion of the
permitting process may be postponed for an additional year or more because of the potential that the
realignment site includes potential habitat for longhorn fairy shrimp, an endangered species. As we
understand it,the federal government is now mandating that surveys be conducted in both dry and wet seasons
to see if, in fact, longhorn fairy shrimp are actually present on the realignment site.
I,O .Q,Q w�'-A
Ot a�
� U1r
- ' Attachment 2
Mayor Dave Romero
San Luis Obispo City Council
October 5, 2004
Page 2
Costco has asked if the City would deem the Calle Joaquin condition satisfied if Costco
agreed to: (1) proceed with the processing and permitting of the Calle Joaquin alignment; (2) fully
bond the realignment construction;and(3)finish the realignment construction as soon as reasonable
and, in any event,no later than two building seasons after all permits are provided and all property
necessary to construct the new road is obtained.
We ask that Costco's request be considered by the City Council at its first meeting in
November 2004. Costco has asked that the Madonna family agree to a further short extension of the
closing to allow the City Council to address Costco's request at this meeting.
We believe Costco's proposal is a proper resolution of the issue which honors both the spirit
and letter of the project's approvals. In fact, the Costco proposal actually affords the City more
protection than the existing condition because completion of the work is guaranteed by a bond. (The
current condition requires only that permits be issued and contracts entered.) As such, I am
authorized to represent to the Council that the Madonna family has agreed to Costco's request and
will enter into a written extension of the Purchase and Sales Agreement to allow the closing to occur
on or before November 30, 2004.
However, for a number of reasons, the Madonna family is unable to agree to extend the
closing beyond December 15, 2004. If Costco is prevented from completing the purchase by that
date,we will be"out of contract." If the closing is delayed beyond this date,prudence dictates that
the family fully review the project in.light of all existing circumstances and determine if it might be
better to pursue other potential uses and/or purchasers for the property separately or in conjunction
with the planned build-out of the entire Froom Ranch. There is no assurance that the new plans will
include Costco.
Thank you for your consideration of the points raised in this letter. I look forward to your
response. In the interim, if you have any questions or comments,please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Sincerely yours,
DIUr'
STEVEN J. ADAMSKI
SJA:lp
GAMadonnaP\Costco\Cor\Ciry 100504.wpd
cc: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer(via hand-delivery)
Shelley Stanwick, Economic Development Manager(via hand-delivery)
David Franklin, Esq. (via facsimile)
Clint Pearce(via facsimile)
Attachment 3
Addendum to Costco/Froom Ranch EIR
Certified by City Council on November 4,.2003
(SCH No. 2002051036)
1. Project Title:
Costco/Froom Ranch Development
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Pamela Ricci, Senior Planner
(805) 781-7168
3. Project Contact Person and Phone Number:
Jeffrey S. Wilson, AICP, Mulvanny G2 Architecture
425-463-1378
4. Project Location:
1540 Froom Ranch Way, located on the southwest side of Los Osos
Valley Road between Madonna Road and Highway 101, between the
DeVaul residential development and Home Depot
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Mr. Alex Madonna (currently Mrs. Phyllis Madonna)
Madonna Construction Company
P.O. Box 3910
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. Previous Environmental Review
On November 4, 2003, the City Council certified a Final Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) for the Costco project. A Notice of
Determination was filed with the County Clerk on November 6, 2003.
Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines addresses an addendum to an
EIR. The lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously
certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of
Addendum to Final EIR ...r the Costco/Froom Ranch Project Attachment 3
Page 2
the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a
subsequent EIR have occurred (Section 15164 (a). This addendum
has been prepared consistent with Section 15164 and Section 15162
to document why the proposed changes to Mitigation Measure
TR/mm-2a is consistent with the prior analysis included in the
November 4, 2003 Final EIR for the Costco/Froom Ranch project.
7. Project Description:
The Costco/Froom Ranch project consisted of the development of a
Costco Wholesale warehouse, including tire sales, tire installation,
outdoor food service and a fuel station on Parcel 2 of the Madonna
property, totaling 140,000 square feet on a 14.95-acre parcel. Also
evaluated in the EIR was Parcel 1 (approximately 8.08 acres) and
Parcel 3 (approximately 8.63 acres) in the review of the proposed
project in order to streamline the environmental review process for
future development and to ensure consistency between the Costco
development and future build-out of these two parcels. Figures III-3
through III-5 in the EIR show the layout of the proposed Costco
Wholesale warehouse and conceptual site plan for Parcels 1 and 3.
8. Requested Changes to the Project Being Reviewed in this
Addendum:
As part of the EIR evaluation, cumulative impacts to traffic and
circulation were identified as significant impacts, particularly with
regard to level of service at the Los Osos Valley Road
(LOVR)/South bound U.S. 101 ramps/Calle Joaquin-South and
LOVR/Northbound U.S. 10-1 ramp intersection, which would
deteriorate from acceptable to unacceptable levels (please refer to the
Final EIR, Pages V-65 through V-68). The EIR identified mitigation
measure TR/mm-2a to reduce significant impacts to acceptable levels,
as follows:
TR/mm-2a Prior to issuance of occupancy permit for Costco, construction
contracts and necessary permits shall be secured in order to complete
improvements of the LOVR/ Calle Joaquin intersection. The applicant
shall apply for an Encroachment Permit for all work done in City Right of
Way and the improvements shall be completed to City standards. The
necessary improvements are as follows: Realign Calle Joaquin-South to
Calle Joaquin-North,—subject to approval by the Director of Public Works.
The applicant. is requesting that this mitigation measure be modified as
follows (changes in italics):
3- 13
Addendum to Final EIR for the Costco/Froom Ranch Project
Page 3 Attachment 3
TR/mm-2a Prior to issuance of occupancy permit for Costco, applicant shall
provide a completion bond for the Calle.Joaquin-South realignment in the
amount of$1,930,000. Within two years after issuance of all necessary
permits and of the subsequent satisfaction of all conditions necessary for
commencement of construction under such permits, including City
encroachment permit and Army Corps of Engineers permit, the applicant
shall complete improvements of the LOVR/Calle Joaquin intersection.
The improvements shall be completed to City standards. The necessary
improvements are as follows: Realign Calle Joaquin-South to Calle
Joaquin-North, subject to the approval by the Director of Public Works.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
Since November 2003, the Costco Wholesale warehouse and off-site
improvements have been under design and are essentially approved by the
City. A required off-site improvement, Calle Joaquin realignment, has been
designed to the City standards, and permit applications for an individual
permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act are under review by the
Army Corps of Engineers (ACOS). The ACOE has not completed their permit
application review at this time.
During the process of the ACOE review of the proposed fill into the waters
of the U.S., referring specifically to wetlands within the Calle Joaquin
realignment corridor, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was informally
consulted with regard to any potentially threatened wildlife species within
the project area. The USFWS indicated the potential presence of vernal pool
fairy shrimp, since known occurrences were very recently reported within
1 .5 miles of the project site. The USFWS requested protocol surveys for the
vernal pool fairy shrimp.
Per the USFWS request, Morro Group, Inc. conducted a habitat survey to
determine the potential for presence of the vernal pool fairy shrimp. Both
moderate and low quality habitat was present, and based on this survey,
ACOE requested that protocol surveys be conducted per USFWS informal
consultation. These surveys have delayed the issuance of the Section 404
permit until the protocol surveys are completed, in the spring of 2005. This
is a delay in the timing of the issuance of the permit as opposed to
substantive changes in the project design. The ACOE intends to issue the
Section 404 permit once the additional biological studies are conducted and
any necessary mitigation plans have been approved.
The USFWS and ACOE have indicated that suitable methods exist to
mitigate for the disturbance or loss of the vernal pool habitat and they have
3— c4
Addendum to Final EIK ..r the Costco/Froom Ranch Project Attachment 3
Page 4
indicated that they will request a habitat restoration program for the loss of
vernal pool habitat if the vernal pool fairy shrimp are present. The mitigation
plan would reduce the potential effects to vernal pool fairy shrimp to less
than significant if they are present, or the ACOE would issue a "no effects"
determination if the vernal pool fairy shrimp were not found within the Calle
Joaquin realignment.
The Final EIR evaluated the secondary effects of the proposed mitigation
measure TR/mm-2a consistent with CEO.A Guidelines (refer to Final EIR,
Pages V-67 through V-68). The mitigation measures for this secondary
effect are given on page V-68 of the Final EIR, TR-SEC/mm-1). The Final EIR
indicated that there were potentially significant effects to Waters of the U.S.
with construction of the Calle. Joaquin realignment. The Final EIR identified
approximately 1 .1 aces of wetland area would be disturbed by
implementation of the Calle Joaquin realignment, and discussed in-kind, off
site mitigation for replacement of wetland habitat. The vernal pool habitat
identified as part of the wetland habitat would be replaced off site and in-
kind, as per requirements of the ACOE Section 404 permit. In addition,
additional secondary mitigation measures were indicated in the Final EIR to
mitigate for potentially significant effects (refer to mitigation measure TR-
SEC/mm-1) by ensuring that habitat is replaced consistent with ACOE and
State Department of Fish and Game regulations.
The change to the mitigation measure TR/mm-2a relates to timing and
bonding of the completion of the Calle Joaquin realignment. Because the
ACOE is still reviewing the proposed Calle Joaquin realignment and it is
delayed by the need for additional biological surveys, Costco would not be
able to meet its commitments to the property owner. The applicant
(Madonna Construction Company) will not extend the time for Costco's
acquisition of the property at 1540 Froom Ranch Way (site of the approved
Costco Wholesale warehouse) beyond December 15, 2004, and Costco will
not acquire the property or commence construction until it knows the
timeline for satisfaction of the conditions of mitigation measure TR/mm-2a or
is able to open independently of the timeline for the permits required under
TR/mm-2a.
The proposed change in the language of mitigation measure TR/mm-2a does
not affect the action, but rather ensures that the proposed realignment
would be bonded for completion instead of showing proof of contracts in
place and issuance of the necessary permits, including the ACOE Section
404 permit. The revised language of the mitigation measure ensures that
the mitigation measure will be met, although construction would be delayed
until after the issuance of these permits. The delay caused by this minor
modification to the mitigation measure may delay the construction of Calle
3- 19
Addendum to Final EIR,ur the Costco/Froom Ranch Project
Attachment 3
Page 5
Joaquin realignment by four months to a year beyond originally anticipated
timelines, depending on the results of the biological surveys requested by the
ACOE. The substance of the mitigation measure will not change with this
minor modification.
DETERMINATION
The City of San Luis Obispo has determined that this addendum to the Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Costco/Froom Ranch project is
necessary to document minor technical changes or additions that have
occurred in the project description since the Final EIR was originally
prepared. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information
contained in this addendum in its consideration of the Costco/Froom Ranch
project, and finds that the preparation of a Supplemental EIR is not
necessary because:
1 . None of the circumstances included in Section 15162, which require a
subsequent EIR, have occurred, specifically:
a. The project changes do not result in new or more severe
environmental impacts.
b. The circumstances under which the project is undertaken
will not require major changes to the EIR.
C. The modification of TR/mm-2a is not substantial and
replaces the issuance of contracts and obtaining permits
with bonding of the construction of the proposed Calle
Joaquin realignment; therefore guaranteeing that Calle
Joaquin realignment will occur once the Section 404 permit
is issued.
d. The administrative record as a whole contains substantial
evidence to support the determination that the changes in
the project or its circumstances were not so substantial as to
require major modifications of the EIR.
Attached: Pages V-65 through V-68 of the Costco/Froom Ranch Final EIR
3 - 1
Costco/Froom Rancho Transportation
Attachment 3
Impact and Mitigation Discussion
The project will create deficient levels of service at the following intersections (Interchange):
• LOVR/Southbound U.S. 101 ramps/Calle Joaquin-South(PM LOS F; Saturday LOSE)
• LOVR/Northbound U.S. 101 Ramps: (PM LOSE)
The Costco only project will also create deficient operations on the southbound approach of
Calle Joaquin-North to LOVR during the weekday PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour.
TR-Impact 2 The project will cause the level of service at the LOVR/Southbound U.S. 101
ramps/Calle Joaquin-South and LOVRINorthbound U.S. 101 ramp
intersection to deteriorate from acceptable levels to unacceptable levels.
This impact would be considered significant but mitigable(Class ln.
Traffic from the Costco only project will have a significant adverse impact on the operation of
the LOVR-U.S. 101 interchange. Coordination of the signals at the interchange.ramps would
improve traffic operations at the northbound ramps intersection to LOS D during the weekday
PM peak hour-, but the southbound ramps intersection would remain at LOS E. Signal
coordination will improve the traffic flow on LOVR but the 101/LOVR off-ramps will
experience extended queuing resulting in backing of automobiles onto the travel lanes of U.S.
101, creating conflicts between the exiting traffic and highway through traffic, resulting in LOS
F. Extension of the 101/LOVR northbound and southbound off-ramps would accommodate
project-generated traffic and eliminate backing up of traffic queues onto U.S. 101.
The capacity provided by the current two-lane design of the LOVR grade separation over U.S.
101 and the existing configuration of interchange ramps will not serve the additional traffic
generated by the Costco project. A Project Study Report (PSR) study is currently underway to
evaluate various design alternatives for this interchange. Construction of the full interchange re-
construction project would mitigate project impacts but is not expected for at least 10 years.
Interim measures, consistent with the projected final interchange design can be implemented by
the applicant to mitigate the impacts of the proposed Costco project.
A toolbox of mitigation strategies was analyzed and provided to Caltrans for review to determine
the preferred combination of measures that would effectively mitigate Costco project impacts
and be consistent with future design alternatives for the interchange. Appendix G contains the
toolbox of studied mitigation strategies as well as the Caltrans response letter regarding
recommended mitigation. Vehicle queue estimates for studied mitigation alternatives are also
included in Appendix G, Exhibit 4.
A second interchange project (Prado Road/U.S. 101) is in preliminary planning stages and
impact of this interchange was applied to the project area. Construction of the Prado Road
interchange would divert traffic from the LOVR interchange. With the Prado interchange
constructed, the levels of service at the LOVR interchange with Costco only would be at
acceptable levels. Average vehicle queues on the southbound and northbound off-ramps would
be within the storage areas currently provided on these ramps. However, the vehicle queue on
FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-65
Costco I Froom Ranch Awffla4greukaea Transportation
Attachment 3
the westbound LOVR approach to the southbound ramps is estimated to average 1158 feet and
with the westbound through volume exceeding the capacity of the westbound through
movement, this queue could be longer in length. The westbound LOVR vehicle queue extending
from the southbound ramps would extend through the intersection with the northbound ramps
and additional mitigation measures would still be necessary to reduce this queue.
Implementation of this intersection is not anticipated for several years, therefore, the following
combination of mitigation is proposed to mitigate the impacts of the Costco project.
Table V-11
Mitigation Combination for LOVR/U.S. 101/Calle Joaquin Intersection
Mitigation Capacity/Circulation Benefit Right-of-Way Issues
Requirement
1 Coordinate existing Caltrans& Marginal-Additional LOVR green No Signal timing implemented by Caltrans
City Signals time may be skewed to ramp approaches to
protect U.S. 101 mainline from ramp
queues. Coordination of signals would
require agreement between City and
Caltrans
2 Relocate Calle Joaquin South to Moderate-Additional LOVR greet Madonna open Secondary wetland impacts,ACE permit
align with Calle Joaquin North time,separates SB ramp movements space,Flagg required, State/City signal coordination
and signalize property. necessary.
3 Lengthen SB U.S. 101 and N8 Low-Safety improvement to ensure Unknown Required for realignment of Call
U.S. 101 off-ramp vehicle queues on ramps do not Joaquin South to Calle Joaquin North as
extend into U.S. 101 travel lanes this improvement would result i
increased vehicle queues on the
lint=hangc ramps
The level of service calculations for the design alternatives assume coordination of the
interchange intersection signal operations. In addition, the minimum green times provided on
the off-ramp approaches to LOVR were increased where necessary and where possible to
provide the off-ramp approaches with sufficient capacity to meet the vehicle demand on these
approaches. The realignment of Calle Joaquin-South to align with Calle Joaquin-North will
mitigate intersection level of service impacts resulting from the Costco only project. However,
the interchange will still be subjected to relatively large vehicle queues and lengthening of both
the northbound and southbound off-ramps would be necessary.
TR/mm-2a Prior to issuance of occupancy permit for Costco, construction contracts and
necessary permits shall be secured in order to complete improvements of the
LOVR/U-.&.-4414Calle Joaquin intersection. The applicant shall apply for an
Encroachment Permit for all work done in the cwe High::a7 City Right of Way
and the improvements shall be completed to C—altr-ans City standards, shewn by
he Gahr-ans rye ..,-t. ent of Pe its Off., e
. The
necessary improvements are as follows:
1. EeeFdinate Existing Ealtfrs and CiT„igna=T
2- Realign Calle Joaquin-South to Calle Joaquin-Northam aad-subject to approval
by the Director of Public Works.
3. Lengthen Seuthbeand U.S. 101 and Net4hbetind U.S. 191 eff ramps.
8RA4FFINAL Environmental Impact Report V-66
3-1S
0
Costco/Froom Ranch s49&wu1etten Transportation
Attachment 3
TR/mm-2b Prior to issuance of occupancy permit for Costco, the applicant shall apply for
an encroachment permit for all work done in the State Highway right-of-way and
the improvements shall be completed to Caltrans standard, shown by a letter of
acknowledgement from the Caltrans Department of Permits office. The necessary
improvements are as follows:
1. Coordinate existing Caltrans and City signals
2. As ultimately determined by Caltrans, lengthen Southbound U.S. 101 off-ramp
subject to approval of Caltrans.
Table V-12
LOVR Interchange Levels of Service with Mitigation
LOVR/SB LOVRINB
Condition/Improvement Ramps Ramps
-
Delay LOS —Delay LOS
BACKGROUND without Prado Interchange)-PM 45.9 D 39.2 D
BACKGROUND without Prado Interchange)-SAT 25.0 C 18.8 B
BACKGROUND(With Prado Interchange)-PM 31.9 C 25.4 C
BACKGROUND PLUS COSTCO PROJECT-PM
Existing Geometrics 80.1 F 58.4 E
Signal Coordination, Relocate Calle J.-South to Calle J.-North 34.3 C 51.4 D
and Extend NB and SB off-ramps.
BACKGROUND PLUS COSTCO PROJECT-SAT
Existina Geometrics 64.0 E 32.1 C
Signal Coordination, Relocate Calle J.-South to Calle J.-North 35.5 D 28.3 C
and Extend NB and SB off-ramps.
Source:Higgins Associates
The infrastructure improvements included above on Table V-12 may have secondary
environmental impacts to wetlands, riparian corridor, nestilig and'foraging raptors, and cultural
resources. Mitigation measures designed to reduce these secondary impacts to less than
significant levels are shown below.
Infrastructure Improvement Secondary Mitigation
Regulatory requirements will be triggered as a result of proposed impacts to wetland areas that
will be caused by transportation infrastructure improvement implementation. Impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands will require consultation and coordination with state (California r
Department of Fish and Game-CDFG) and federal (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-USACE)
agencies during the early phases of the project. Through consultation and coordination with
these agencies, specific regulatory requirements commensurate with proposed impacts can be
determined. Potential permits required by these agencies could range from a Nationwide Permit
to a Section 404(b)(1) Permit (issued by USACE) for impacts to wetlands.
Under the federal Clean Water Act, the USACE may claim jurisdiction over wetlands and
navigable waters determined to be "Waters of the U.S." Dredge or fill activities in waters under
USACE jurisdiction are regulated under the Clean Water Act.
994 FINAL Environmental Impact Repott V-67
Costco%Froom Ranch — . 4ffia46lseulef err Transportation
Attachment 3
The delineated areas in the area of the proposed infrastructure improvements meet the USACE
criteria for jurisdictional wetlands, and therefore activities within the delineated area would
either require a project specific permit or would be covered by an existing nationwide permit.
The permit type determination will be made by the USACE.
Mitigation in the form of in-kind, off-site creation of wetlands should be located as near to the
impact site as is feasible. Approximately 48;276 square feet or 1.11 acres of wetland area would
be disturbed by implementation of the Calle Joaquin realignment. Wetlands discussion from the
1989 Madonna General Plan Amendment EIR, and a map showing habitat areas and historic
wetlands within the vicinity of the improvement area is included in Appendix G- Exhibit E. The
advantage of in-kind, off-site mitigation is that it would, through duplication of the physical
nature of the wetland area to be negatively impacted, tend to benefit those plant and wildlife
species that would be adversely impacted at the project site and would also tend to maintain their
population levels. This form of mitigation does not necessarily assure retention of the local plant
and wildlife populations affected by the project.
TR-SECImnact 1 Infrastructure improvements at the LOVRICalle Joaquin/U.S. 101
intersection will permanently remove wetlands and sensitive riparian
habitat.
TR-SEC/mm-1 As part of the design project submittal, the applicant shall compensate for
the loss of wetland and riparian.habitat in a form acceptable to the City of San
Luis Obispo and all applicable agencies. The submittal shall be consistent
with mitigation proposed for the resource sections of this EIR and shall
include but not be limited to the following:
1. Perform a wetland delineation at the project site and establish an off-site in-kind wetland
compensatory mitigation area within the Froom Creek corridor including native vegetation
and raptor perches,.consistent with ACOE regulations.
2. Develop a revegetation plan including monitoring requirements pursuant standards
established by ACOE and CDFG.
3. Begin revegetation of the off-site mitigation area prior to removal of vegetation at the
project site.
4. Provide fencing around wetland and riparian areas to prohibit eews cattle from removing
vegetation utilized by sensitive species.
5. Prior to constructing compensatory mitigation, a presence/absence survey shall be
completed within the Froom Creek corridor for burrowing owls and other listed species
(California red legged frog,southwestern pond turtle,coast homed lizard,two striped garter
snake, silvery legless lizard, etc.). If sensitive species are present, mitigation shall not
proceed until breeding or nesting season is completed. All surveys shall be consistent with
regulatory guidelines.
TR-SECImnact 2 Infrastructure improvements at the LOVRICalle JoaquimV.S. 101
intersection have the potential to unearth sensitive surface and subsurface
cultural and/or historic materials.
TR-SEC/mm-2 Prior to vegetation removal, a Phase I archaeological survey shall be
conducted by a qualified/approved archaeologist and construction activities
shall be consistent with cultural resources mitigation included in this EIR.
9Q4 FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-68
2 -�
r"
Attachment 4
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER# 73-00 Addendum
1. Project Title:
Costco/Froom Ranch Development/Calle Joaquin Realignment/Minor Modifications to
Mitigation Measure TR/mm-2a in the Final EIR
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Pamela Ricci, Senior Planner
(805) 781-7168
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Jeffrey S. Wilson, AICP, Mulvanny G2 Architecture
(425)463-1378
4. Project Location:
Proposed realignment of Calle Joaquin is generally located south of Los Osos Valley Road
directly across from north Calle Joaquin and trends southward behind the existing Motel 6,
Margie's Diner and Rose Garden Inn and then connects back into the existing south Calle
Joaquin alignment south of Rose Garden Inn.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Madonna Construction Company (Mrs. Phyllis Madonna)
P.O. Box 3910
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation:
Open Space
7. Zoning:
C/OS-10; Conservation Open Space with a 10-acre minimum parcel size
J'
t
Attach+tient 4
8. Description of the Project:
Request for a minor adjustment to Final EIR mitigation measure TR/mm-2a as follows:
TR/mm-2a Prior to issuance of occupancy permit for Costco, construction contracts and necessary
permits shall be secured in order to complete improvements of the LOVR/ Calle.Joaquin
intersection. The applicant shall apply for an Encroachment Permit for all work done in
City Right of Way and the improvements shall be completed to City standards. The
necessary improvements are as follows: Realign Calle Joaquin=South to Calle Joaquin
North,—subject to approval by the Director of Public Works.
The applicant is requesting that this mitigation measure be modified as follows
(changes in italics):
TR/mm-2a Prior to issuance of occupancy permit for Costco,applicant shall provide a completion
bond for the Calle Joaquin-South realignment in the amount of$1,930,000. Within two
years after issuance of all necessary permits and of the subsequent satisfaction of all
conditions necessary for commencement of construction under such permits, including
City encroachment permit and Army Corps of Engineers permit, the applicant shall
complete improvements of the LOVR/Calle Joaquin intersection. The improvements shall
be completed to City standards. The necessary improvements are as follows: Realign
Calle Joaquin-South to Calle Joaquin-North, subject to the approval by the Director of
Public Works.
This is the whole of the action that is being evaluated in this Initial Study.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
Grazing lands to the west and and U.S. Highway 101 and commercial uses to the north and
east.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
None: Request is for minor modification of a mitigation measure.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
None.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
3- .-
Attach ltient 4
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services
Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation
Materials
—X—
Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic
Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service
Systems
Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Energy and Mineral Population and Housing
Resources
FISH AND GAME FEES
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
NA and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a
de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
NA and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has
been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
NA State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
tea/ CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
3 -a3
Attach-nent 4
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, —X--
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION,including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
November 4,2004
tur Date
John Mandeville,
Printed Name Community Development Dir.
�M CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
t
Attache dent 4
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
I. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved(e.g.the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards(e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each
issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold,if any,used to evaluate each question.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact'is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are
one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17,"Earlier Analysis,"may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California
Administrators Code. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following:
�� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
Attachrnent 4
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent
to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Attache tient 4
Issues, Discussion and Suppoi, d Information Sources Sources Po ly Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
1.AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? -X=
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not -X--'
limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of --X='
the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would -X--
__adv_ersely_effect 4ay of nighttime views in the,area?
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of -X-=
Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency,to non=agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to `-X-;
their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultuu•al use?.
3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct.implementation of the applicable air --X-=
quality plan?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of --}t_
people?
e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any �}{,
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or'indifeetly or
through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a
candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional
plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or __X__
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans,policies, or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources,such as a treerp eservationpolicy or
�r CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 20Q2
Att r'1 ."- t 4
Issues, Discussion and Suppoi, d Information Sources Sources Pa, ly Potentially Less Than No
Signincant Significant Significant Impact
ER # Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
ordinance,(e.g. Heritage Trees)?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation =X==
Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved
local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan?
f) Have-a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected =-X
wetlands as defined in Section 404.of the Clean Water Act
(including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.)
through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or
other means?
5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the-significance of a -X=='
historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a"unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains,including those'interred,outside of =-X-'
formal cemeteries?
6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would_ the project:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficientX
manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
State?
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the.project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverseX__
effects,including tisk of loss,injury or death involving:
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the _X",
most recent.Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
11. Strong seismic ground shaking?
IIl. Seismic related ground-failure,including liquefaction? �{_;
IV. Landslides or mudflows?
_X__
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that
would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially
result in on or off site landslides,lateral spreading,subsidance,
liquefaction,or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18=I-B of the ..X.
Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life
or property?
��� CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Information Sources Sources Pc ily Potentially Less Than No
Sigmticant Significant Significant Impact
ER # Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create,a-significant hazard to the public or the enviironment ;X=
though the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment -X-;
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous -X
emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances;or waste?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous -X=
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and,as a result,it would create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
f) For project located within an airport land use plan,of within --X=
two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety
hazard for the people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a.significant risk of lose,injury,. —X=
or death, involving wildland fires,including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are
intermixed with wildlands?
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere -X
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would.
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level(eg.The production rate of preexisting
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X
capacity of existing or planned storm-water drainage systems or .
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or --x
area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation onsite or offsite?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or _X_'
area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding
onsite or offsite?
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on —X
_ a Federal Flood Hazard:Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Ivtap'_
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
3 _ AA
Attacil - 4
Issues, Discussion and Suppo._-.g Information Sources Sources Pt Aly Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
or other flood hazard delineation map?
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area strictures whichX
would impede or redirect flood flows?
h) ,Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?. X-
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING- Would the project:
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy; or regulation-of X=
an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
b) Physically divide an established community?
C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural --X-=
community conservation plans?
11.NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise ==X
levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise
Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards
established in the Noise Ordinance?
b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in -X=
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne —X=
vibration or groumdbome noise levels?
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly —X-
(for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people. =-X=
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision,or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? _ .. ._._
__X;_
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks? �X
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? _-}{
f) Other public facilities?
14.RECREATION. Would the project:
a) - Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks dr
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO to INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
3 -3�
- Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Suppo,_.,g Information Sources sources Pi ,Ily Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical`
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would,the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which'is substantial in relation to the LX-'
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system?
b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service --X-;
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads and highways?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp -X
curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.
farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? =-X:
e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? -X==
f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative =X—'
transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?
g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land
Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards, _.
noise,or a change in air traffic patterns?
Refer to discussion at end of checklist explaining the potential effects of the proposed modification of TR/mm-2a. The
potential effect is a delay in the timing of the completion of the Calle Joaquin realignment, which is offset by bonding the
cost of the improvements to ensure that the City will have the ability to complete the requirements of TR/mm-2a and the
secondary mitigation measures as indicated in the Final EIR for the project. It is anticipated that the delay in timing would
be less than a year beyond that which was anticipated at the time of mitigation measure approval.
16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable --X--
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction or ekpansion of new water-
treatment,
atertreatment,wasterwater treatment,or storm drainage facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project =-X-
from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and
expanded water resources needed?
d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider --X-=
which serves or may serve the project-that it has adequate.
capacity to serve the project's projected demand and addition to
the provider's existing commitment?
e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to -=X-
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063(c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO f INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
H -&I
- Attadhnient 4
Issues, Discussion and Suppoi. j Information Sources Sources Po Ily Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a Eaclier_anal§is used:Costco/Froom RancliFinalB ' ' �� �' ��
y 1R;avatlalile for public-review at the Commumry Development
Department,City of San Luis Obispo;contact Pam Ricci, (805)781-7168
The Final EIR evaluated the potential impacts of the Calle Joaquin realignment mitigation measure and identifies secondary
mitigation measures that address the need to mitigate for loss of wetlands and any effects to listed plant or animal species
consistent with USFWS, CDFG and ACOE requirements (TR-SEC/mm-1); refer to Pages V-67 and V-68 of the Final EIR
(attached).
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which'effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earfier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on,the earlier analysis.
The Final EIR evaluated the potential impacts of the Calle Joaquin realignment mitigation measure and identifies secondary
mitigation measures that address the need to mitigate for loss of wetlands and any effects to listed plant or animal species
consistent with USFWS, CDFG and ACOE requirements (TR-SEC/mm-1); refer to Pages V-67 and V-68 of the Final EIR
(attached). The proposed modification to TR/mm-2a does not change the secondary mitigation measure requirements.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are"Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from.the,earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions of the project. (see B)above.
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. Costco/Froom Ranch Final EIR,prepared by Morro Group,Inc.and certified by the San Luis City Council on
November 4,2003.
Attachments:
Addendum to Costco/Froom Ranch EIR 6#-:-e >A 4aLh m e_n f .3
Pages V-65 through V-68 of the Costco/Froom Ranch EI
Proposed Calle Joaquin Realignment
REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
No new mitigation measures are necessary. The requested modification to mitigation
measure TR/mm-2a would not require any additional mitigation measures beyond those
cited in the Final EIR to address secondary impacts associated with the Calle Joaquin
realignment. The action requested is a minor modification to the existing mitigation
measure TR/mm-2a that relates to timing and bonding of the completion of the Calle
Joaquin realignment. Because the ACOE is still reviewing the proposed Calle Joaquin
realignment and it is delayed by the need for additional biological surveys, Costco would
not be able to meet their commitments to the property owner. The applicant (Madonna
Construction Company) will not extend the timeline for acquisition of the property at
1540 Froom Ranch Way (site of the approved Costco Wholesale warehouse) beyond
December 15, 2004, and Costco will not commence construction until they know the
timeline for satisfaction of the conditions of mitigation measure TR/mm2a.
CITY OF SAN Luis OaisPO 12 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
3 � 3�
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Suppoi_ d Information Sources sources PC Jy Potentially Less Than No
Signamcant Significant Significant Impact
ER # Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
The proposed change in the language of mitigation measure TR/mm-2a does not affect
the action, but rather ensures that the proposed realignment would be bonded for
completion instead of showing proof of contracts in place and issuance of the ACOE
Section 404 permit. The revised language of the mitigation measure ensures that the
mitigation measure will be met, although construction would be delayed until after the
issuance of the Section 404 permit. The substance of the mitigation measure will not
change with this minor modification.
111111111111GIII CITY OF sAN.Luis osispo 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
ATTACHMENT 4
Fn Ay} u D ✓ I
/ i '� '`�. �^•r. rw��,,.,-;.,, ,. a mak, � IT,
�,
' ;a a r •
Nip P.jj
,
t
f--
—.y \ t�� �� � til ' asLo- •�� E O®J.:O @C000 G'EE
`r��• ��;��,��^. i ti i > ;�+ �=5�=@���{��Y .4 as u
cnuE Yonama ruxiPaaErrr + city of
SnAM PLM san tugs OBISpo
3 -
�U Page 1 of 1
SLO Citycouncil - Costco
From: "amayjay" <amayjay@highstream.net> �Ll ./
To: <sloci tycouncil@sloci ty.org> Imo"
bate: 11/17/2004 6:07 PM
Subject: Costco
We want to thank-the City Council for realizing the needs of the people, and allowing Costco to proceed with
building and opening a store for us. We have written before asking the Council to realize we are desperate for
more shopping facilities, to support families, rather than tourists and visitors. We sincerely thank you for not
allowing Costco to be stalled again.
We want to ask you again, to please go forward on the Marketplace. It also is desperately needed. We really only
have Mervyns,and Gottschalks. We have already lost Macy's. Families need more stores. Please do vote to approve
them.
Thank you,
Don and Mary Hines
3536 Cedar Court
San Luis Obispo,Ca. 93401
nmay jnv@highstream.net
file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW10000IRTM 11/18/2004
Page 1 of 1
SLO Citycouncil - Approve the Costco
WTI
From: "JEROMY MITCHELL" <jeromymitchell@msn.com>
To: <slocitycouncil@slocity.org>
Date: 11/16/2004 11:13 PM
Subject: Approve the Costco
Council members,
As a long time resident of San Luis Obispo I am concerned as to the numerous delays of the much
anticipated
Costco. My neighbor's son works at Costco and drives there 5 days a week because he said he couldn't
find a better job anywhere in SLO.
He says they pay well and have given him full benefits at less than $18 dollars a paycheck. He is a
student at C.P. and has declined this benefit
since he is covered by his parents policy. He is always saying such positive things about Costco. Bottom
line, we need the jobs and we need the revenue.
I don't believe it is in the Council and the Cities best interest to delay this project any longer. I am a
member of Coscto in Santa Maria and loath the idea of having to spend my $400 dollars a month in that
city any longer. I have many friends who echo these sentiments. Stop delaying
the will of the people before we lose Costco and it's good wages and great bargains to another city. And
someone please keep Mrs. Mulholland
off the evening news. She, in no way, reflects the sentiments of the people I know in our city.
Sincerely, JT Mitchell
RECEIVED
NOV 17 2C04
SLO CITY CLERK
file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 11/17/2004
RE WED l �,
NOV l 6 2CO4
sLo CITY CLERK Iaty of san Us ompo
RED FILEhij . ��CouNCIL' -CDD DIR
MCMO
�� I G AGENDA
2_ 22 CAO LYFIN DIR
DATE ITEM # S ✓ ACRO FIRE-CHIEF
ATTORNEY PW DIR
®'CLERK/0RIG POLICE CHF
To: City Council M DEPT HEADS 2-REC DIR
RR
DIR
From: John Mandeville, Community Development Director R DIR
Date: November 16, 2004
Re: Red File Memo For Agenda Item#3,Timing of Calle Joaquin Improvements
Council member Mulholland has raised several questions in recent days
regarding Business Item 3 on the agenda. Outlined below are staffs'
responses to these questions..
1. Doesn't the current mitigation measure require the completion of
Calle Joaquin realignment prior to occupancy by Costco?
The existing language of the mitigation measure TR/mm-2a can be
interpreted in two ways. The lead sentence says "Prior to issuance of
occupancy permit for Costco, construction contracts and necessary
permits shall be secured in order to complete improvements of the
LOVR/Calle Joaquin intersection." The second sentence says: `The
applicant shall apply for an Encroachment Permit for all work done in City
Right-of-Way and improvements shall be completed to City standards."
Because the first sentence refers to the time "prior to occupancy", one
can assume that the second sentence also works within the same
timeframe. Thus, the intent would be that as long as permits were
obtained and a contract engaged for construction, a certificate of
occupancy could be issued. As the road was being constructed, staff
would perform the appropriate inspections to assure that the
improvements are built or"completed"to City standards.
Another interpretation is that the first sentence statement"in order to
complete improvements of the LOVR/Calle Joaquin intersection"
combined with the second sentence's reference to"shall be completed to
City standards" means that the road improvements must be built prior to
occupancy.
It is the former interpretation that staff had in drafting the proposed
language, and appeared to be the interpretation of Council in accepting
this language when the EIR was certified. In the final analysis, however,
judging the intent of the original language,-as well as the appropriateness
l
of the proposed modification, is a matter for the Council to interpret and
decide upon during consideration of today's recommendations.
2) Does the mitigation measure unlawfully defer mitigation?
No..The Solano Press CEQA Deskbook says that a mitigation measure is
adequate when it is a specific, feasible action that will actually improve
adverse environmental conditions. There are no references in Guidebook,
the CEQA Guidelines or the statute that require all mitigation measures to be
complete before a project is constructed or becomes active. To the contrary,
the basis of traffic impact fee programs is future mitigation of cumulative
project impacts. With regard to individual project impacts, the City recently
approved a deferred mitigation measure with the approval of the Court Street
project. The mitigation to the impact created by the loss of surface parking
on the site is deferred to the completion of the new parking structure on 919
Palm, which is likely to lag behind the opening of Court Street stores.
The attached excerpt from the Solano Press CEQA Deskbook(Attachment
1) describes the test for an effective mitigation measure in an EIR. The
"when" requirement is met by having a schedule for implementation. The
CEQA Deskbook goes on to say: "When drafting mitigation measures,
agencies should include only include those that are feasible. A mitigation
measure is considered feasible if it is capable of being accomplished in a
successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into
consideration economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological
factors." (From CEQA Guidelines section 15364. The final determination of
what is feasible is made by the decision makers when they prepare
findings. With regard to the proposed mitigation measure, the City Council
must decide that the proposed mitigation will be accomplished in a
"reasonable period of time."
The Guidebook goes on to provide an example that says that the example
mitigation measure may be deferred to the future so long as the mitigation
measure contains performance standards that specify what the mitigation
measure is and the timing of implementation.
3) Does the revised mitigation measure result in unmitigated impacts?
The mitigation measure that will result from the revised mitigation measure is
the same as the existing mitigation measure. The same level of mitigation
will be achieved. As the staff report notes, the difference between the two
mitigation measures is probably a period of several months that Costco will
be open during which time the road improvements will not be complete. This
is based on the intent of the original mitigation measure. As discussed in
item #3 above, a period of time between the beginning of an impact and its
mitigation is possible, provide the mitigation measure specifies what the
0 Page 2
mitigation measure is, how it will be implemented and when it will be
implemented.
4)Why is an addendum the appropriate vehicle for the modification?
CEQA provides two processes to modify a certified EIR, the addendum and
the supplement process. Generally speaking, an addendum is appropriate
when there are minor technical project changes with no significant impacts
(see Attachment 2). The short time period that Costco will be open while the
road improvements are being completed are not being deemed a new
significant impact.
5) Does the potential for the existence of fairy shrimp in the new
alignment of Calle Joaquin constitute a potential environmental impact
that should be discussed in a supplemental EIR?
No. The certified EIR analyzed the secondary impacts of realigning Calle
Joaquin. It identified that wetland and riparian habitat will be permanently
removed. Because of this impact, the EIR contains a mitigation measure to
conduct a wetland delineation and to provide off-site in-kind mitigation. The
discovery of endangered species stems from the wetland delineation
process with the Army Corp of Engineers, as does the fairy shrimp surveys
and mitigation program if the fairy shrimp are found. The process that is
being followed is per Army Corp regulations as envisioned in TR-SEC/mm-1
(see Attachment 3). The potential presence of the fairy shrimp is not a new
potential impact.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Excerpt from CEQA Guidebook regarding adequacy of mitigation
measures.
2. Excerpt from CEQA Guidebook regarding when addendums are
appropriate.
3. Excerpt from Final EIR for the Costco/Froom Ranch project regarding
secondary impacts of the Calle Joaquin realignment mitigation
measure.
•Page 3
4'rtk USNT
Figure 54 r , Requirement
Five Questions for Effective
Mitigation Measures WHY State the objective of the mitigation
measure and why it is recommended
Explain the specifics of the mitigation measure
and how it will be designated and implemented
WHAT Identify measurable performance standards by which
the success of the mitigation can be determined
Provide for contingent mitigation if monitoring reveals
that the success standards are not satisfied
WHO Identify the agency,organization,or individual
responsible for implementing the measure
WHERE Identify the specific location
of the mitigation measure
WHEN Develop a schedule for implementation
SEIR = Supplemental EIR measure's adequacy. If they are not specific, mitigation measures are less
likely to be implemented,effective,and capable of being monitored.
Analysis of Impacts of Mitigation
The EIR must include discussion of the environmental effects of implemen-
tation of the mitigation measures,in addition to those caused by the proposed
x� project. The discussion of a mitigation measure's significant effects may be
less detailed than those of the proposed project.Guidelines sec. 15126.4(a).
Mitigation May Not Be Deferred
Formulation f mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future
time. However, measures may specify performance standards which would
mitigate the significant effect of the project and which may be accomplished
Deferred mitigation measures in an EIR prepared in more than one specified way. For example, if a mitigation measure for
for the Sacramento Convention Center expansion wildlife habitat loss is to create replacement habitat, the detailed design of
were upheld in a controversial judicial decision
(Sacramento old City Association v.City Council the new habitat may be deferred to the future so long as the EIR includes
(1991)229 Cal.App.3d 1011). performance standards such as the types of vegetation to be used,the timing
;-rte of implementation, and contingency plans if the replanting is not successful.
Additionally,'if the activity being evaluated in the EIR is a plan or program,
the mitigation measures will typically consist of policy statements included
in the program that will serve to guide project-specific mitigation in the
future. Guidelines sec. 15126.4(4).
Authority to Mitigate Impacts
Subject to the limitations discussed below, CEQA gives a public agency the
authority to require feasible changes in any or all activities involved in a prof-
ect to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects on the environment.
114 CEQA Deskbmk -
iI t
Iii!,
A17Az quidT 2
Addendum to an EIR
An agency must prepare an.Addendum to the previously certified EIR if the
Lead or Responsible Agency's role in the project is not complete and some
changes or additions are necessary to the project but none of the conditions
triggering a Subsequent EIR, Negative Declaration, or Supplemental EIR
have occurred. Guidelines sec. 15164(a). An addendum should be prepared
if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary. Guidelines sec.
15164(b). See Figure 4-5. An addendum need not be circulated for`public
review but can be included in or attached to the Final EIR. Guidelines sec.
15164(c). The decision-making body is required to consider the addendum
with the Final EIR before making a decision on the project. Guidelines sec. Environmental issues not anticipated in the
15164(d)..A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent CEQA analysis with regard to new developmentmay require supplemental CEQA documentation
EIR should be included in the addendum, in the findings, or elsewhere in in certain instances.
the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence in
the.administrative record.Guidelines sec. 15164(e).
PIFigure 4-5
Differences in Documentation
Requirements for a Project
Subsequent EIR Should be prepared for important project after an EIR Has Been Certified'
revisions resulting in significant impacts
i
Supplemental EIR
Should be prepared for minor project additions
or changes resulting in significant impacts
-
Should be prepared for minor technical
Addendum to an EIR project changes with no significant impacts
The agency must retain some discretionary authority over the project
Chapter 4 Preparation and Review of an EIR and Agency Decision Making 89
A'i`rAC�VK�N'T
Costco/Froom Ranch Pwffla GWu&*e+4 Transportation
The delineated areas in the area of the proposed infrastructure improvements meet the USACE
criteria for jurisdictional wetlands, and therefore activities within the delineated area would
either require a project specific permit or would be covered by an existing nationwide permit..
The permit type determination will be made by the USACE.
Mitigation in the form of in-kind, off-site creation of wetlands should be'located as near to the
impact site as is feasible. Approximately 48,276 square feet or 1.11 acres of wetland area would
be disturbed by implementation of the Calle Joaquin realignment. Wetlands discussion from the
1989 Madonna General Plan Amendment EIR, and a map showing habitat areas and historic
wetlands within the vicinity of the improvement area is included in Appendix G- Exhibit E. The
advantage of in-kind, off-site mitigation is that it would, through duplication of the physical
nature of the wetland area to be negatively impacted, tend to benefit those plant and wildlife
species that would be adversely impacted at the project site and would also tend to maintain their
population levels. This form of mitigation does not necessarily assure retention of the local plant
and wildlife populations affected by the project.
TR-SEClmnact I Infrastructure improvements at the LOVR/Calle JoaquimV.S. 101
intersection will permanently remove wetlands and sensitive riparian
habitat
TR-SEC/mm-1 As part of the design project submittal, the applicant shall compensate for
the loss of wetland and riparian habitat in a form acceptable to the City of San
Luis Obispo and all applicable agencies. The submittal shall be consistent
with mRi ation ro osed for the resource .sections of this EIR and shall
me nde but not be limited to the following:
1. Perform a wetland delineation at the project site and establish an off-site in-kind wetland
compensatory mitigation area within the Froom Creek corridor including native vegetation
and raptor perches,consistent with ACOE regulations.
2. Develop a revegetation plan including monitoring requirements pursuant standards
established by ACOE and CDFG.
3. Begin revegetation of the off-site mitigation area prior to removal of vegetation at the
project site.
4. Provide fencing around wetland and riparian areas to prohibit eews cattle from removing
vegetation utilized by sensitive species.
5. Prior to constructing compensatory mitigation, a presence/absence survey shall be
completed within the Froom Creek corridor for burrowing owls and other listed species
(California red legged frog,southwestern pond.turtle,coast homed lizard,two striped garter
snake, silvery legless lizard, etc.). If sensitive species are present, mitigation shall not
proceed until breeding or nesting season is completed. All surveys shall be consistent with
regulatory guidelines.
TR-SEC Impact 2 Infrastructure improvements at tire LOVR/Calle Joaquin/U.S. 101
intersection have the potential to unearth sensitive surface and subsurface
cultural and/or historic materials.
TR-SEC/mm-2 Prior to vegetation removal, a Phase I archaeological survey shall be
conducted by a qualified/approved archaeologist and construction activities
shall be consistent with cultural resources mitigation included in this EIR.
QR 4 FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-68
Page 1 of 1
Wendy George - Fwd: Costco
FRECEIVED
From: SLO Citycouncil
To: George, Wendy 2C64
Date: 11/16/2004 7:57 AM LERK
Subject: Fwd: Costco
>>> Tres Feltman <trestile@charter.net> 11/11/04 06:59AM >>>
Dear Council Members,
I read in The Tribune this morning about the shrimp that may delay the
Costco development. First of all I want you to know I was not entirely
in favor of this development in the first place but now that it has
started I don't think we can go back. In the interest of SUCCESSFUL
development we must finish what we started. It would be a tragedy for
all concerned NOT to allow Costco to build as planned with NO delays.
Fragmented development is never good for anyone.
Tres Feltman
2569 Marian Way
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 nn MM^^ nn
r- � 1 �
COUNCIL L/CDD DIR
,[?CAO ZrFIN DIR
ACAO .?'FIRE CHIEF
.d"ATTORNEY 2 PW DIR
ZCLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF
13 DEPT EADS TZREC DIR
RED FILE ;21-� �HRIDDIR
MEETING AGENDA
DATE'Vi4ok ITEM
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW IOOOOI.H... 11/16/2004
Page 1 of 1
Wendy George - Fwd: Re: Costco approval
From: SLO Citycouncil
To: George, Wendy
Date: 11/16/2004 7:58 AM RECEIVE D
Subject: Fwd: Re: Costco approval NOV 1 6 2�1��_
SLO CITY CLERK
>>> <]Gar638796@aol.com> 11/11/04 02:25PM >>>
Members of the City Council;
Costco has been put off time and again due to various reasons. Our county will lose not only the revenue from
that store but from others also if people have to continue to shop in Santa Maria. They will not want to go
numerous places with the gas prices as they are. The company of Costco will get tired of the run around and pull
out of San Luis Obispo County all together. I feel that the Council should bend over backwards to retain Costco.
Costco is not the first"big box" store in the city. Food 4 Less is also considered a "big box."
Thank you for the consideration.
Phyllis Gardner
RED FILE
' _ COUNCI �'CDD DIR
MEETING AGENDA 3 AO F N DIR
11 EM #` J,1ppW J CHIEF
DATE GATTORNEY L/PW DIR
,2'CLERK ORIG B-POLICE CHF
DDPT HEADS k'REC OR
�� 'UTIL DIR
-:-/HR D I R
file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW)000O1.H... 11/16/2004
Page 1 of 1
Wendy George - Fwd: Costco
From: SLO Citycouncil
To: George, Wendy [:NOV 1.F ICU t
Date: 11/16/2004 7:58 AM W
Subject: Fwd; Costco O CITY CLERK
>>> <TGreen966@aol.com> 11/11/04 04:01PM >>>
We are so disappointed in the news that Costco my not be built. I just got over the fact that they will not be
here in time for the current holidays but now it looks like I may have to drive forever to Santa Maria
Please allow the plan to mitigate the project to go through--other wise I think I will have to go over the grade,
just like with Target.
Thank you,
Don &Terry Green
RED FILE
ING AGENDA
DATME ITEM # —3 FvCOUNCIL DD DIR
2rCAO FIN DIR
E!r"ACAO Z, FIRE CHIEF
g.ATTORNEY T,-PW DIR
CLERKiORIG 2'POLICE CHF
❑ DEPT HEADS TcrREC DIR
.t!r in0 2 T^UTIL DIR
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW 100001.H... 11/16/2004