HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/21/2007, C9 - RFP REQUESTING EIR CONSULTANTS FOR THE PREFUMO CREEK COMMONS PROJECT. i
l l �
counciL Mm gD.ee
AGEnbA Repoat
Itcm Numbo
C I TY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direc r
By: Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: RFP REQUESTING EIR CONSULTANTS FOR THE PREFUMO CREEK
COMMONS PROJECT.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
A. Approve the workscope for Environmental Impact Report (EIR) work consultant services
for the Prefumo Creek Commons Project and authorize staff to proceed with sending out
Request for Proposal (RFP) documents to qualified consulting firms.
B. Authorize the CAO to award the contract to a qualified consulting firm for the EIR,
contingent upon the developer depositing with the City the amount of the contract plus a
30% administrative fee.
DISCUSSION:
Situation
The applicants have submitted plans for a General Plan Amendment, annexation request and a
development plan to allow for a retail shopping center known as Prefumo Creek Commons
(Attachments 1 and 2). In order to proceed with the applicant's proposal, the project must be
processed consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and all applicable
City Regulations. The Community Development Department staff has completed a preliminary
review of the project and determined that it will require the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) to evaluate the potential impacts of the project and to comply with CEQA.
A draft initial study of environmental impact which also identified needed workscope items was
distributed to various key City staff for comments and edits. The initial study has now been
completed and is the basis for the EIR workscope:
The EIR process, including scoping, is a fact-based evaluation of potential physical effects on the
environment. It provides information for city residents, the Architectural Review Commission,
Planning Commission, and City Council to use in considering whether or not to approve the
applicant's proposal. The EIR process does not directly result in a determination on the
proposal.
Background
The project is a proposal to annex and develop portions of a 33-acre agricultural site known as
the "gap" property at 11980 Los Osos Valley Road, just south of Pacific Beach High School.
Approximately 19 acres of the site would be zoned for Commercial-Retail (C-R) while 12.5
e9-1
Council Agenda Report—Prefumo Creek Commons EIR RFP
Page 2
acres would be Open Space. The retail portion of the site would be developed with
approximately 163,139 square feet of commercial space with eleven separate tenant spaces. A
total of 844 on-site parking spaces are proposed to serve the commercial development.
Additional improvements include an extension of Froom Ranch Way eastward from Los Osos
Valley Road to Prefumo Creek.
In the future, a.bridge would be constructed over Prefumo Creek to provide access to properties
to the east. The project site would be directly accessed from Los Osos Valley Road as well as
from the extension of Froom Ranch Way. As part of the project, the applicants are proposing to
widen portions of Prefumo Creek to increase the flood storage capacity of a portion of the
creekway. No specific plans have been identified for the proposed 12.5 acre open space area on
the east side of the creek which is currently utilized for agricultural purposes.
Both the future bridge project and the plans to widen the creek are components of the project that
will need to be analyzed in the EIR. However, the plans to construct a bridge across Prefumo
Creek may not be a component of the development project and would occur at a later date as the
Dalidio area develops.
Staff has developed a workscope for the EIR, which is part of the RFP excerpts attached to this
report (Attachment 3). The workscope was developed from the initial study prepared by staff
(Attachment 4) and outlines the work tasks that need to be performed to fully evaluate significant
project issues. The RFP attachments outlining general terms and conditions, insurance
requirements, and forms for the consultant to prepare, will be mailed out to consultants, but are
not attached to this report.
Schedule for EIR Preparation
With City Council endorsement of the RFP and workscope, RFPs would be sent out to qualified
consultants on August 23`h, with consultant proposals due back to the City on Se
etember 27`". The
schedule included in the RFP anticipates interviews to be held on October 17 and a consultant
contract awarded on October 26, 2007. The RFP specifies that the Administrative Draft EIR would
be delivered to the City by January 31, 2008.
CONCURRENCES
Other City Departments were actively involved and consulted in the preparation of the project's
initial study of environmental impact from which the EIR workscope was derived.
FISCAL IMPACT
Once a qualified consultant is selected and a contract negotiated, the project applicant will pay
all of the costs for the consultant services to prepare the EIR, plus a 30% administrative fee, with
the administration of the consultant contract overseen by the Community Development
Department, in conjunction with the Finance Department. This is the approved procedure for
City-required EIRs. Therefore, the project will have no direct fiscal impact.
C 9-.�
Council Agenda Report—Prefumo Creek Commons EIR RFP
Page 3
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the workscope,but direct staff to prepare the EIR.
If a consultant were not retained to prepare the EIR, it would be the responsibility of the
City to do so. With staff responsible for EIR production, the timeframe for completion of
the document would be lengthier than that estimated above for a consultant, and other
staff work program items would be further postponed. In addition, staff would need to
hire sub-consultants to adequately evaluate certain technical issues.
2. Continue consideration of the workscope and RFP with direction to staff on necessary
changes.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Vicinity map
Attachment 2: Reduced scale plans
Attachment 3: Excerpts from Draft RFP including the Scope of Work
Attachment 4: Draft initial study of environmental review
GACD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Special Projects\GAP property AnnexationTIR RFP(CC Report).doc
C q-3
VICINITY MAP
1
-- y 3 ,,Attachment 2
.: �..I...I .. ill.
U�ISaQJ 13=1pS /llIZWIZh MVOJ" ai� fjoEl tf F (].1
p f F t�s;i �#1, ; 'F:, z
a n+ni awo wuola rsa �17� 7��7�� !111
u.unaR. SuOUIUIOD 96 8 i�^PiM1`1' dnnp :1�� ITS 01111,1114a�{F W fA
.o-.ma-a:»vsa•ac MVOs
xaazJ ouzrnjal d
ue1da4!S:)1.jewajpS aw RNs t}}� J�gqay FF�qq A 55f`i� 9j w
Cu
lie
w__� III I ! I 111111 I ! Ilil 9 — Q
m m
II ! HIM ! II II I I�
I I I 11 1 1 ITOTrf 4 ,
! hili III ! I ! III I � w
- O hMIIID+H-H+O H I�l 1
I ,
�I
DWI,
III! II 1111! nII l
� I I I li 11 II 1
III � O
X = 011il ! VIII 1111110-� �_ ���
p II Ii I i I nIlil n i i i I i
'-
o �
__ 10
�M Iu�
th�
a Uv
9 I
II
peO-d XML-A SOSO sol
F
yDUDb WOOJj �D
I
11110 ! ! III
�- Attachment 2
51M "ONJ WtMd In
dI1'J xauuy/at[OZ-ay I'V'd'`J ;i,JI;!;i{iI . w
},iit �1{�{J[�i• 1 w
•,•n Mv>�iv .a• ` id��t�i i} [�{6�eF 1 w VI
suouzuzoD A, ., �,r� ,_.[t(� ,•
HINON
xaajD ouzn3ald it ]�f�i a• {
NVId OraQVX9 uuu uxus il:d:� �ii[E7�'ar�$e `In a
AUVNIY�II'IH2Id O
,
� I � » �}
04.
/r. Ilan I10
LSI i 4
If n I
I
I11 ,
/1
I InIr '-1I1
\1 � IJ Ty I, ry
N
LI
°g
it
C
a
i0.44 -tr\
g n
r—
,Ir1�Ir
/ I J e
If° LL �+�;r^,_ ,r' ,t°r,,/ s°r ItT? rr'my'•�, I\ I � ,I—I_
O
-LL
L
/ N
e 9-&
esiwa on"011d N
d(1'J I xalNt I @m7—Rd I.d.d.D 'eenv t vutvsa 1ji �I31� t#IitlLo
W
autnua
....'`a �. ._. 00
li 3f x
s ova �l' iI t=I ty N
-NIV Id DNICIVXO =E,: iI s�t, 1161, W
,(�Ib'IvIII�II"IHTId a{,l ..::.=�nlfv � 0
41
;� _ .I . i I � �' .,,fir✓;
MG
I ILI
-
��I a'• � c\cc°y—e � o'" s h n c\ I, �If�� I, '
C I
4,
r I,
II Irl I II, N IMI.',
it
I 'I i ,
c c D ,e I r171�
p IIHH11 ���--'�'� -�I-!�1 <•`; ;� iii;
\I
JK
Itli �k -0 I -I
_ ,Ig_... I � h y•11.91�i
.
I i
4
noo � I
a...�.r.n� _—
OVOtl A3171/A SOS,D.SOI
e9-7—I
Attachment 2
L91911U 'ON 1J!IIWd Y N
d'n.D/xauud/auoZ-au 1 YO, d Ile sit„ `ttFll j \p w
u8isa4age�ua4aS wm ewor.Iv avwdullJ NH11
�-
LZ=J I �1
1Iilsl: �-,--o:-I n71 � �L1Lo INV-Id HOVNIVS(I ijjj�jig _v#,1€xaaa� oun�azdxTdNINI7H2dfill"
'xv.uanlas ;�:d :11 f ll" t 0
O
o .R
1-7 \ '`i\��•�_
gvrE u� r, � _5ti w
6
�;r�
i
I ` F
N
R p
'22
�J _ 7P
� e
1
'did is
-9Fr o r �'.�l
R i� i 'moo �ibeg � -moi
I � • yp�1
� II•
1�_ —
I -
Attachment 2
I'MM :ON= d 5 N
woo/xauuv/auoZ-am/'V'd'o — uvo na Ileii {f�t�i�'tjij j�� i m
oNMULIDS *+n+a'��n.�vovnv.y,...l.��u Luang 'j•i 3.lI� l$! 1 tv
SUOu LuO� A T �.� �II�';�IEI1Ij1` I j N
LIA aa.z Ou-'n aJ I uoN ij'1 i i lj� ae'EjI;F; r
-NV1dkLI1Un a'uuL��is p.a sA�°8•
d p
AZIVNIWI1HZId ,�.1 j�i�ajf 5 O
A
-_ �\
' - Dtl9136 N33117 36 '
T r
r O LL
yl. LL Wei
I � II � . o . . oa .>EB .
Zo '�
aIF
a �' oyg� jF6i ]
L 1�
gf
�L YC S 00
J� LL^
AllaGht ent 2
L9IPoL :ONJJJIlWJ to
- 'd'R'J/xauuy/auoZ-a2I/'V'd'oGo
..> . ..o........... i3tsado7euia4�S m..a, @v.tv-a .,a@lu wu E e`i'f � iit;i i
of>w@>fv SUOUIMOD u .ar—.t 'rirn ii�f 1+.Bz zP�i1£ Fe:4 i W VI
xaa.zD Ouzn3aad HLZ10N i(t8 Pz�Pf_E9.It)14 r
-NV1d KNILLn asw..watts 5.yr sayi{FSs .nS[t N v.
,kUVNJW113Hd a .i .:�e,§:eaba tette O
Am
I;
I I I•
I �
I
L =1 A
w
� IIII
IrrII I 1 LL � I
l� Ir I i
o
LL se
I'.
��' � � `J $ •a I w i � 3 � 3 �'� � �
� o�0000000-1oo
=r_--- ,•:— ---"'-- —OVOU7t3llVA'SO80�$07--
Al �LLachmert 2
L9003 ON J ONJ U)
xauuV/auOZ-aH 'V-d-D
U21sau DquWalps w
suouruioD .or-.I Te75 aPgg FFE1ieiYeSF
.1 imliP 1,
3e
S-LNaIN3AO)Idwj ME 1,10 .
�PaJD oujnF)Jd fill. I U)
)OR)ID 1, joi�ll€Ml oil! I
AUVNIMIE[Nd 0
L
+
r
t
Z'
V,
L
Attachment 2
L51v01I 'ON llR10N.1 N
'J'[1''/xauuv/auoZ-ax/'ya'0 moat+nr a1.vu.w�a 1 A: §tt 3 1 t,t {Y 4
.,.,.:':.'.,..., u21sa(]x4mumps d,a.. ........
3 ty F3� F 5
tlfxn
Mr-R-1111 r3v SLIOLLILLIOD
l4;ei}3glI ; ,
.Lnoxv�
xaazD ouzn3azd 3 �Hns !Pl►sE�(1 �` 43, :A
7.HM HJNtlN IN002I3
JLLHIM3HJS +�•1..,:, O.
t r
JI I f` enon `pf
If 1I
s� Y
� II ,
' III I
I'I
I'!Ili
1 '�Itl
IL
I £ s—
� ; I
U yn 9 3 R (]e
I. I gg�g R
III I� _8X
I I, iO
I
+ I
TJ II��II IN�t E 8 E
l
0 k
�38 z
�a " o
p I 11
do
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Attachment 2
L919M ONJJ91011a !n
EiE €,fziT e:,: j F
'd'Il'J�xauut,/ai,oZ-aTl 'V'd'O move s.w alva.una f},rE tl�� i`+ij`) E� f 21
,f I .t, � Iis eg`iF
algaQ�gewaiPS ivan� ljll as i'1=` E$i `t It i F w
{{ i i I
S,ur,l.,n1tl SUOUILUOD nee.l a',v,s i 3f f (gi:' 11 �'`. W N
xaaJD OWT'Jaad ,LnOAv1 avow I s: 1$f gi ife,
,1H1'itlASOSOS01 "'i"""s ! .'iPt:�efp`�fs�ff$�& N w
DUVWHHOS ::.::661<€iEEt=.S O
It
II tl _ A7
�i L:til 1T - s3
�L I le ✓1� III Lig �,I`i III' � __ - sy�"e�eae u $ .
M
is Ili
I
'-
{{ -
.3TS
I 'll I I IIE,IeI II III
J
—
�
AI 6
II I
Y
is,
II II -
_ I I 41 1�Q II li'I ill yl•.111 `a i __&_ _
�go
1
•�O I I�. -1 -
pV
1 �I t I III L,
o
WSW
I I I � )iil i � II 1111 li w 1� -
t I1�/I 1 1 II 11111 L—L 5
Iro I/'
I do
——— s r1 furHar+vd wooai a
-T li i OM181X3
110,
Irk"I i 1 v$L - ----
I
I IL
c 9-13
II liac 11 .-m 11 2
..n,...l.ol•.. ceoPsomo �avasdfoaa }[�i j« ���i',:, ; { CV F
:.',. d'(l J xatxuF/ aaoZ ag 'V'd'`J aoe n.F.v azva w a .11 1ltj� 1 1; 1 [ w
..an. owo wwat. .va llSSsaQ�RutmgoS F S,[ « jsI F
....1.�.... L+7T 1TT1 TT n°-"a m^I^pm--a 1w :.WdfD v . t l l3 w
.7 l.L�l.11ll.l0D .0r 1Willi i x
xaaJD Olun;aJd Nb Id 3dVJSQNVI
.t„..a,.t►.,111; o
g. �s
° c
Og G@L
s Y
l I
a
Q g c z
L
Q 6'
3g3 gill g6i gig
{p C
- 2
0 _ <
_ 3 ��= HUSS
4w z
4 C a
op� $ j9 yiga6pp 1p
Y — _
. Q
_ o 5'
I
{
[ Z _ .+' •ryilS.dyyla L
<e IC I
F— +,� 1 ►^�\\a'" A Deur �i;: �1 -r a i.5 e.
'�h�"' :�xFi£i£�fiE £'32F'`i£u<• `w.� �r � .•• \ �\It��yC, �
�'hT" �"� :���f_e,�j—`'7.v .ar.ifa ' �y •••\Pa � :�M17�t,`,���i •
�, n � �£F �i'IJ�.... w.„ ��,! aaa ` ?�r lir.•tr t•. .
1 13 .i 1
�i14�?�a6 � .. �� YA"' dfin•°�'' rt���; I=ti 12�''..
h�y ` �S+SI--A •1'x;2✓�, � 'H �►�
'�� � ���•IRSIIU DRi 41 �'' Y� ���iff S x 1�•��
� • `��� %, � ... 'lily
AN
�� � Y�V�•"�� �`�'�Li� JL.. M Y,� J�Y C.�4 / C(Cr..' �q •
t.trrrIA 1=�
crS-
W L0 - Bei • A ►�
NINE
- U :•
IIS.
•
i
� .0� ,� •off �e � �
4
y�,l7,lr
`#Mill
y iia� `N i fi• r//
Ia ji:
m��Gsi� ♦`► r
qq y4�H
Air
QW
re
WIN
E!,�J�• iw lY�m�\ Alp 7r'�.,�/�7
��m"� it%i�a¢yaa. a�+��1=� •��� � ��j�\'%r•`t'�7_p�rJ�ij/ y�/Iq i 1411,
i,^r"l�t�f ���.A� �4c5��i3 r♦-,1♦♦ 44�0� `/�" ♦ +t '4 d/�.. ♦f�m�♦V i e `y%dP���'
lr 1♦� ♦ y♦♦�#. t: T..ar`B �1♦1 ♦♦ ✓ I�r �d r.'�r' r d0.'.
EGa�. `ij�♦ �2♦!!�sa tl>ri r •»AI• �1 ■j �, f r,0'. mr. {f•.•♦ili..'�� a`\`` Q �\ 4
� 'S.',7 d �c�aeara: - t�' .��pn7 •..�,4♦ :n-`` '� e:. 1".7.�q�`` 1CNoll
. �!
rite r`•..` . •♦V M '��/M\4�!����•� �rs,�
I♦�I��� i'� `♦ ��� rr •r3y ��9'�1
IY: ���Ir P .�\� •���ib a� � �rLr r v;... y...
�•;\y'a+�F,�i� ,'.''�,,,,K�����4��C�o ro ..�',��`�������.rr��'�'`[���`rYD9� �
[tlh.F�t�•••-- LY D �`� '♦, �FM�—/��iM1 '�i \\�:1!VrSs \.� �• ^GY:.
aw. •�� - ,ry � "r;-�'F✓.'.,� A\\\Y�.r_�,`��`,� ;bi \\�d+� 7 �l� '�+R\�'�
♦oma• _�j a r�\`��`�6 ^r. + la� a'.X17 r�;'ir��A\m ,-
.�Q\3\gin n.n"�e a:�!\�S�\���.\\\.a`Z,:..-_.��\\�����..�I�i�n�. •.•*:• .
xauav/auc2- d/v };j= �' : ;` `§t f;; } 'n attachment 2
.ox •,.. .....1.`.., rmc•v4:.�sY a[va.sa,a 2:' #F€•s e
SaQ �$ 7 3L-.ai spas Gg• a
aaa n]sa xowx](e varFF�ip (`3 sapC F.. jai 5 [-• ",L
vss(a]n OJ �Wd.wwlg wuopasy-adead rvlD ;WID'D 3i.S {'- [xs's�£.j3'-E
suOunu {[
VK {.{.L ISL {.Y38 js�ai:j faei°e
baa D OuznJa.zdrW
aee
Aena1 ' °
p 4psg i
suo 3etlissay t eppa_ijjj`'sjp w
P
0 R 2
ti
O
_ r a �
R R w> a
W 7
y5 y— a
uj
G [ ^�O O
y Y
LL R
NT:
f� d
V14O
L J !Yi
1 „
y V a!
U R
.�is ,i•^]0.+ - W
�L cn a
3 .p
0 O
7
d
W
V
A
E
v
x
u
En
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Z91M 70N�fMJ al ly�
'd,n*:) x-auuv/auoi—d V-d-D F_
-Attachment 2
.............. U21 Gnlulmws 9IPZA✓ . .....
11]11R.W 11 A"� vM- .d mo :�D W
SUOUnUODE.E
jaai:) oiunpT T
Oq3LTV
WICL(I sdoqS 22 a 22 D j En
_9��s OOr"MUM
Q
0
G
Z
0
U)
tr
<
P
4�
R" 8= u
Oj
e P
r
<
U
>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L91M 'ON�RfOM
'cl'fl*D xauuv/auoz-.,aH V-d-9 � ƒuachment 2
k��
u2TSa(l opemalps Vz :UVG� w
i:1,11 B"j, "
gig 'A j-
-W� lum
SUOURUOD ss A I
La
O� JotplTv
li, 7i
sd I
1 0 ?.\ lilt!
laa-ID otunjaJd qs 32 J i
SUOl.4LlAajH DT Ru t1ul0
�\ \\
, § { 4 ) -
08
■ rz
}19
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JnI'•G N.L !�
• ,.,i[o•1 ml9 ONJ Rfoaaa is �S 3 ° �•'i P :I1G.�.��1,:�G1 lL�
dfl J/xauud/auOZ-ad/Yd's 9'j ; �464gf4F�Ye ' 00
..... .. uatsaQ a?4eivay mocvc�v 3vaAmd il'S ;S9F;z � j ' SE 4� LQ e swan ifaxann�ie+•rss Jill
unsnn I'a; 4"!e!$!i1
9 FW xn
i� SIII;JtlllJ
W
VaID o a.z 1 ,� � ,:� , r4 •e� �,
I PEd 8 H io� tl Stu �s 4 ' t� atlt.4S F, y4 w
suopenalg 34UMay-S a#rl .a�a.4tn[5a�'EieF Q
U.6 C
C OLL
Q e
..
u
G A >
O m >
> e�
� o .
4
W
Ci
O
a.
W
u d �
T � e
u N '
b
� ban a x
yp M
fid' t
� a
h
G
O
y e 6 «1
W
u
«
m
a
r
V
N
-,rn-D xauuv/auoZ u v'd'9 D19M :'ONRbRd n 3gf§
f e {f-
::.. udisaQJTjPMq:)S me ni tin ova ww 1 3f•?:• �f f $� w
n„n� anon noin'vvn — tf�771g p ��$°��.$
co,dm�wnopzyt.aomad n�!D �1PL-0'IJ [l18 4i�.{i. �'}�,�,9s
suouIUIoJ 3 }E #{ ` a]� W n
tat$ LFgtf YS jt�;•a�£;l ' W I71
�P.l-.9[/[:YwI59CRL 37VJ5 tff tl16; 3,1p48 s
X 22 f sped
'9=assts ty� ipp: a`4[p� , 8 t � w
SUOEIrAala J.qutual[JS' ,K$ :.:vvf?...¢i� �I ! 0
GC
O
C ^• � e
Y O 9
N
o �
M �
4i.
b
F
a
r
z
w �
a�
x
u
'C
a
[i
C
N
R
lti
V
Y
A
E
V
U)
Attachment 3
iIIIIIIIIIIII��) 1111=� I city Of
san Luis oi3lspo
990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Notice Requesting Proposals for
PREFUMO CREEK COMMONS EIR
Specification No. 90790
The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting sealed proposals to prepare an environmental
impact report (EIR) for a project outside of -the City Limits of San Luis Obispo that
involves an annexation and development of a retail center in accordance with City
specification No. 90790. The EIR must comply with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and address the topics identified in the Request for
Proposals (RFP).
All proposals must be received by the Finance and IT department by 3:00 p.m. on
September 27, 2007, when they will be opened publicly in the City Hall Council
Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.
Proposals received after said time will not be considered. To guard against premature
opening, each proposal shall be submitted to the Department of Finance and IT in a
sealed envelope plainly marked with the proposal title, specification number, proposer
name, and time and date of the proposal opening. Proposals shall be submitted using
the forms provided in the specification package.
Additional information may be obtained by contacting Phil Dunsmore, at (805) 781-7522.
® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including disabled persons in all of our services,programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
C9-
Attachment 3
Specification No.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Description of Work 1-5
B. General Terms and Conditions 6-9
Proposal Requirements
Contract Award and Execution
Contract Performance
C. Special Terms and Conditions 10-13
Project Coordination
Proposal Content
Proposal Evaluation and Selection
Proposal Review and Award Schedule
Start and Completion of Work
D. Agreement 14-15
E. Insurance Requirements 16-17
F. Proposal Submittal Forms 18-20
Proposal Submittal Form
References
Statement of Past Contract Disqualifications
Attachment 3
Section A
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
Project Description
The project is a proposal to annex and develop a 33 acre site known as the "gap" property at
11980 Los Osos Valley Road,just south of Pacific Beach High School. Approximately 19 acres
of the site would be zoned for Commercial-Retail (C-R) while 12.5 acres would be open space.
The retail portion of the site would be developed with approximately 163,139 square feet of
commercial space with eleven separate tenant spaces. A total of 844 on-site parking spaces are
proposed to serve the commercial development. Additional improvements include an extension
of Froom Ranch Way eastward from Los Osos Valley Road to Prefumo Creek.
In the future, a bridge would be constructed over Prefumo Creek to provide access to properties
to the east. The project site would be directly accessed from Los Osos Valley Road as well as
from the extension of Froom Ranch Way. As part of the project, the applicants are proposing to
widen portions of Prefumo Creek to increase the flood storage capacity of a portion of the
creekway. No specific plans have been identified for the proposed 12.5 acre open space area on
the east side of the creek which is currently utilized for agricultural purposes.
Both the future bridge project and the plans to widen the creek are components of the project that
will need to be analyzed in the EIR.
The project is described in greater detail in application materials submitted by the applicant,
which are available for public review in the Community Development Department. A reduced
site plan is attached.
Scope of Work
A preliminary review of this project determined that there may be significant environmental
impacts associated with demolition of historic buildings in accordance with Section 21084.1 and
Section 15064.5 and that an environmental impact report (EIR) is required. The applicant is not
disputing the need for preparation of an EIR. The following workscope more specifically
identifies issues and tasks that need to be performed to evaluate potential impacts of the project.
EIR Workscope Items
#1 AESTHETICS
A. A visual analysis shall be a component of the EIR to understand the potential viewshed
impacts and to evaluate project consistency with the General Plan, which states that new
buildings should frame hillside views rather than obscure them, and that new projects
should include public open space areas, which provide, open views toward the
surrounding hills. The EIR shall identify potential impacts of the project on views of
important scenic resources, such as views of the surrounding hillsides, and impacts to
adjacent businesses and residents in terms of sunlight exposure levels and views, and
I -2,7
Attachment 3
suggest appropriate mitigation measures. In designing mitigation measures, the EIR
should look at opportunities in the project to provide unobstructed view corridors. The
consultant shall develop specific performance standards (mitigation measures) for
building placement to preserve views of the Morros and the Santa Lucia Range through
the site as viewed from Los Osos Valley Road.
B. Specific lighting standards and detailed mitigations shall be formulated to protect the
residential neighborhood, adjacent natural resource areas, and adjacent public right of
ways from light spillage.
#2 A i Ti.T -RAL 11Z O -R
The consultant shall develop specific mitigations for the loss of agricultural land and
determine methods to preserve remaining agricultural lands. A discussion regarding the
value of the impacted agricultural land considering the surrounding land uses and best use
of the property should be included.
#3 AIR QUALITY•
A. The consultant shall utilize the direction from APCD to prescribe specific mitigations to
reduce the project's impacts. A statement of overriding considerations for air pollution
may need to be established if the mitigations do not reduce the air quality impacts to less
than significant.
B. In conjunction with trip generation figures provided from the required traffic analysis,
interpolate expected emissions generated by the project, and develop appropriate
mitigation measures, which accommodate needed transit facilities, encourage pedestrian
travel, and consolidate parking, to help offset impacts.
#4 BIOLU I AL ESO -RCE :
The consultant shall develop specific performance standards and mitigation measures for the project that
will restore the creek and the existing Swale to a condition that is superior to the existing condition. This
may include a plan that eliminates non-native plant species and introduces a plant palette of native trees,
shrubs and groundcover. Additionally; mitigation measures for demolition work and grading should be
included to ensure that such activities do not disturb sensitive habitat or cause sedimentation or
contaminated runoff. The project design will also need to respond to creek and habitat areas through
careful lighting design and consideration for location of land uses, transportation, truck delivery routes,
and trash collection. Low impact development standards as prescribed by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board shall also be incorporated into the proposed mitigations.
#S GEOLOGY AND SOILS:
The EIR shall discuss the general geologic and soil conditions at the site, summarize the findings of the
soils engineering report,and provide appropriate mitigation measures.
-2-
Attachment 3
#6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:
The EIR consultant shall utilize the existing phase 1 environmental site assessment to discuss the
background of the site and the potential (or lack of) hazardous conditions.
# _HYDROLOGY AND WATER DUALITY:
The project shall be designed to fully comply with the City's Flood Damage Prevention Guidelines and
the Waterways Management Plan. The EIR consultant will need to review the Master Drainage Plan
prepared by Wallace Group in completing a final drainage plan and mitigation measures that are
necessary to reduce on-site and off-site drainage impacts. Best Management Practices will need to be
incorporated to insure that site drainage leaving parking areas is properly filtered before entering any
creek or habitat areas. Low impact development standards as prescribed by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board shall also be incorporated into the proposed mitigations.
#S LAND USE AND PLANNING:
The EIR consultant shall evaluate the project against applicable General Plan Policies that are
designed to protect the environment. The City's General Plan Conservation and Open Space
Element and other elements of the General Plan contain policies that speak to preservation of
views, protection of natural resources, preservation of residential neighborhoods, noise, energy
conservation and related environmental effects. Mitigation measures and or project modifications
will need to be incorporated that will allow the project to be consistent with General Plan Policy.
#9 NOISE:
Discuss general strategies for buffering land uses and attenuating noise to existing adjacent sensitive land
uses in the project. Mitigation measures to ensure short tetra construction noise and long term operational
noise impacts are minimized to the greatest extent possible will need to be incorporated into the project.
The EIR consultant shall refer to the completed noise analysis and complete a peer review of the analysis
to produce noise mitigations.
#10 POPULATION AND HOUSING:
The EIR consultant shall be responsible for performing an analysis on the balance of housing vs.
jobs. The analysis should take into account the proposed development for this site,Dalidio and
other commercial properties within the vicinity.
#11 PUBLIC SERVICER:
The EIR consultant shall be responsible for performing an analysis on the potential impacts to
public services, especially roads and transportation infrastructure. The need for a bus shelter and
other improvements shall be analyzed. The analysis should take into account the proposed
development for this site, and proposed road extensions to Dalidio in the future.
#12 RECREATION:
The EIR consultant shall review the City's Recreation Element and the approved plans for the
Bob Jones bike trail in order to determine if mitigations or project conditions are necessary.
-3- 9?_Z6
Attachment 3
#13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC:
The Consultant shall utilize the Fehr&Peer traffic study completed on March 30,2006 as a basis
for scoping the required traffic analysis. The EIR consultant will need to complete a traffic study
based on existing conditions considering the proposed project. The EIR consultant shall examine
the potential for mitigation measures to improve traffic conditions both with and without
improvements to the overpass at HWY 101.
#14 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:
As discussed in the hydrology and wastewater section, the consultant will need to analyze the
drainage facilities for the project and ensure that mitigation measures are created that incorporate
the latest contemporary standards for storm drainage including bio-swales, and other forms of
natural, low maintenance filter systems for parking lot.drainage.
Additional EIR Workscope items
In addition to the above-mentioned significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed
development, the EIR should discuss any other significant environmental impacts that are discovered by
the consultant while preparing a proposal, public input from the scoping meeting, or comments made by
other agencies after circulation of the Notice of Preparation. In order to be sure the EIR is a
comprehensive list of all the potential significant items, a discussion of standard CEQA items that were
not considered significant should be included. A description of each of these items, including
justification of why they were deemed less than significant, including proposed mitigation measures,
should be provided.
Alternatives
Alternatives need to clearly indicate how they would address identified project impacts and
should at minimum evaluate the following:
• The "no"project alternative;
• A revised project that is designed to reduce the impacts to the creek,residential
neighborhood and visual resources. This alternative shall explore site plan alternatives
designed to increase pedestrian connections, enhance the creek corridor, preserve
additional agricultural land and reduce potential drainage impacts.
• Other comparable sites where the project might be developed.
Mitigation Monitoring Program
The consultant shall prepare a Mitigation Monitoring Program consistent with CEQA Section 21081.6.
4- Z4?-27
Attachment 3
Resources
The EIR should address, and rely on as a resource, previous EIR's that have been completed
within the project vicinity. EIR's previously completed within the project vicinity include the
Environmental Impact Report for the Costco/Froom Ranch Project (EIR 173-00), June 2003,
prepared by the Morro Group for the City of San Luis Obispo). Additionally the following
resources submitted with the project application should be utilized as resources:
• Detailed project plans
• Prefumo Creek Commons Master Drainage Plan July 17, 2007
• Soils Engineering report prepared by Earth Systems Pacific March 8, 2007
• Archeological survey prepared by Thor Conway,Heritage Discoveries, March 29, 2007
• Wetland Assessment for the Gap Property prepared by the Monro Group September 2005
• Preliminary Traffic Analysis prepared by Fehr&Peers, March 30, 2006
• Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Secor January 2, 2007
• Review comments by the San Luis Obispo County APCD, June 14, 2007
-5-
Attachment 3
TENTATIVk
PROPOSAL REVIEW AND A WARD SCHEDULE
The following is a draft outline of the anticipated schedule for proposal review and contract
award:
Issue RFP August 23, 2007
Receive proposals By September 27,2007
Complete proposal evaluation October 5, 2007
Conduct finalist interviews October 17,2007
Finalize staff recommendation October 19, 2007
Applicant deposits EIR cost October 25, 2007
Award contract October 26, 2007
Execute contract/Start work October 29, 2007
Complete admin. draft January 31,2008
If you have any questions about this RFP, schedule, or attachments, please call Philip Dunsmore at(805)
781-7522.
START AND COMPLETION OF WORK
1. Contract Schedule. The above schedule, as well as meeting dates needed in the future, may be
modified with the mutual consent of the City and the Consultant.
2. Completion of Work. Work on the administrative draft of the EIR shall be completed 90 calendar
days after execution of the contract.
3 Ownership of Materials. All original drawings, plan documents and other materials prepared by
or in possession of the Consultant as part of the work or services under these specifications shall
become the permanent property of the City,and shall be delivered to the City upon demand.
4. Copies of Reports and Information. If the City requests additional copies of reports, drawings,
specifications, or any other material in addition to what the Consultant is required to furnish in
limited quantities as part of the work or services under these specifications, the Consultant shall
provide such additional copies as are requested, and City shall compensate the Consultant for the
costs of duplicating of such copies at the Consultant's direct expense.
5. Required Deliverable Products. The Consultant will be required to provide:
a. Three (3) copies of the Administrative Draft EIR, which addresses all elements of the
workscope. Any documents or materials provided by the Consultant will be reviewed by
City staff and, where necessary, the Consultant will be required to respond to staff
comments and make such changes as deemed appropriate.
b. 20 copies(utilizing two-sided copying)of the Draft EIR.
C. 20 copies of the Final EIR,which incorporates the draft EIR,changes to the draft document
as a result of its review at pubic hearings,and includes responses to comments.
d. One camera-ready original of the Draft and Final EIRs,unbound,each page printed on only
-12-
Attachment 3
one side,including any original graphics in place and scaled to size,ready for reproduction.
e. When computers have been used to produce materials submitted to the City as a part of the
workscope; the Consultant must provide the corresponding computer files to the City,
compatible with the following programs whenever possible unless otherwise directed by
the project manager.
Word Processing Microsoft Word
Spreadsheets Excel
Desktop Publishing Coreldraw,Pagemaker
Computer files must be on compact disc. Each disk must be clearly labeled and have a
printed copy of the directory.
6. Attendance at Meetings and Hearings. As part of the workscope and included in the contract
price is attendance at up to four public meetings to present and discuss the Consultant's findings and
recommendations. Consultant shall attend as many "working"meetings with staff as necessary in
performing workscope tasks.
13 g--��
C '
Attachment 3
PROPOSERS LIST
PREFUMO CREEK COMMONS EIR-SPECIFICATION NO.�90790
Envicom A/E Consultants Fugro West,Inc.
28328 Agoura Rd. Information Network 660 Clarion Ct.
Agoura Hills, CA 91301 PO Box 417816 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Sacramento, CA 95841
Dudek &Associates, Inc. TPG Consulting,Inc. The Morro Group
621 Chapala St. 560 Higuera Street Suite E 1422 Monterey St. Suite.,C-200
Santa Barbara, CA 93101 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
AMEC Earth &Environmental SAIC FIRMA
104 W. Anapamu St. 816 State St., Ste. 500 849 Monterey St.
Suite 204 A Santa Barbara, CA 93101 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Santa Barbara,CA 93101
URS Corporation EDAW(Erin Chapman) Woodward Clyde Consultants
130 Robin Hill Rd., Ste. 100 150 Chestnut Street 130 Robin Hill Rd., Ste 100
Goleta, CA 93117 San Francisco, CA 94111 _ Santa Barbara, CA 93117
LSA Associates Inc. Leighton and Associates, Inc. David Early, Principal
1998 Santa.Barbara.Street 711 Daily Dr. Design, Community&Enviro.
Suite 100 Camarillo,CA 93010 1625 Shattuck Ave, Suite 300
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Berkeley, CA 94709
Douglas Wood& Associates Emcon Associates Rincon Consultants, Inc.
1461 Higuera St., Suite A 2360 Bering.Dr. Attn: Stephen Svete
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Jose,CA 95131-1121 790 E. Santa Clara St.'
Ventura, CA 93001
Tetra Tech, Inc. LFR Levine Fricke Condor Environmental
4213 State Street, Suite 205 301 Miller St. Ste. 210 3944 State St.,#310
Santa Barbara, CA 93110 Santa Maria, CA 93454 Santa Barbara, CA 93105
Padre Associates, Inc. Dames &Moore
5450 Telegraph Rd., Suite 101 3445 West Shaw Ave., Suite 101
Ventura, CA 0003 Fresno, CA 93711
Attachment 4
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER#7-07
1. Project Title: Prefumo Creek Commons
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner(805) 781-7522
i
4. Project Location:
11980 Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis Obispo Ca 93401
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Irish Hills Plaza East,LLC 284 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo CA, 93401 (805) 543-0300
6. General Plan Designation:
Interim Open Space
7. Zoning:
Outside of City Limits-no City Zoning designation
8. Description of the Project:
The project is a proposal to annex and develop a 33 acre site known as the "gap" property at 11980 Los
Osos Valley Road,just south of Pacific Beach High School. Approximately 19 acres of the site would be
zoned for Commercial-Retail (C-R) while 12.5 acres would be open space. The retail portion of the site
would be developed with approximately 163,139 square feet of commercial space with eleven separate
tenant spaces. A total of 844 on-site parking spaces are proposed to serve the commercial development.
Additional improvements include an extension of Froom Ranch Way eastward from Los Osos Valley
Road to Prefumo Creek. In the future, a bridge would be constructed over Prefumo Creek to provide
access to properties to the east. The project site would be directly accessed from Los Osos Valley Road
as well as from the extension of Froom Ranch Way. As part of the project, the applicants are proposing
to widen portions of Prefumo Creek to increase the flood storage capacity of a portion of the creekway.
No specific plans have been identified for the proposed 12.5 acre open space area on the east side of the
creek which is currently utilized for agricultural purposes.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
The subject property is currently undeveloped and utilized for commercial agriculture (vegetable.
crops). Properties to the north are developed with a residential neighborhood with,single-family
dwellings and a continuation high school (Pacific Beach High School). Property to the south is
developed with auto sales and service facilities. Property to the west, across Los Osos Valley
Road is developed with a regional commercial shopping center (including Home Depot .and
Costco). Prefumo Creek divides the property to the east while other properties to the east are
currently utilized for vegetable crops. Prefumo Creek is a perennial stream that originates in the
- Attachment 4
issues, Discussion and Supporting , formation Sources Sources PoteriL Potentially Less Than No
Prefumo Creek Commons 11980 Los Osos Valley Road Significant significant Significant Impact
ER#7-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Irish Hills west of the project site and acts as a tributary to Laguna Lake. The project site is
downstream from Laguna Lake. Prefumo Creek is characterized by a deep Swale lined with
native trees and a mixture of riparian vegetation.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
Annexation, General Plan Amendment from Interim Open Space to Commercial Retail, Pre-
zoning to Commercial Retail (C-R), modifications to the Prefumo Creek channel, and approval
of building designs and site planning for a regional commercial shopping center.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
Ca. Department of Fish and Game
2
- 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting oformation Sources Sources Potent.._' Potentially Less Than No
Prefumo Creek Commons 11980 Los Osos Valley Road Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#7-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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.
X
X Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services
X
Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation
Materials
X X X
Air Quality Hydrology/water Quality Transportation&Traffic.
X Biological Resources Land Use and Planning X Utilities and Service
Systems
Cultural Resources X Noise X Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Mineral Resources Population and Housing
FISH AND GAME FEES
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a
de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
X The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been
circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
X 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)).
3
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources sources Poten. .� Potentially Less Than No
Prefumo Creek Commons 11980 Los Osos Valley Road Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#707 Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
Inc orated
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 g
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or"potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
ozllt�
�3 l07
Signature Date
Doug Davidson
Deputy Director,Community_ Development For:John Mandeville,
Printed Name Community Development Director
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion.and Supporting information Sources sources Poteu._ d Potentially Liss Than No
Prefumo Creek Commons 11980 Los Osos Valley Road Significant significant Significant Impact
ER#7 07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards(e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved,including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each
issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold,if any,used to evaluate each question.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact'is appropriate if there is'substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are
one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"'to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California Code of
Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following:
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.
5
L' -3�
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting iformation Sources Sources Potent, Potentially Less Than No
Prefumo Creek Commons 11980 Los Osos Valley Road Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 7 07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inc orated
1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect-on a scenic vista? --X-
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not Limited X
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 %
the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light orrglare which would
adversely effect day or nighttime views in the area?
Evaluation
The existing project site is an open agricultural field surrounded on three sides by established commercial and residential
development. Any development on this site is likely to alter the aesthetics of the property and alter off-site views from the
public right of way.Los Osos Valley Road is the primary arterial roadway that fronts the project site.The City's General Plan
Circulation Element considers this portion of Los Osos Valley Road to be a scenic roadway of moderate scenic value. The
recognized scenic elements of this roadway include the Irish Hills to the west and views of the Morros and Santa Lucia range
to the east. Of significance to this site, would be the views of the Morros and Santa Lucias (mountain views) east of the
project site. Unless appropriate setbacks and careful consideration of building orientation are included in the project,
commercial development at this site will alter the scenic value of this portion of Los Osos Valley Road.
Because the new commercial development will include a significant parking area, parking lot lighting is likely to be a
significant component of the project. A carefully designed lighting plan that eliminates potential impacts to the existing
residential neighborhood and reduces the amount of light spillage onto any adjacent property, will need to be considered for
the project.
Most new commercial and residential projects are required to be reviewed by the City's Architectural Review Commission
(ARC). In particular, the ARC reviews new projects to insure that they have an appropriate,scale,rhythm and design that are
compatible with existing development and the scenic roadway designation. The ARC will have the main discretionary
responsibility for insuring,that the project design is in proper scale with surrounding development, and enhances, rather than
detracts from,the overall aesthetics of the project site.
Conclusion: Potentially Significant unless mitigation incorporated.
The proposed project,because of both its scale and locations,has the potential to alter the character and appearance of the
scenic roadway,however development of this scale is anticipated by the City's General Plan and will be subject to review by
the City's ARC. Mitigation measures are necessary to ensure minimum appropriate building setbacks from Los Osos Valley
Road,minimum building separation,and maximum building heights are incorporated into the project. Additionally,the lighting
plan will need to be designed to reduce impacts to the existing residential neighborhood and the existing creek corridor to the
east.
Issue Area Workscope:
1. A visual analysis shall be a component of the EIR to understand the potential viewshed impacts and to evaluate project
consistency with the General Plan, which states that new buildings should frame hillside views rather than obscure them,and
that new projects should include public open space areas, which provide open views toward the surrounding hills. The EIR
shall identify potential impacts of the project on views of important scenic resources, such as views of the surrounding
hillsides, and impacts to adjacent businesses and residents in terms of sunlight exposure levels and views, and suggest
appropriate mitigation measures. In designing mitigation measures, the EIR should look at opportunities in the project to
provide unobstructed view corridors. The consultant shall develop specific performance standards (mitigation measures) for
building placement to preserve views of the Morros and the Santa Lucia Range through the site as viewed from Los Osos
Valley Road.
6 y
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion.and Supporting information Sources Sources Poten._ J Potentially Less Than No
Prefumo Creek Commons 11980 Los Osos Valley Road significant significant significant Impact
ER #7-07 Issue's Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
2. Specific lighting standards and detailed mitigations shall be formulated to protect the residential neighborhood, adjacent
natural resource areas,and adjacent public right of ways from light spillage.
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject:
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-a icultural use?
Evaluation
The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency identify this site as prime farmland.The
rich, dark soils are conducive to a variety of vegetable crops and are currently utilized for agricultural crop production. The
City's resource maps also indicate that the site is an important farmland area. Development of the project site.will eliminate
the majority of the agricultural use from the property and may result in the conversion of additional farmland on adjacent
property east of Prefumo Creek. Approximately 14 acres of the 33 acre development site will have the opportunity to remain
in active agricultural use on the east side of the creek. This portion of the property is proposed to remain as Open Space
zoning which will allow the agricultural uses to continue.
Although the site is considered prime farmland and contains high quality soils that are valuable for crops, its location is
surrounded by commercial and residential development and is not a prime agricultural location. Agricultural operations
conflict with existing residential and commercial uses. Development of the project site with additional regional or
neighborhood commercial is likely to be more compatible with surrounding uses than the existing agricultural operations.The
City's General Plan recognizes this site as a potential development site for additional commercial or residential development.
Conclusion: The proposed project will result in the loss of prime agricultural land.and therefore may result in potentially
significant impacts, however this site is surrounded by commercial and residential development and is a small "gap" in the
predominant land use pattern.
Issue Area Workscope-
1. The consultant shall develop specific mitigations for the loss of agricultural land and determine methods to preserve
remaining agricultural lands. A.discussion regarding the value of the impacted agricultural land considering the surrounding
land uses and best use of the property should be included.
3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 32 X--'
existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air CSX
quality plan?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 32 —X=
concentrations?
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ofX
people?
e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria. 32
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment tinder an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative
thresholds for ozoneprecursors)? .
/I Q 7
ATTACHME
Issues, Discussion and Supporting oformation Sources Sources Potent % Potentially Less Than No
Prefumo Creek Commons 11980 Los Osos Valley Road Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER #7-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Evaluation
Site development will impact air quality as a result of construction activity and traffic generated by uses established. The
County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District has reviewed the proposed project and has recommended a
mitigation strategy that is designed to reduce both construction phase air pollution and long term operation air-pollution. A
copy of this letter is attached to this initial study (Attachment 3). The Air Pollution Control District has determined that the
project will exceed the APCD's CEQA Tier II significance threshold value of 25 lbs/day for nitrogen oxides (NOx),
particulate matter(PM 10)and reactive organic gases(ROG).
Short-term Impacts
During project construction,there will be increased levels of fugitive dust associated with construction and grading activities,
as well as construction emissions(e.g.,diesel exhaust)associated with heavy-duty construction equipment.
Operational Impacts
The project will exceed the APCD's thresholds for air pollution due to vehicular trips,deliveries,and operation of large retail
stores.
Conclusion:. Potentially significant issue.
Issue Area Workscope:
The consultant shall utilize the direction from APCD (see letter,Attachment 3)to prescribe specific mitigations to reduce the
project's impacts. A statement of overriding considerations for air pollution may need to be established if the mitigations do
not reduce the air quality impacts to less than significant.
In conjunction with trip generation figures provided from the required traffic analysis, interpolate expected emissions
generated by the project, and develop appropriate mitigation measures, which accommodate needed transit facilities,
encourage pedestrian travel,and consolidate parking,to help offset impacts.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or 29 X-J
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 29 =-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 }(-j
biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident 29 -X-
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 29 �X-=
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
_
(including,but not limited to;marshes,vernal pools,etc.)
8
C9�39
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting „formation Sources Sources Potent., Potentially Less Than No
Prefumo Creek Commons 11980 Los Osos Valley Road Significant significant significant Impact
ER#7 07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or
other means?
Evaluation
The majority of the development site is currently utilized for commercial agriculture, however,Prefumo Creek intersects the
project site east of the proposed development area and a narrow,man-made drainage swale exists at the south boundary of the
project site. Both of these areas have been identified as wetlands(Wetland Assessment prepared by Morro Group,September
2005)and both of these areas are potential habitat for biological resources.
Prefumo Creek originates in the Irish Hills northwest of the project site and is a major water source for Laguna Lake. The
project site is downstream from Laguna Lake and is adjacent to a portion of Prefumo Creek that acts as an outflow for Laguna
Lake. At this location, the Creek is characterized by a moderately deep swale with seasonal pools that are suitable for a
variety of aquatic life, including but not limited to steelhead trout, pond turtles, and frogs. The creek is heavily shaded by
willow trees and other riparian tree and plant species. Willow trees extend beyond the creek banks to form potential habitat
areas that abut the agricultural areas that are currently on both sides of the creek.
As part of the project, the applicants are proposing to widen the floodplain of the creek to create an overflow channel and to
widen the creek channel. The overflow channel would be created on the east side of Preftuno Creek adjacent to the project
site in an area that is proposed as open space. Grading, vegetation removal and associated construction activities for both the
proposed retail center and the creek widening project will have the potential to impact biological resources that may be
associated with the existing riparian habitat.
The man-made drainage Swale that borders the south side of the property adjacent to the auto sales and service facilities has
been identified as a wetland and potential resource area. Although the development plan does not clarify whether changes to
this swale are proposed, the project will impact the drainage swale due to the scale of the development, grading, and
associated construction. Additionally, changes to the swale may be required from an engineering perspective in order to
accommodate required site drainage and landscape.
Conclusion
Although the proposed development plan may contribute significant impacts to existing biological resources,a mitigation plan
can be established that will enhance the existing biological resource areas and restore these sites to a condition that is superior
to present conditions. In addition to project construction, operational characteristics such as lighting, noise, and site runoff
from the new retail center have the potential to impact biological resources.
Issue Area Workscope:
The consultant shall develop specific performance standards and mitigation measures for the project that will restore the creek
and the existing swale to a condition that is superior to the existing condition. This may include a plan that eliminates non-
native plant species and introduces a plant palette of native trees,shrubs and groundcover. Additionally,mitigation measures
for demolition work and grading should be included to ensure that such activities do not disturb sensitive habitat or cause
sedimentation or contaminated runoff. The project design will also need to respond to creek and habitat areas through careful
lighting design and consideration for location of land uses, transportation, truck delivery routes, and trash collection. Low
impact development standards as prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board shall also be incorporated into the
proposed mitigations.
5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of.a 28 -X-=
historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 28 -X-;
archaeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource 28 X
or site or unique geologic feature?
9
C9 -/�
ATTACHMENT 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting-information Sources . Sources Pozen.-_y Potentially Lessltian No
Prefumo Creek Commons 11980 Los Osos Valley Road significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#7-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of `X_=
formal cemeteries?.
Archaeological Resources
The archaeology of San Luis Obispo reflects .the City's rich, multi-cultural heritage. Archaeological excavations and
construction projects have unearthed an unusually rich collection of pre-historic and historic artifacts and features considered
as significant under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15064.5. However, the majority of these
artifacts are found within close proximity to the downtown area,San Luis Obispo Creek and the Mission.
On March 29, 2007,Thor Conway with Heritage Discoveries Inc. prepared an Archeological Surface Survey for the project.
The entire 33 acre site was surface examined for archeological resources and a records search of local resources was
completed.The survey produce negative results and the consultant did not recommend additional archeological studies.
Historical Resources
The proposed project is not located within a Historic District, and isnot within close proximity to any known historic
resources other than the historic Froom Ranch property which is located on the west side of Los Osos Valley Road 1/2 mile or
more from the project site. No known historic resources are located within the property and no known former resources are
associated with the property.
Conclusion: Less than significant issue.
It is not likely that pre-historic or historic materials will be found on the project site.
Issue Area Workscope
A peer review of the study performed by Thor Conway, Heritage Discoveries, March 29, 2007 should be performed. The
consultant may wish to incorporate mitigation measures that speak to the handling of archeological or paleontological
resources should they be discovered during the construction phase of the project,however significant additional research may
not be required. This item will not be included in the RFP as a workscope,however some discussion is warranted.
6. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
State?
No known mineral resources are associated with the subject development.site.
Conclusion: No impacts to mineral resources are anticipated.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects,including risk 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?
II. Strong seismic ground shaking?
III. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? -}�=
IV. Landslides or mudflows?. gam'
10
Issues, Discussion and Supporting niformation Sources Sources Potenn__;' potentially LessTnan No
Prefumo Creek Commons 11980 Los Osos Valley Road Significant Significant significant Impact
ER#7-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 27
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that 27 X
would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially
result in on or off site landslides,lateral spreading,subsidence;
liquefaction,or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the 27
Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life
or property?
There are no known fault lines on site or in the immediate vicinity. However,the City of San Luis Obispo is in Seismic Zone
4, a seismically active region of California and strong ground shaking should be expected at any time during the life of
proposed structures. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established in the Uniform
Building Code. In summary,the project will need to be engineered to withstand significant seismic activity.
The site lies in an area identified by the Safety Element of the General Plan as being in an area of High Liquefaction Potential.
As defined in the Safety Element, liquefaction is"the sudden loss of-the soil's supporting strength due to groundwater filling
and lubricating the spaces between soil particles as a result of ground shaking." In extreme cases of liquefaction, structures
can tilt, break apart, or sink into the ground. The likelihood of liquefaction increases with the strength and duration of an
earthquake. The risk of settlement for new construction can be reduced to an acceptable level through careful site preparation
and proper foundation design.
Earth Systems Pacific has prepared a complete soils engineering report for the project on March 8, 2007. The report
concludes that the site is suitable for the proposed project provided the recommendations from the report are implemented
into the project design and construction. The report also found that the soils are moderate to high in expansion. Special
design considerations for structure foundations will need to be incorporated into the project.Such soil conditions are common
in the San Luis Obispo area and the building permit process is designed to accommodate such conditions through prescribed
construction techniques.
Conclusion: Potentially significant issue unless mitigation measures are incorporated.
Issue Area Workscope:
The EIR shall discuss the general geologic and soil conditions at the site, summarize the findings of the soils engineering
report,and provide appropriate mitigation measures.This item will not be included in the RFP as a workscope,however some
discussion is warranted.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the ro'ect:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment �X
through the routine use;transport or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely 26 r XJ
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 26 ` 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 26 --X-=
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government.Code Section
65962.5 and,as a result,it would create a significant hazard to
11
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supportinglnformation Sources sources Poten.__Y Potentially Liss Than No
Prefumo Creek Commons 11980 Los Osos Valley Road Significant significant significant Impact
ER#7-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
the public or the environment?
f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within -X
two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety
hazard for the people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the ;-X
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,,injury, 4
or death,involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed
with wildlands?
Evaluation
The proposed project does not involve any known hazardous materials or hazardous conditions.The proposed project,which
includes commercial, uses is not likely to create health hazards and there are no known existing health hazards on the project
site. A phase 1 environmental assessment for the site was completed by Secor International Incorporated, January 2, 2007.
This report concluded the following: A review of aerial photographs and building permit files indicate the historically, the
property has remained undeveloped since at least 1939. A review of local, state and federal environmental agency records
identified no sites adjacent to,the subject property that have or had hazardous materials or oil spills and/or leaks that could
impact the subject property...No current environmental conditions, which could be expected to impact the subject property,
were noted on the adjacent properties during the reconnaissance." "Based on the information collected and reviewed during
the preparation of this phase I ESA there were no recognized environmental conditions identified with the subject property or
directly adjacent to the subject property."
Construction activities such as grading and site work are likely to introduce dust and emissions to the adjacent school (Pacific
Beach High School) and the adjacent residential neighborhood. However, the levels of dust and emissions are not likely to
significantly exceed existing levels since the current site is utilized for agricultural practices which include the use of
fertilizers and pesticides and the creation of dust from tilling the field. Following completion of construction the new project
is not likely to create impacts in terms of hazards or hazardous materials. The long term operations of the site as a
commercial center are likely to be less hazardous to the surrounding land uses than the current agricultural operations.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact anticipated.'
Issue Area Workscope:
The EIR consultant shall utilize the existing Phase 1 environmental site assessment to discuss the background of the site and
the potential (or lack of) hazardous conditions. This item will not be included in the RFP as a workscope, however some
discussion is warranted.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the roiect:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 33
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be
a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level(e.g.The production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a.level which would not support
existing land uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the 33 `--X-'.
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or
provide additional sources of runoff into surface waters
(including,but not limited to,wetlands,riparian areas,ponds,.
springs,creeks,streams,rivers,lakes,_estuaries,tidal areas,bays,
ocean,etc.)?
12
��-yam
ATTACHMENT 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources Sources Potenn__,` Potentially Less Than No
Prefumo Creek Commons 11980 Los Osos Valley Road significant significant significant Impact
ER# 7-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or =X
area in a manner which would result insubstantial erosion or
siltation onsite or offsite?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or 23,33 X
area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding
onsite or-offsite?
f) Place housing within a 1'00=year flood hazard area-as mapped on 23,33 -X
a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which 23,33 :-X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
h) Will the project introduce typical storm water pollutants into 33 =X
ground or surface waters?
i) Will the project alter ground water or surface water quality,
temperature;dissolved oxygen,or turbidity?
Existing Conditions
The existing flood conditions are constrained by the design of creek corridors that pass beneath Highway 101. The watershed
surrounding this site at Los Osos Valley Road drains towards Hwy 101 and San Luis Obispo Creek. Two perennial creeks,
Prefumo Creek and Froom Creek are the major components of this watershed that drain into culverts beneath Hwy 101 and
drain into San Luis Obispo Creek. At present, the drainage conditions of properties in this vicinity are constrained by these
culverts. A backwater effect is created during storm conditions or conditions of high water flow. This backwater effect from
both Froom and Prefumo creeks can cause flooding for properties within the Los Osos Valley Road area,especially near Hwy
101. Any changes to area properties, including the introduction of new impervious surfaces, has the potential to create
significant unavoidable impacts to area drainage.
The project site is adjacent to Prefumo Creek and the majority of the site is within an A flood zone, subject to flooding and
creek inundation during 100-year storm events. It is considered a Special Floodplain Management Zone in accordance with
the City's Waterways Management Plan.
Surface Drainage
In order to respond to the significant drainage impacts that are associated with development of this property, the project
applicants have hired the Wallace Group, an engineering firm, to produce a master drainage plan for the project. This plan
was prepared on December 20, 2006. The master drainage plan analyzes existing and post development conditions and
proposes a plan to widen the creek channel of Prefumo Creek in order to accommodate additional flow,thereby reducing the
flood potential of the subject property. Detention within the project site has also been designed to accommodate,a 10-year
storm.
The plans to widen the Prefumo Creek channel involve the removal and widening of the easterly creek bank. The plan
proposes to work above the Army Corps of Engineers ordinary high water mark and east of the existing Prefumo Creek Flow
line. This project is likely to produce significant impacts to the existing riparian vegetation and associated habitat areas
currently found on the eastern creek bank.
Parking lot drainage and other site drainage has the potential to contribute vehicle oils and contaminants to the adjacent creek
and habitat areas. Site features such as bio-swales, filter systems and other best management practices will need to be
incorporated into the project in order to ensure preservation of water quality leaving the site..
Flooding
The project site lies within the 100-year flood plain of Prefumo Creek. The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) prepared by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) indicates that the project.area is within the A Zone. The A Zone is
13
-may
ATTACHMENT 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources Sources Poten. y Potentially Less Than No
Prefumo Creek Commons 11980 Los Osos Valley Road Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER #7-07 lssues Unless" impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
described as areas of 100 year flooding.
The potential impacts of flooding in this location are addressed by ordinance requirements contained in the Flood Damage
Prevention Guidelines and the City's Waterways Management Plan. For projects in the A Zone, the ordinance requires the
lowest finished floor of buildings to be raised to a minimum of one foot above the 100-year peak flood elevation or flood-
proofed. Flood-proofing of commercial buildings using flood-gates and the use of building materials that are less likely to be
damaged by water are identified as acceptable alternatives in the ordinance to raising the finished floor elevation.
As part of the building permit application for buildings proposed in the flood zone, the applicant must submit a hydrologic
study that shows how the project complies with standards of the Flood Damage Prevention Guidelines to the approval of the
Public Works Department. Compliance with standards contained in this ordinance is typically considered adequate to
mitigate potentially significant impacts to people and property from flooding hazards.
However,the off-site impacts due to the introduction of impervious surfaces on a vacant site are likely to be significant.
Conclusion: Potentially Significant Issue.
Significant off-site drainage impacts may be created by creating additional impervious surfaces within the watershed of
Prefumo Creek.Vehicles and asphalt paving may introduce contaminants to riparian habitat areas.
Issue Area Workscope:
The project shall be designed to fully comply with the City's Flood Damage Prevention Guidelines and the Waterways
Management Plan. The EIR consultant will need to review the Master Drainage Plan prepared by Wallace Group in
completing a final drainage plan and mitigation measures that are necessary to reduce on-site and off-site drainage impacts.
Best Management Practices will need to be incorporated to insure that site drainage leaving parking areas is properly filtered
before entering any creek or habitat areas. Low impact development standards as prescribed by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board shall also be incorporated into the proposed mitigations.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING..Would the ro"ect:
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
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 conservationplans?
Evaluation:
Although the project site is currently located outside of the City Limits,the site is identified on the City's General Plan map as
Interim Open Space. The City's General Plan anticipates development of this site with retail uses such as auto sales,or as an
expansion of the residential neighborhood. Multi-family housing, as discussed as a potential land use in Land Use Element
Policy 8.7 is infeasible due to density restrictions of the airport land use plan. As proposed, the project proposes to annex the
site into the City and requests to modify the City's General Plan map from Interim Open Space to Commercial Retail. The
City's Land Use Element, Conservation and Open Space Element, Noise Element, Water and Wastewater Element and
Circulation Element contain important policies that should be utilized for the development of this project site.Changes to the
project design may be necessary in order to find consistency with all of the General Plan Policies,however the proposed land
use is conceptually consistent with the intent of the General Plan Land Use Element. Furthermore, establishment of regional
or neighborhood serving commercial uses is consistent with the surrounding development pattern of the vicinity.
Conclusion: Potentially significant issue unless mitigation measures are incorporated.
Issue Area Workscope:
The EIR consultant shall evaluate the project against applicable General Plan Policies that are designed to protect the
environment. The City's General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element and other elements of the General Plan contain
policies that speak to preservation of views,protection of natural resources,preservation of residential neighborhoods, noise,
14
1 Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources SourcesPotenu_., Potentially Less Than No
Prefumo Creek Commons 11980 Los Osos Valley Road Significant Significant significant impact
ER#7-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
energy conservation and related environmental effects. Mitigation measures and or project modifications will need to be
incorporated that will allow the project to be consistent with General Plan Policy.
11.NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable'`noise-.- 31 --X--1
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) Asubstantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in 31 c-X=
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome 31 —X ;
vibration or groundbome noise levels?
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within !-X
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?
Evaluation:
The proposed commercial project would be constructed adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood. Residential
neighborhoods are considered sensitive land uses. Short term noise impacts from construction and long term noise impacts
from commercial business operations will need mitigation in order to avoid significant impacts to the residential
neighborhood. Increased traffic, truck deliveries, and other noise associated with the operation of the proposed commercial
businesses are likely to impact the vicinity.
David Dubbink Associates, a noise consultant, prepared an acoustical survey of the project on April 9, 2007. The report
summarizes izes the following:
"The Prefumo Creek Commons project does not result in significant,noise impacts that cannot be mitigated by conditions
and special considerations in site planning."
"The completion of Froom Ranch Way connecting to the Dalidio center creates noise compatibility issues with the adjacent
school and residences. The proposed landscape buffer or berm can reduce noise exposure to acceptable levels. It is noted
that considerable benefit can be obtained through minor structural improvements made to rear facades of the existing
structures that border the project site. It is also recommended that the roadway be designed to restrain vehicle speed and
traffic by heavy trucks."
Conclusion:Potentially significant issue unless mitigation measures are incorporated.
Issue Area Workscope:
Discuss general strategies for buffering land uses and attenuating noise to existing adjacent sensitive land uses in the project.
Mitigation measures to ensure short term construction noise and long term operational noise impacts are minimized to the
greatest extent possible will need to be incorporated into the,project. The EIR consultant shall refer to the completed noise
analysis and complete a peer review of the analysis to produce noise mitigations.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly-
(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?
15
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources Sources Poten,__..y Potentially Less Than No
Prefumo Creek Commons 11980 Los Osos Valley Road significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#7-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
incorporated
Evaluation:
The development of the project could create some growth in the number of workers seeking housing in San Luis Obispo. The
development of the site with commercial uses is anticipated by the General Plan Land Use Element(LUE) and the associated
impacts were analyzed in the EIR prepared for the update of the LUE. Thus, the population estimates contained in the
General Plan take into account development of the site with similar commercial uses.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
Issue Area Workscope:
The EIR consultant shall be responsible for performing an analysis on the balance of housing vs.jobs. The analysis should
take into account the proposed development for this site,Dalidio and other commercial properties within the vicinity.
13.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision,or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? -X-;
b) Police protection? —X==
c) Schools? -X-=
d) Parks? -X—',
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? ;--X-;
f) Other publicfacilities?
Evaluation:
Development of the project site with commercial retail uses will increase demand of City services including,fire protection,
police protection and other City supported public services.However,the provided impact fees and potential tax revenue is
designed to accommodate such services.As discussed,earlier,development of this site has already been anticipated in the
General Plan Land Use Element.
Impacts to parks and schools should be less than significant since the project is anticipated to result in less than significant
population impacts and the project site does not directly impact any known park resources.
Roads and other Transportation Infrastructure
As discussed in the transportation section, the project may create significant impacts to roads and transportation
infrastructure. However, the project will be responsible for providing complete road improvements at Los Osos Valley Road
and the construction of a new road to the east, an extension of Froom Ranch Way. Impacts to the Los Osos Valley Road
overpass;and highway 101 on/offramps may also be.a related impact of the project that will require additional mitigation.
Conclusion:
Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated.
Issue Area Workscope:
The EIR consultant shall be responsible for performing an analysis on the potential impacts to public services, especially
roads and transportation infrastructure. The need for a bus shelter and other improvements shall be analyzed. The analysis
should take into account the proposed development for this site,and proposed road extensions to Dalidio in the future.
16
ATTACHMENT 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources sources Potenti..__, Potentially Less Than No
Prefumo Creek Commons 11980 Los Osos Valley Road significant Significant significant Impact
ER #7 07 Issues Unless Impact _ ..
Mitigation
_ — --'._..---:_ Incorporated
14.RECREATION. Would theproject:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantialphysical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or _X
expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Evaluation
Since the project is anticipated to result in less than significant population impacts, the project is likely to result in less than
significant recreation resource impacts. Additionally, development of this project site requires that the developer construct a
portion of the Bob Jones bike trail.A portion of this bike trail is parallel to the east side of Prefumo Creek.
Conchrsion
No significant impacts to recreation facilities are anticipated.
Issue Area Workscope:
The EIR consultant shall review the City's Recreation Element and the approved plans for the Bob Jones bike trail in order to
determine if mitigations or project conditions are necessary.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the ro'ect:
a) Cause an increase'in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 30
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system?
b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service 30 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 LX-
curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible rises(e:g.
farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? LX--!
e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite?
f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
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 trafficpatterns?
Evaluation
The project vicinity is characterized by a four lane arterial roadway (Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR)) which narrows to 2-
lanes as it passed over Highway 101 to the southeast. The interchange at HWY 101 is the primary source of traffic problems
associated with this vicinity. When the area was analyzed in November of 2005, following the opening of a nearby Costco
store, traffic conditions (delays) were found to operating at unacceptable levels. Since that time, the realignment of an
intersecting street near Hwy 101 (Calle Joaquin) has been completed and a traffic signal has been installed.Therefore traffic
conditions may have improved. However, the ultimate solution to improving traffic for this vicinity will be the widening of
the LOVR overpass over HWY 101 to accommodate four lanes. This project is currently in the planning stages with Cal
Trans,however a specific project completion date has not been verified. Without this widening,additional retail development
on LOVR between Froom Ranch Way and HWY 101 is likely to result in significant traffic delays.
Prior to submittal of the Prefumo Creek Commons project, the applicant hired Fehr & Peers transportation consultants to
prepare a traffic analysis of the vicinity. This preliminary analysis was prepared on March 30, 2006 and was based on 5
17
ATTACHMENT 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting-information Sources sources Poten"..y Potentially Less Than No
Preftuno Creek Commons 11980 Los Osos Valley Road Significant Significant. Significant' Impact
ER#7-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
different scenarios. Scenario 1 looked at existing conditions (which was prior to a new traffic signal and realignment of Calle
Joaquin). Scenario 2 looked at the completion of the new signal at the re-aligned Calle Joaquin and the incorporation of other
traffic improvements required by the Costco EIR (most of these improvements have already been incorporated as of July
2007). Scenario 3 looked at the traffic impacts associated with the completion of phase 1 of Irish Hills plaza and the opening
of the Marriot Hotel on Calle Joaquin. (Both of which have been completed and occupied as of July 2007).Scenario 4 looks
at the development as proposed with the Prefumo Creek Commons project,and scenario 5 looks at the proposed development
project with mitigations incorporated. In summary, the report concluded the widening of the LOVR overpass to four lanes
over HWY 101 would be required in order to provide adequate queue storage for easthound vehicles. However, some
mitigations such as signal timing and a new turn lane would help to mitigate some traffic impacts should the project be
allowed to develop without widening the overpass.
Parking
The project proposes to install over 800 parking spaces in order to serve the proposed development. The proposed number of
parking spaces exceeds the required number of parking spaces for the proposed land uses.The project is not likely to result in
inadequate parking on or off site, however an excessive number of parking spaces will result in other site impacts that will
need to be considered.
Conclusion
As proposed,the project will exacerbate existing traffic conditions and result in potentially significant impacts to the level of
service unless improvements are made to the Los Osos Valley Road overpass at'Highway 101 through to Higuera Street and
other improvements are made to both Froom Ranch Way and LOVR at the project frontage.
Issue Area Workscope:
The Consultant shall utilize the Fehr & Peer traffic study completed on March 30, 2006 as a basis for scoping the required
traffic analysis. The EIR consultant will need to complete a traffic study based on existing conditions considering the
proposed project. The EIR consultant shall examine the potential for mitigation measures to improve traffic conditions both
with and without improvements to the overpass at HWY 101.
16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the ro'ect:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the:applicable cX-
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water -X
treatment,waste water treatment,water quality control,or storm
drainage facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and
expanded water resources needed?
d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing commitment?
e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations =�{
related to solid waste? _
Evaluation
Wastewater and Storm Drainage
As discussed earlier in the Hydrology and Wastewater section,the project will require significant accommodations for storm
drainage facilities and water quality control. Without mitigation plans to accommodate storm drainage, particularly parking
18
ATTACHMENT 4 .
Issues, Discussion and Supporting-information Sources Sources Potence y Potentially IxssThan No
Prefumo Creek Commons 11980 Los Osos Valley Road Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER #7 07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
---
Incorporated
lot drainage,the project could result in potentially significant impacts.
Water Supplies
The City currently has water to allocate and does so,on a first come,first serve basis. The project will be required to utilize
recycled water for landscaping and therefore will result in less than significant impacts to overall water resources.
Solid Waste Disposal/Recycling
All new commercial projects are required to incorporate adequate trash and recycling facilities on the site. The scope of the
project is anticipated to create less than significant impacts to area solid waste facilities and landfills.
Conclusion
As proposed, the project can incorporate mitigation measures and pay impact fees to reduce impacts to utilities and service
systems to less than significant.
Issue Area Workscope:
As discussed in the hydrology and wastewater section, the consultant will need to analyze the drainage facilities for the
project and ensure that mitigation measures are created that incorporate the latest contemporary standards for storm drainage
including bio-swales,and other forms of natural,low maintenance filter systems for parking lot drainage.
17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the -X-
environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminateimportant examples of
the major periods of California history orprehistory?.
N/A
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,,but g_!
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable
future projects)
N/A - -
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause }{J
substantial adverse effectson.human beings,either directly or
indirectly?
N/A
18.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:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where the are available for review.
N/A
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 the earlier analysis.
N/A
19
C �l -Sd
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources sources Potent._..y Potentially Less Than No
Prefumo Creek Commons 11980 Los Osos Valley Road Significant Significant Significant hripaci
ER#7-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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 theproject
N/A
19. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,2004
2. City of SLO General.Plan Circulation Element,November 1994
3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element,May 1996.
4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element,July 2000
5. City of SLO Genial Plan Conservation and Open Space Element,May 2006
6. City of SLO General Plan Energy Conservation Element,Aril 1981
7. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element,July 1996
8. City of SLO General Plan EIR 1994 for Update,to the Land Use and Circulation Elements
9. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
10. City of San Luis Obispo,Land Use Inventory Database
11. Site Visit
12. USDA,Natural Resources Conservation Service,Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County
13. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency:
It ://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMNT/
14. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County,Air Pollution Control District, 1995
15. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Guidebook,May 1996
16. 2001 City of San Luis Obispo Water Resources Report
17. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community Development
Department
18. The City Waterways Management Plan and Drainage Design Manual
19. City of San Luis Obispo,Archeological Resource Guidelines
20. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Ma
21. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element,on file in the Utilities Department
22. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map,prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act,effective January 1, 1990
23. Flood Insurance Rate Map,(Community Panel 0603100005 C)dated July 7, 1981
24. San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan
25, San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines
26. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Secor,January 2,2007
27. Soils Engineering Report by Earth Systems Pacific;March 12,2007
28. Archeological Surface Survey prepared by Thor Conway,Heritage Discoveries,March 29,2007
29. Wetland Assessment prepared by Morro Group,Inc. September 2005
30. Preliminary Traffic Analysis prepared by Fehr&Peers March 30,2006
31. Acoustic Survey prepared by David Dubbink Associates,April 9,2007
32. Letter from San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District June 14,2007
33. Prefumo Creek Commons Master Drainage Plan July 17,2007
34.
20
ATTACHMENT 4
Issues, Discussion and Supportinginformation Sources Sources. Potenn...J, Potentially Less Than No
Prefumo Creek Commons 11980 Los Osos Valley Road Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#7-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
All documents listed above are available for review at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department,919
Palm Street,San Luis Obispo,California(805)781-7522.
Available in the project file: Project plans and a wealth of other interesting documents and tidbits.
REQUIRED EIR WORKSCOPE ITEMS
#1 AESTHETICS
Workscope Items:
A. A visual analysis shall be a component of the EIR to understand the potential viewshed impacts and to evaluate
project consistency with the General Plan, which states that new buildings should frame hillside views rather than
obscure them, and that new projects should include public open space areas, which provide open views toward the
surrounding hills. The EIR shall identify potential impacts of the project on views of important scenic resources,
such as views of the surrounding hillsides, and impacts to adjacent businesses and residents in terms of sunlight
exposure levels and views, and suggest appropriate mitigation measures. In designing mitigation measures, the EIR
should look at opportunities in the project to provide unobstructed view corridors. The consultant shall develop
specific performance standards(mitigation measures)for building placement to preserve views of the Morros and the
Santa Lucia Range through the site as viewed from Los Osos Valley Road.
B. Specific lighting standards and detailed mitigations shall be formulated to protect the residential neighborhood,
adjacent natural resource areas,and adjacent public right of ways from light spillage.
#2 AGRicuixuRAI.RESO lRCE_S•
The consultant shall develop specific mitigations for the loss of agricultural land and determine methods to preserve
remaining agricultural lands. A discussion regarding the value of the impacted agricultural land considering the
surrounding land uses and best use of the property should be included.
#3 AIR OUALrTY:
Workscope Items:
A. The consultant shall utilize the direction from APCD to prescribe specific mitigations to reduce the project's
impacts. A statement of overriding considerations for air pollution may need to be established if the-mitigations do
not reduce the air quality impacts to less than significant.
B. In conjunction with trip generation figures provided from the required traffic analysis,interpolate expected emissions
generated by the project,and develop appropriate mitigation measures,which accommodate needed transit facilities,
encourage pedestrian travel,and consolidate parking,to help offset impacts.
#4 BIOLOGH'Ai.RFsoURC s,
Workscope Item:
The consultant shall develop specific performance standards and mitigation measures for the project that will restore the creek
and the existing Swale to a condition that is superior to the existing condition. This may include a plan that eliminates non-
native plant species and introduces a plant palette of native trees,shrubs and groundcover. Additionally,mitigation measures
for demolition work and grading should be included to ensure that such activities do not disturb sensitive habitat or cause
21
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting reformation Sources sources Pot miu—j Potentially Less Than No
Prefumo Creek Commons 11980 Los Osos Valley Road significant significant significant Impact
ER #7-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
sedimentation or contaminated runoff. The project design will also need to respond to creek and habitat areas through careful
lighting design and consideration for location of land uses, transportation, truck delivery routes, and trash collection. Low
impact development standards as prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board shall also be incorporated into the
proposed mitigations.
#5 GEOLOGY AND SOIL C;
Workscope Item:
A. The EIR shall discuss the general geologic and soil conditions at the site, summarize the findings of the soils
engineering report,and provide appropriate mitigation measures.
#G HAzARDs AND HA7AgpoiUs MAIERI&L&
Workscope Item:
A. The EIR consultant shall utilize the existing phase I environmental site assessment to discuss the background of the
site and the potential(or lack of)hazardous.conditions.
#7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER MmxrY•
Workscope Item:
The project shall be designed to fully comply with the City's Flood Damage Prevention Guidelines and the Waterways
Management Plan. The EIR consultant will need to review the Master Drainage Plan prepared by Wallace Group in
completing a final drainage plan and mitigation measures that are necessary to reduce on-site and off-site drainage impacts.
Best management practices will need to be incorporated to insure that site drainage leaving parking areas is properly filtered
before entering any creek or habitat areas. Low impact development standards as prescribed by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board shall also be incorporated into the proposed mitigations.
#8 LAND USE ANn LANNDIG:
Workscope Item:
The EIR consultant shall evaluate the project against applicable General Plan Policies that are designed to protect the
environment. The City's General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element and other elements of the General Plan contain
policies that speak to preservation of views, protection of natural resources,preservation of residential neighborhoods, noise,
energy conservation and related environmental effects. Mitigation measures and or project modifications will need to be
incorporated that will allow the project to be consistent with General Plan Policy.
#9 NOISE•
Workscope Item:
Discuss general strategies for buffering land uses and attenuating noise to existing adjacent sensitive land uses in the project.
Mitigation measures to ensure short term construction noise and long term operational noise impacts are minimized to the
greatest extent possible will need to be incorporated into the project. The EIR consultant shall refer to the completed noise
analysis and complete a peer review of the analysis to produce noise mitigations.
#10 POPL1r_.ATION AND HO 1SIN.
22
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources sources Potenh....y' PotentiallyLess Than No
Prefumo Creek Commons 11980 Los Osos Valley Road significant significant significant Impact
ER#7 07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Issue Area Workscope:
The EIR consultant shall be responsible for performing an analysis on the balance of housing vs.jobs. The analysis should
take into account the proposed development.for this site,Dalidio and other commercial properties within the vicinity.
#11 PUBLIC SERVICE
Issue Area Workscone:
The EIR consultant shall be responsible for performing an analysis on the potential impacts to public services, especially
roads and transportation infrastructure. The need for a bus shelter and other improvements shall be analyzed. The analysis
should take into account the proposed development for this site,and proposed road extensions to Dalidio in the future.
#12 RECREATION:
Issue Area Workscone:
The EIR consultant shall review the City's Recreation Element and the approved plans for the Bob Jones bike trail in order to
determine if mitigations or project conditions are necessary.
#13 TRANCPORTATION AND TRAFFIC_
Issue Area Workscone:
The Consultant shall utilize the Fehr& Peer traffic study completed on March 30, 2006 as a basis for scoping the required
traffic analysis. The EIR consultant will need to complete a traffic study based on existing conditions considering the
proposed project. The EIR consultant shall examine the potential for mitigation measures to improve traffic conditions both
with and without improvements to the overpass at HWY 101.
#14 IJTn.rius AND SERvicE SYS .MS:
Issue Area Workscone:
As discussed in the hydrology and wastewater section, the consultant will need to analyze the drainage facilities for the
project and ensure that mitigation measures are created that incorporate the latest contemporary standards for stone drainage
including bio-swales,and other forms of natural,low maintenance filter systems for parking lot drainage.
23
Page 1 of 2
RED FILE
ME�ING AGENDA�q RECEIVED �AONCIL W CDD DIR
Hampia LI ITEM # FIN DIR
_ !_ AUG 2 1 2007 p'ACAO JR FIRE CHIEF
rroRfrt
From: Mandeville, John SLO CITY CLERK CLERK/ORIG 14T pOLICE CHF
❑ DEPT HEADS REC DIR
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 6:17 PM i� UTIL DIR
To: Carter,Andrew - 1P l ir' HR DIR
Cc: Hampian, Ken; Dunsmore, Phil; Davidson, Doug; Lowell, Jonathan P; Clark, Claire
Subject: RE: C9-- Prefumo Creek EIR w ��
Andrew, here are some answers to your questions. As you can see, the lack of residential
land use as an alternative heavily influenced the staff recommendation in this case.
Your reference to Airport Land Use Plan Zones 5 and 6 mean that you are looking at an
outdated version of the Airport Land Use Plan. Under the current ALUP, the site is in Safety
Zone S-1 b. Maximum residential density in S-1 b is one unit per 5 acres (.2 units per acre).
This essentially wipes out the potential for residential development— low density and high
density by our General Plan standards. It is possible for a city council to override the
provisions of an airport land use plan, but our council has been reluctant to do so because of
potential liabilities.
We will provide you with a current version of the ALUP.
Doesn't the Council decide the land use? Yes, absolutely, but there are a number of ways the
choices can come to the Council. One is as a request for a specific land use from a property
owner—this situation. Another is to do further analysis of alternatives via a city sponsored
long-range planning study such as a corridor plan, a general plan amendment or a general
plan update.
In the current situation, the application is legitimate and the Council is only being asked to
determine if the proposed land use is appropriate. As the application goes through processing,
the Planning Commission or Council can request additionalinformation on alternatives or they
can determine without additional information that the proposed land use is appropriate or
inappropriate. The Council could also determine that the land use change is not needed at
this time and the land should remain designated as Interim Open Space.
The Council has several options:
1. Approve the workscope of the EIR.
2. Continue the consideration of the workscope with direction to provide additional
information, especially regarding particular land use alternatives the Council is interested
in evaluating.
3. Defer action on the workscope and agendize a preliminary hearing on the land use
amendment to determine if it should continue to be processed. Typically the staff
recommends that the environmental review work be completed before the Council takes
an action, in order that the Council has thorough detailed information to inform their
decision. In the case of controversial General Plan land use amendments, the City (like
the County) has provided preliminary reviews to determine if a majority of Council
members feel the proposed land use in inappropriate prior to the applicant spending
hundreds of thousands of dollars on an EIR when there is little chance the project will be
approved. The applicant has the right to prepare the EIR and have their project reviewed
8/21/2007
Page 2 of 2
by the Planning Commission and the City Council, but more applicants will withdraw their
application and get a refund of their fees if they can see that there are major concerns or
problems associated with their proposals.
Why was the staff recommending that the EIR proceed with the General Retail land use
proposal? a) We knew residential was unlikely as an option; b) There was no evidence that
more auto dealership land would be need in the foreseeable future; c) General Retail in this
location is a land use that is compatible with the noise of overhead airplanes and traffic
generated by the Froom Ranch commercial uses; and d) Economic development and
increasing sales tax revenues was a major council goal two years ago, and while not as high a
priority during this Financial Planning period, revenues are still falling short of the CIP needs.
From: Carter, Andrew
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 11:25 AM
To: Mandeville, John; Dunsmore, Phil
Cc: Hampian, Ken
Subject: C9 -- Perfumo Creek EIR
As a head's up, I plan to pull this consent item for discussion on Tuesday.
Here are my questions/concems.
Our General Plan says that this parcel's property use is "to be determined." (Figure 2 in the LUE) The
LUE labels possible uses as "vehicle sales," "multifamily housing," or"an open space corridor." (LUE 8.7) The
proposal before us calls for a shopping center, which is not envisioned as one of the "possible uses."
I realize that "possible" is not proscriptive, so there is nothing to prevent the Council from authorizing a shopping
center here. I also realize that the need for vehicle sales on this spot has changed given development of the
Gearhart property on Calle Joaquin, Cole Motors move to Broad Street, and Smith Volvo's coming move to the
Airport area.
My concern, however, is that we're jumping straight to commercial. Doesn't Council need to decide that?
Deep in the bowels of the EIR checklist, page C9-45, under Land Use and Planning, it reads, "Multi-family
housing, as discussed as a potential land use in WE Policy 8.7 is infeasible due to density restrictions of the
airport land use plan." How was that determination made and who made it? Council or staff?
My copy of the Airport Land Use Plan shows the majority of this property (toward LOVR) being in Zone 6 where
"low and higher density residential, churches, nearly all commercial allowed;schools approvable." My copy
shows the very back portion being in Zone 5 where "low and higher density residential, schools, churches
approvable; most commercial allowed." Do I have incorrect information?
And if multi-family housing is, in fact, "infeasible,"what about low density housing?
So ... I'm concerned we're moving down the path of an EIR that only considers the commercial use the applicant
wants. It seems to me that either Council needs to decide the desired use up front or this EIR needs to consider
in depth --compare and contrast--two different uses, residential and commercial. If that's the case, then the
workscope for the EIR needs to be drastically changed.
Andrew Carter
Council Member
8/21/2007