Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/19/2010, PH5 - REZONING OF PROPERTY AT 3750 BULLOCK LANE FROM CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE TO MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESID I counat 10-19-10 acEnba REpoRt CITY OF SAN LU I S O B I S P O FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director Prepared By: Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner SUBJECT: REZONING OF PROPERTY AT 3750 BULLOCK LANE FROM , CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE TO MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) AND COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (C-C) AS PART OF THE ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (R 105-10, ER 81-10). RECOMMENDATION Introduce an ordinance to rezone the property at 3750 Bullock Lane from Conservation/Open Space (C/OS) to Medium High Density Residential (R-3) and Community Commercial (C-C) as part of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan. DISCUSSION Background On September 21, 2010, the City Council introduce an ordinance to pre-zone the unincorporated area within the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (GASP) boundary and adopted a resolution of intent to annex the Orcutt Area (Attachments 1 and 2). However, there is one property within the OASP located at 3750 Bullock Lane that is already within the City limits and requires a re-zoning instead of a pre-zoning. This re-zoning was not addressed with the previous Council action. In order to implement the OASP, the re-zoning of this property requires a separate action by the . City Council. Zoning This property was annexed into the City prior to 1977 and was originally zoned Manufacturing and utilized as a storage yard. In 1977, the property owners pursued a project to change the zoning to R-2 to develop a 72-unit condominium project. However, at that time the property was in an isolated location, and connections to access and services were very limited. Therefore, as part of a City-wide zoning map update in 1978, the City changed the zoning to open space. The proposed re-zoning will modify the current zoning (C/OS) to Medium High Density Residential (R-3) and Community Commercial (C-C) consistent with the approved specific plan map. The General Plan Map has already been amended to accommodate the GASP, and the new zoning would simply implement the existing General Plan map. A color land use map is available in the OASP and a separate copy has been included in the Council reading file. Setting The fairly level 5.46 acre property is at the southerly end of Bullock Lane opposite the railroad. It is currently utilized as a construction storage yard with several storage containers and associated temporary structures. There are no permanent structures or residences on the property. The OASP envisions this property ultimately developing with residential uses with the potential for . commercial or mixed-use to occur on the easterly portion of the property. The southerly boundary of the property is identified as a location for a collector street (B Street) that will allow an east/west circulation pattern through the OASP. The westerly boundary of the property near PH5-1 Orcutt Area Specific Plan Rezoning Page 2 the Bullock Lane frontage is also reserved for a collector street (C Street). A small sliver of land west of C street is identified as parkland as part of the linear park and bike trail adjacent to the area-wide drainage basin. The map below identifies the existing General Plan categories for the subject property that will be reflected in the zoning designation change. r General Plan Catagories -- --� Current City Limit F-11 Low Density Residential ■■■ New City Limit Medium Density Residential Medium-High Density Residential ..LL. . High Density Residential d. 3750 Bullock Lane .il. .il. .11. ®Community Commercial A. .tl. .a. .il. Park '.J1. AL.'Al. J1. .Al. ..a. LL. �Open Space i .LL. .iL. 'al. .Jl. '.il. '.il. ..1. ' .al. '.�L. ...L. .iL. AiL. .al. ' ..LL. '.LL. A. AL. .A. L7 r w .0'- Environmental Review In March 2010, the Final EIR for the Orcutt Area Specific Plan was certified, addressing potential environmental effects associated with future development and with the General Plan amendment/implementation of new land uses. A subsequent environmental document has been prepared with a focus on the impacts specific to annexation and pre-zoning (Attachment 3). This document also analyzed the rezoning of the subject property. Based on the findings included in the Initial Study, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was recommended and endorsed by the City Council at the September 21, 2010 hearing. CONCURRENCES This rezoning was considered along with the OASP document and annexation of surrounding properties. All City departments with responsibility for providing services to these areas have been involved in the development of the Plan for Services and the specific plan that includes development standards for this area. FISCAL IMPACT Since this property is already incorporated into the City, and the General Plan designation has already been adopted consistent with this re-zoning, there will be no known fiscal impacts as a result of correcting the zoning map for consistency with the General Plan map. A fiscal impact discussion associated with the surrounding annexation and implementation of the OASP is included in the OASP report, Attachment 2. PH5-2 Orcutt Area Speck Plan Rezoning Page 3 ALTERNATIVES 1. The City Council can continue consideration of this re-zoning to a future Council meeting and ask for additional information before direction is provided on a course of action. 2. The City Council can deny taking action on the re-zoning, however this action should be taken only if alternative zoning designations are desired for this location. This action would result in a reconsideration of the adopted specific plan and land use map for this location. If the City Council does not take action on the re-zoning, this property will remain open space, limiting development options of this property and/or implementation of specific plan goals. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Land Use boundary map 2. September 21 OASP staff report 3. Initial Study of environmental review (ER 81-10) 4. Draft ordinance adopting re-zoning AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL READING FILE Orcutt Area Specific Plan Orcutt Area Specific Plan Final EIR Color Land Use Ma l i \\chstore4\CDD\CD•PLAN\Pdunsmore\LR\OASP Annex\Council reports\GASP Rezone(105-10)10-19.DOC n PH5-3 urcutt Area Annexation) Attacbment-1 BRIARWOOD 0 3 0�� — O 3 h� ' Y • i \ 1Jj.`\ .!L �..t. .lt. Jj. \ .,- y'� f 1t. .11.•.11. Jl. .fit � ..AOL 11.11. lj. 3j..Lj. 'i J_. : i ..L'.+1.'. 'Ja.'JL.'JL'JL'Jl. ,}. 1 i JL JL JL JL JL. JL Jt.E. ' - -- AL 0 JL.Jl.. Al.'.Al. JL. t -'� J\l` ` fJ/ w- e!�i r ri=L w. .e-r rr -•� N4 . _--HANSEN- y Jr l -r , ��•++• .. ,r , C rte $ IL ILL AL IPMEN - '. �\\ 'J � l. ••' ''•� .�.. r;r_i•*..fr.. r J!: CVC• %�'• �.�'. -r r �' �C-. • 4VL y ,L' {.'r..r AL \\ oNC.` ' , �� . �' r�,r fie,r r . r..r-:.�e .,. • 4T6 FELICIA O' - - — - TAN CHAPARRAL 2 -- _ a a0 - KFARNt - -' _ 1t A. VGOOD O ARA LIA 80 X O General Plan Catagories Current city Limit 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 Ll Low Density Residential •• New City Limit M Iles L�Medium Density Residential Medium-High Density Residential e .High Density Residential ®Community Commercial LO oyy$�..m It;-,.oa�spo K]Park SLUtL,d " ",G�S Ei Open Space 9/30/2010 PH5-4 it 2 council AD 9-21-10 j ac,EnOA Repout )WmN°mb CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Directo Prepared By: Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ANNEXATION OF THE ORCUTT AREA; ADOPTION OF A PRE-ZONING ORDINANCE AND IMPACT FEE RESOLUTION; AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (ANNX, ER, R 81-10). RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the City Council on August 17, 2010, authorize an application to the Local Agency Formation Commission for the proposed Orcutt Area Specific Plan annexation by taking the following actions: 1) Adopt a resolution of intention to annex the Orcutt Area in its entirety and adopt a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the project; 2) Adopt a resolution establishing development impact fees for the Orcutt Area; and 2) Introduce an ordinance pre-zoning land within the Orcutt Area, consistent with the Orcutt Area Specific Plan; REPORT-IN-BRIEF The City Council approved the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (GASP) in March 2010, fulfilling the General Plan Policy requiring specific plan approval for this expansion area. Now, the OASP is ready for annexation. The action before the Council includes pre-zoning the land consistent with the OASP and General Plan map; adoption of a resolution that establishes development fees to implement the public facilities financing plan; and adoption of a resolution that authorizes staff to pursue the annexation application with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). The action before the Council does not represent the end of the annexation process; instead, this step launches the beginning of the formal public process by initiating an annexation application. LAFCO has complete discretion over the annexation boundaries proposed by the City. LAFCO considers many factors in its decision including promoting orderly development, preventing sprawl, preserving open space and prime agricultural lands, providing housing for persons and families of all incomes, and efficient extension of governmental services. Achieving these policy imperatives necessitates a logical, contiguous City limit line, which is reflected by the recommended annexation boundaries. Property owners and residents of the expansion area who are registered voters have the ability to protest annexation after it is approved by LAFCO. While staff is aware of at least one owner who does not support annexation, discussions with property owners indicates that most view annexation as the likely and positive next step after the lengthy planning process that was required to develop the Orcutt Area Specific Plan. City staff will continue to provide PH5-5 - Attachment 2 Orcutt Area Annexation Page 2 information and work with property owners during the LAFCO process to insure that those affected by the annexation have accurate information on which to base their decisions.. DISCUSSION Situation/Previous Review On August 17, 2010, the City Council reviewed the proposed annexation boundary, conceptual pre-zoning, and other components of the annexation process. Council directed staff to return with an ordinance to pre-zone the property, a resolution to establish development impact fees for the Orcutt Area and a resolution of intent to annex the entire Orcutt Area, including the property at 3811 Orcutt Road (Attachment 1, annexation boundary). Council also endorsed the use of pre- annexation agreements for interested property owners. Annexation is Consistent with the General Plan Annexation is one of the most effective tools available to the City to insure that future development in the expansion areas is consistent with City property development standards and policies for growth management. All of the land proposed for annexation is located within the City's Sphere of Influence, which was updated in 2006 by the City Council and Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Annexation of the Orcutt Area is consistent with the General Plan and with the specific plan prepared for the annexation area. The following General Plan policies are listed in support of the proposed annexation: Land Use Element Policy 1.12.2 Annexation Purpose and Timing: Annexation should be used as a growth management tool, both to enable appropriate urban development and to protect open space. Areas within the urban reserve line which are to be developed with urban uses should be annexed before urban development occurs. The City may annex an area long before such development is to occur, and the City may annex areas which are to remain permanently as open space. An area may be annexed in phases, consistent with the city-approved specific plan or development plan for the area. Phasing of annexation and development will reflect topography, needed capital facilities and funding, open space objectives, and existing and proposed land uses and roads. Analysis: Annexation of the Orcutt Area will allow the City to manage growth in this expansion area in a manner that is consistent with the long term vision as expressed in the recently adopted Orcutt Area Specific Plan. The General Plan envisions the phased development of a new residential neighborhood in this area, consistent with City plans and enabled by City services. In addition, annexation will allow the City to secure the open space and park areas associated with the plan area, thus furthering City objectives. Housing Element Policy 6.1 Consistent with the growth management portion of its Land Use Element and the availability of adequate resources, the City will plan to accommodate up to 1,589 dwelling units between January 2007 and December 2014 in accordance with the assigned Regional Housing Needs Allocation. PH5-6 Attachment 2 Orcutt Area Annexation Page 3 Analysis: The annexation of the Orcutt.Area will make residentially-zoned property available for residential development, thus directly implementing policy 6.1. Housing Element Policy 6.11 Specific plans for the Orcutt Expansion Area and any new expansion area identified shall include R-3 and R-4 zoned land to ensure sufficient land is designated at appropriate densities to accommodate the development of extremely low, very-low and low income dwellings. These plans shall include sites suitable for subsidized rental housing and affordable rental and owner-occupied dwellings, and programs to support the construction of dwellings rather than payment of in-lieu housing fees. Such sites shall be integrated within neighborhoods of market-rate housing and shall be architecturally compatible with the neighborhood. Analysis: The OASP includes policies and programs to produce affordable housing on-site rather than allow payment of in-lieu fees. Of the residential property, 44% is zoned for R-3 and R-4 densities and each development project is required to provide at least 15% of the residential units at prices affordable to moderate and low income households. The plan does allow land dedication to the Housing Authority or other City recognized low-income housing developer in lieu of actually constructing the units at the discretion of the Council. The OASP includes policies that support distribution of affordable housing throughout the subdivisions. Housing Element Policy 6.17 Complete Orcutt Area Specific Plan and consider final City approval to annex the Orcutt specific planning area by December 2010. Analysis: This Council action is the final step in authorizing the City to move forward with the annexation and processing an application with LAFCO. Therefore, action on the attached resolution will implement policy 6.17 consistent with the December 2010 deadline. Property Owner Outreach Community Development Department staff has worked with the property owners through the Specific Plan development process and has described the proposed governmental change. Staff will continue working with those affected to address any concerns. This pro-active approach is expected to help facilitate the transition and contribute to the success of the annexation. Outreach efforts to property owners and residents have included individual letters to each property owner describing the hearing and. annexation process as well as "one-on-one" conversations. In addition to the normal postcard hearing notification, a letter describing the annexation process has been sent to each of the property owners and the residents prior to this hearing. Approval of the proposed annexation boundaries and submittal of the application to LAFCO is only the beginning and City staff will continue to work with those affected to provide information, develop pre-annexation agreements where appropriate, and assist in preparing for the transition from County to City governmental services. PH5-7 Attachment 2 Orcutt Area Annexation Page 4 Annexation Criteria The details of the annexation process were discussed in the August 17 staff report (available in Council Reading File). The City's role in the annexation process is that of `applicant.' The City's application to LAFCO must include a resolution of the Council stating its intention to annex the land within the proposed annexation boundaries. A complete annexation application will.also include pre-zoning information for the land to be incorporated and a"plan for services" to show how the City will address utilities, public safety and other government services in the annexed territory (Attachment 2, Annexation Plan for Services). In addition to these roles, the City is the lead agency for the environmental review required by CEQA. Staff has prepared an initial study of environmental review and has concluded that the annexation will not produce environmental impacts beyond those that have already been identified in the OASP Final EIR (Initial Study,Attachment 3). The criteria that LAFCO staff uses to make recommendations on proposed annexations are based on the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. Any proposal to extend services into an unincorporated area must be consistent with the policies of the Act,which include promoting orderly development, preventing sprawl, preserving open space and prime agricultural lands, providing housing for persons and.families of all incomes, and efficient extension of governmental services. To meet these policy imperatives, proposed annexation areas must be contiguous to existing city boundaries and they must be consistent with local and regional land use plans.' LAFCO also considers the availability of water and other services, regional housing needs, information from land owners; and land-use designations in their boundary change decisions. The detailed planning effort associated with the Specific Plan development supports the policy imperatives of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act. In addition, the Final EIR for the specific plan, and the Annexation Plan for Services combined with LAFCO's Sphere of Influence study provide LAFCO with evidence the applicable criteria are being met. Annexation Process Following City Council approval of a resolution to annex the Orcutt Area, staff will prepare the formal annexation application to LAFCO. This application will include a detailed map of the area to be annexed, a legal description, the related environmental determinations (including the OASP EIR and the Annexation Negative Declaration), the signed Council resolution and required application fees. Once LAFCO has deterrniined that the application is complete, they authorize the City and County to negotiate a tax-exchange agreement. The subsequent agreement must be endorsed by the City Council and County Board of Supervisors prior to LAFCO action on the annexation. LAFCO may schedule an informational meeting ahead of the required formal hearing, or they may directly schedule an annexation hearing. In advance of the hearing,LAFCO prepares a report and recommendation and notifies all registered voters and property owners within 300 feet of (and including) the annexation area. At the hearing, the Commission must consider a number of factors and policies in compliance with state law. Within 35 days of the hearing, the Commission will adopt a resolution of determination that may approve or deny the annexation. They may also decide to add conditions, or in some circumstances continue the hearing to a later date. Upon approval of the annexation, LAFCO would provide written notice to all affected property owners and registered voters in the annexation boundary.. PH5-8 Attachqipt 2 Orcutt Area Annexation If no opposition from registered voters or landowners within the affected territory is received prior to or during the Commission's meeting, the Commission may waive protest proceedings, and annexation would be recorded. If protest proceedings are not waived, there is a 30-day reconsideration period. If no requests for reconsideration are filed, a protest hearing date is set. Notice to area property owners and registered voters is provided. If more than 25% of the registered voters in an area or 25% of the property owners holding 25% or more of the property value in an area protest the annexation an election will be held. Once an election is held, if 50% or more of the registered voters_ vote to oppose the annexation, than the annexation is terminated. If less than 50% oppose, the LAFCO Executive Officer prepares a Certificate of Completion which is recorded with the County Recorder and the annexation is complete. Annexation should not result in any perceivable change in circumstances to property owners or residents in the area. There will be no requirement to connect to City services nor will any . property owner be mandated to develop their property. Once an owner chooses to proceed with development, the provisions in the Orcutt Area Specific Plan will apply to guide the review of the proposal. This annexation is considered an "inhabited" annexation area, and as such, registered voters also have the ability to protest LAFCO approval. City staff will provide outreach to residents so that they too understand the process and what is being proposed. Although City staff cannot provide the City Council with certainty regarding whether there are sufficient objectors to wage a successful protest, it does appear that the best strategy to insure success is to continue to provide accurate information to those affected, and to address any concerns so that owners and residents alike understand the changes that will occur and will be able to make an informed choice regarding LAFCO's decision. Pre-Annexation Agreements City staff and County staff will need to develop an agreement regarding maintenance of Orcutt Road. The entire width of the right-of-way is proposed to be included in the annexation area in order that the full cross section envisioned by the plan can be developed under City jurisdiction. However, the eastern portion of this road will primarily serve residents under County jurisdiction who access the road from the properties to the east. A maintenance agreement is proposed in order that the County's fair share of maintenance costs can be contributed to the City. Staff will also work with any private property owners who request a pre-annexation agreement. The agreements can address issues such as pending development entitlements, continuation of existing uses, stormwater facilities, water supply and wastewater facilities. Pre-annexation agreements are not as detailed as development agreements, and cannot provide exceptions or entitlements that would not otherwise be available to the property being annexed. However they have been used to clarify assumptions about the property and reduce the potential for misunderstandings in the future. Any pre-annexation agreements will come to the Council for approval prior to LAFCO's final action on the annexation. Development Fees As part of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan, a financing strategy was developed in order to provide a funding mechanism for the public improvements needed to serve the area development. This strategy involved creation of an area-specific fee. The purpose of adopting an area-specific development fee is to implement the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan which state PH5-9 Attac n�nt 2 Orcutt Area Annexation age that new development should pay its own way. These fees will provide a financing method for the construction and purchase of transportation and park improvements specific to the Orcutt Area and are charged in addition to City-wide impact fees. The Council has determined that impact fees are needed in order to finance these facilities and improvements and to pay for new development's fair share of the construction or purchase costs of these facilities and improvements. In response to property owner input, the City Council reduced the Orcutt area project-specific impacts fees from $19,265 to $17,181 per single family home and from $13,904 to $12,448 per multi-family unit. These reductions were possible partly because the Council approved a 50% cost sharing for the Industrial Way bicycle/pedestrian bridge project and because property owners agreed to provide some of the improvements as part of their respective developments. Chapter 8 of the GASP (available in the Council Reading file) contains details regarding the public facilities to be financed as part of the fee program and the per-unit cost of those facilities. LAFCO staff has indicated that these fees must be in place prior to annexation so that property owners in.area to be annexed fully understand the future costs to develop. The Council action tonight involves adopting a fee resolution which will be distributed to all owners after adoption. The fees will not apply to any property owner until development is proposed after the property is annexed to the City. These fees will not apply to annexed property where an owner chooses to maintain their current land uses without change. A resolution to adopt these fees for the Orcutt area has been included for Council consideration(Attachment 4). Pre-Zoning In order to annex the property into the City, LAFCO requires that the City specify the zoning of the property to be annexed. This allows the property to be evaluated for value in the boundary exchange process between the City and the County. The zoning would take effect upon recordation of the annexation following LAFCO approval. The General Plan Map has already been amended to accommodate the OASP, and the new zoning would simply implement the existing General Plan map. A color OASP annexation boundary and land use map is available in the OASP and a separate copy has been included in the Council reading file. Environmental Review In March 2010, the Final EIR was certified for the Orcutt Area Specific Plan, addressing potential environmental effects associated with future development. A subsequent environmental document has been prepared with a focus on the impacts specific to annexation and pre-zoning (Attachment 3). Based on the findings included in the Initial Study, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended. The annexation process itself results in no physical change to the environment.. CONCURRENCES All City departments with responsibility for providing services to the proposed annexation areas have been involved in the development of the Plan for Services and the specific plan that includes development standards for this area. City staff has been working closely with LAFCO staff regarding preparation of the formal annexation application. PH5-10 Attachga Orcutt Area Annexation ge FISCAL IMPACT 1. One-Time Costs. Annexation of the OASP is proposed at the City's cost. The LAFCO application fee is approximately $13,000 and filing fees for the State Board of Equalization are also required (approximately$2,500). At the August 17`h meeting, Council authorized re- assigning funds originally targeted for Phase 1B of the Airport Area annexation to the GASP annexation project since this project is ready to proceed 2. Ongoing Cost and Revenues. The OASP was shown in the adopted Land Use Element as a residential expansion area and evaluated as part of the adopted General Plan. When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis of on-going costs and revenues, which found that, in its entirety, the General Plan was fiscally balanced. The proposed annexation is consistent with and implements the General Plan and the specific plan prepared to guide development of this area. The fiscal impact of this annexation contributes to the overall balanced General Plan. 3. Annexation and Tax sharing. In 1996,the County and the incorporated Cities collaborated to develop a basic tax-sharing agreement for annexations (Joint Resolution 01-96). In 2007 when the City began the process to annex Phase 1A of the Airport Area, the City agreed to phase in sales tax revenue transfer over a five year period to assist the County during trying fiscal times. After the OASP annexation application is filed, LAFCO staff will authorize the City and the County to begin negotiating the tax-sharing agreement that becomes part of the annexation action. This negotiation occurs once the pre-zoning has been adopted so that information regarding the assessed value of each property and the potential tax implications can be understood during the negotiation process. According to Joint Resolution 01-96, for land that is primarily zoned residential,the County retains the existing property tax base and two-thirds (66%) of the future property tax increment. For undeveloped land that is pre-zoned for commercial development, the County retains the existing property tax base and all of the future property tax increment while the City retains the sales tax from the area. LAFCO staff has indicated that the City and County will negotiate the tax sharing agreement using the guidance under Joint Resolution 01-96 and from the CKH act which specifies that annexations should be"revenue-neutral"for the jurisdictions involved. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may wish to re-examine the annexation boundary. Mr. Garay has specifically requested to remain outside of the annexation area and wishes to. remain under the jurisdiction of the County. At the August 17`h hearing it was determined that this property should be included in the annexation boundary. Furthermore, LAFCO may even include this property if Council chose to exclude it. This would be consistent with LAFCO policies that would discourage the isolation of specific parcels within the annexation area. 2. The City Council can direct staff not to offer pre-annexation agreements to property owners in the annexation area. This alternative is not recommended because the agreements do not obligate the City to provide.services or benefits that differ from any other annexed property in PH5-11 Attac nint 2 Orcutt Area Annexation age the City, but do provide the benefit to both the City and the property owners by clearly defining expectations. 3. The City Council can continue consideration of these annexation issues to a future Council meeting and ask for additional information to be provided before direction is provided on a course of action. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Proposed Annexation boundary map Attachment 2: Draftplan.for services Attachment.3: Initial Study of environmental review Attachment 4: Fee resolution Attachment 5: Resolution authorizing annexation Attachment 6: Ordinance adopting pre-zoning AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL READING FILE Orcutt Area Specific Plan Orcutt Area Specific Plan Final EIR August 17`x' Council staff report PH5-12 �►���aiiii����iii�lliil llllllll p���ii��iii��Acity IIIIof luissan ffi Community Development Department • 919 Palm Street,'San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER 81-10 1. Project Title: Orcutt Area annexation and Pre-Zoning 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Phil Dunmore, Senior Planner (805) 781-7522 4. Project Location: Orcutt Area Specific plan, surrounded by Orcutt Road, Bullock Lane and Tank Farm Road, City of San Luis Obispo (See Attachment 1, Vicinity Map). 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: N/A 7. Zoning:N/A 8. Description of the Project: Project includes the Annexation, fee schedule and pre-zoning of the 231 acre Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP) Area consistent with the approved Specific Plan and General Plan Map. This project implements the Orcutt Area Specific Plan, Financing Plan and Final EIR (FEIR) adopted by City Council, March 2010. EThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. Ph5-13 �` Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Attachment 3 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The 230.85-acre "Orcutt Area" is characterized by flat to rolling grasslands which rise to a steep, rocky hill at the southeastern corner of the area known as Righetti Hill. Nestled at the base of the Santa Lucia foothills, the Orcutt Area provides a variety of scenic resources for residents of the area and travelers along Orcutt Road and Tank Farm Road, including views of Righetti Hill, Islay Hill, and the Santa Lucia foothills. With a peak elevation of 563 feet and numerous rock outcroppings, Righetti Hill is a natural landmark listed in the City's General Plan as one of the defining Morros. The majority of the Orcutt Area has unobstructed views of the Santa Lucia foothills located to the east of the Plan Area. In the General Plan, Orcutt Road and Tank Farm Road are designated as roads of moderate scenic value and one section of Tank Farm Road adjacent to the Orcutt Area is designated as a road of high scenic value. The Specific Plan is designed to preserve and enhance these scenic resources. The Orcutt_ Area includes natural features such as creeks and wetlands, a variety of plant communities, hillside (Righetti Hill), and visual resources. The natural landscape includes plant communities such as annual grassland, riparian woodland, wetlands and central coast scrub. These habitats support a variety of wildlife. Riparian areas are primarily perennial creeks and the wetlands adjacent to creeks and small isolated agricultural wetland seeps on Righetti Hill. The Orcutt Plan Area's historical uses of ranching and farming activities altered much of the native habitat although viable native plant communities and riparian areas remain. 10. Project Entitlements Requested: Annexation, Pre-zoning, and adoption of a fee resolution to apply development fees for the Specific Plan Area. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: San Luis Obispo.County Local Agency Formation Commission(LAFCO) CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISpo 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 PH5-14 Attachment 3 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Noise Agriculture & Forestry Hazards&Hazardous Population/Housing Resources Materials Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Public Services Biological Resources Land Use/Planning Recreation Cultural Resources Mandatory Findings of Transportation/Traffic Significance Geology/Soils Mineral Resources. Utilities/Service Systems FISH AND GAME FEES There is no evidence before the Department that the project will.have any potential adverse effects on fish X and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a no effect determination from Fish and Game. The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial.study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE This environmental document must be submitted to the State. Clearinghouse for review by one or more State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073 a . CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 PH5-15 Attachment 3 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. X 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. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment,but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier.analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL UAPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to a licable standards, nothing further is required. Ul�1G 8 �25/1C Signature . Date Kim Murry,Deputy Director of Community Development For:John Mandeville, _ Printed Name Community Development Director CITY OF SAN L_uiS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 PH5-16 y Attachment 3 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. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "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. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With 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) 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 the earlier analysis. c)Mitigation Measures.For effects that are"Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refinedfromthe earlier document and the extent to which they addressed site-specific conditions for the project. 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. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 PH5-17 Attach-a i;Mt 3 8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold,if any,used to evaluate each question;and b) the mitigation measure identified,if any,to reduce the impact to less than significance CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 6 INITIAL STuOY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2070 PH5-18 Issues, Discussion and Supporti,.y Information Sources Sources Poter. Poten I Less an No t Si Issues nt Signi f�i 3 Issues (� J ER # 81-10 Orcutt Area Annexation, Fee Program and Pre- Mitigation zone Incorporated 1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 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 X the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would X adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Evaluation The proposed project will result in the change of character of the plan area from a generally semi-rural setting to an urban developed setting. This impact was evaluated in 1994 Land Use/Circulation Element EIR and in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Orcutt Area Specific Plan. While substantial design standards are contained in the Orcutt Area Specific Plan, the Community Design Guidelines and the City's General Plan, the change in views was determined to be a significant and unavoidable impact. Conclusion Although the specific plan provides for goals, policies and programs which are intended to reduce aesthetic impacts, no feasible mitigation exists to eliminate the impact associated with the conversion of a semi-rural landscape to an urban landscape. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City Council in Resolution No. 10154(Attachment 2). The annexation of the Orcutt Area is a project proposed under the Final EIR for the Orcutt Area. Annexation of land within the specific plan areas does not involve additional impacts relative to aesthetics beyond what was examined with the specific plan. 2. AGRICULTURE & FOREST RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of 1,2,10 X Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a X Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for,or cause rezoning of,forest land(as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(8)), timberland(as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production(as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010' PH5-19 Issues, Discussion and Supporta ig Information Sources sources Pote.. ..y Potentially ss Than No 40 Significant Significa cant: ' ! I Issues Unless 144.1 ' X t ER # 81-10 Mitigation Incorporated non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to X their location or nature, could result in conversion of Familand to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Evaluation The OASP FEIR, found that impacts to Agricultural Resources would be significant but mitigable upon development of the specific plan area. The value of OASP agricultural land resources as measured by the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment model is not considered significant. Property in the OASP is not under Williamson Act Contract. The FEIR did find that development may result in land use conflicts between residential uses and agricultural operations. Currently, portions of the specific plan area are utilized for grazing purposes. Mitigation in the FEIR recommends setbacks of 100 feet or more from ongoing grazing operations. Amendments to the Specific plan have already been incorporate to recognize the potential conflicts between agriculture and urban development. There are no forest lands in the GASP. Conclusion Annexation and pre-zoning of land consistent with the OASP within the specific plan area does not create additional impacts relative to agricultural resources and no additional mitigation measures are required. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 1,9 X existing or projected air quality violation? b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X quality plan? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial. pollutant X concentrations? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X people? e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria X pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozoneprecursors)? Evaluation The proposed project will result in the change of character of the plan area from a generally semi-rural setting to an urban developed setting. Although the specific plan is consistent with assumptions of the General Plan and the San Luis Obispo County Clean Air Plan(CAP),the adjustment of the Urban Reserve Line (URL)was not accounted for in the CAP,therefore adjustment of the URL was considered to be a significant and unavoidable impact in the OASP FEIR. Mitigation measures were incorporated to reduce these impacts, however even after mitigation, the potential impacts are considered to be significant and unavoidable. Conclusion No feasible mitigation exists to eliminate the impact associated with the conversion of a semi-rural landscape to an urban landscape including development of roadways and urban environment on semi-rural land. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City Council in Resolution No. 10154(Attachment 2). The annexation and pre-zoning of the Orcutt Area is a project proposed under the Final EIR for the OASP, however this CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO H INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 PH5-20 Issues, Discussion and Supportl,,y Information Sources Sources Poter, i Poten ly Less an o Significant Sign c t Issues U ��? ER # 81-10 Mitigation m Incorporated aspect of implementation dos not involve physical development or construction of facilities. Annexation of land within the specific plan areas, or pre-zoning of the area consistent with the OASP does not involve additional impacts relative to air quality. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or 1 X through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or X other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident 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 X wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Evaluation The Final EIR for the OASP and Related Facilities Master Plans identifies a total of 6 impacts related to biological resources associated with build-out of the annexation area. Some of these impacts include loss or temporary disturbance of annual grasslands, wetland habitat, and riparian woodland or scrub. Impacts are also identified to special status plant and wildlife species such as Burrowing Owl,Monarchs,and Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp and their habitats.Development of the specific plan area has the potential to reduce populations and available habitat of wildlife in general. Mitigation measures identified in the EIR are incorporated into the Specific Plan as policies and programs,or more specific requirements for avoidance of impacts on special status plant and animal species. Conclusion According to the Final EIR for the OASP, all impacts related to biological resources can be mitigated to less than significant levels. All impacts and findings associated with biological resources can be found in the resolution in Attachment 2. The proposed annexation and pre-zoning proposal involves no direct impacts on biological resources in the annexation area and no additional mitigation is required. 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 1,10 X historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X archaeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 PH5-21 Issues, Discussion and Support—tj Information Sources Sources Pote). .,y Poten ] xo. Significant Sign' tit i ti 141al,IL ER # 81-10 Issues Ute Mitigation Inco orated c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource X or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of X formal cemeteries? Evaluation As discussed in the Final EIR for the OASP, ground disturbance associated with infrastructure development and construction of new access roads, underground utilities and buildings could have an impact on known and unknown cultural resources including archeological and historic resources. The FEIR found that development of the annexation area has the potential to result in earth disturbance at several locations considered sensitive for archeological resources. Conclusion The Final EIR for the OASP identifies impacts associated with development as less-than-significant with implementation of the required mitigation measures. Additionally, the specific plan incorporated provisions to protect cultural resources. All impacts associated with cultural resources and related findings can be found in the OASP and in the resolution in Attachment 2. The proposed annexation and pre-zoning does not involve ground disturbance or any other physical activity that would create a direct impact to cultural resources and,therefore,no additional mitigation is required. 6. MINERAL.RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 1 X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? Evaluation a)b)c)The project will not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans or promote the use of non-renewable resources in an inefficient manner. No changes are proposed to the policies that regulate energy and mineral resources.No known mineral resources are known to be associated with Orcutt Area Specific Plan development areas. Although there is an abandoned mining operation within the Orcutt Area on Righetti Hill,it was historically utilized for chromite and is no longer considered a mineral resource. Furthermore, the area on Righetti Hill is proposed for an open space area and annexation will not eliminate the or allow development near the historical mining resource. The FEIR for the OASP did not indicate presence of any mineral resources nor conflict with any adopted energy conservation plans. Conclusion:No impact. 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would theproject: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or indirectly, X that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted X for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Evaluation a)b)c)The Orcutt area specific plan Final EIR discusses the potential of impacts due to greenhouse gas emissions, consistent with AB 32. The FEIR found that the specific plan development would create Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) impacts that are significant but mitigable. The Orcutt area EIR utilizes analysis based on the guidance from the CAPCOA in their CEQA and Climate Change white paper(January 2008). The CAPCOA document provides the technological methodologies CITY OF SAN Luis OBispo 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 PH5-22 Issues, Discussion and Supportl„y Information Sources sources Poten. Potentia Less Than No Significant SignI Issues Un1 lumn ER # 81-10 Mitigation Incorporated to assess GHG emissions. The information provided in this section is based on recently established California goals for reducing GHG emissions as well as a project-specific emissions inventory developed for the Specific Plan.The analysis of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan addresses impacts associated with the ultimate build-out of the area and does not establish thresholds for the City or set precedence for the type of analysis in a climate change analysis. However, the OASP EIR establishes mitigation measures to achieve performance standards for the development project. These performance standards are consistent with the intent of AB 32 and help to minimize potential impacts. Conclusion: No Impact. Mitigation measures incorporated into the Orcutt Area Specific Plan EIR will help to reduce GHG emissions.Annexation and Pre-zoning of the specific plan area has no effect on GHG emissions. 8. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 3,10 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? X III. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? X IV. Landslides or mudflows? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that X would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on or off site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the X Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Evaluation 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. Since this is a code requirement that is monitored through the review of plans during the Building Division's plan check process,no further mitigation is necessary. Portions of the annexation area 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. Recommendations for proper site preparation and foundation design are included in project soils reports and soils engineering reports_ These documents are required by code to be submitted to the Building Division as part of the construction permit process,therefore,no further mitigation is necessary. Conclusion The specific plan includes a program to reduce potential impacts associated with liquefaction for the plan area. These are described in the mitigation measures attached to the resolution in Attachment 2. Development proposed within the Orcutt Area will be subject to requirements to prepare soils reports and soils engineering reports with recommendations regarding suitability of particular development sites for construction and recommended construction methods. The proposed Annexation and Pre-zoning do not involve construction of any new facilities. Therefore, no impacts relative to geology and soils have been identified. CITY OF SAN LUIS OwsPO 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 PH5-23 Issues, Discussion and Supporn._.., Information Sources Sources Pots. ,y Potend ly Less Than No Significant Si ifi listIVVn Is gn � ��+t ER # 81-10 Issues Un tJL Mitigation Incorporated 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pro'ect: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 3,10, X through the routine use, transport or disposal of hazardous 11 materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous X emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, it would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? f) For 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, X or death,involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? Evaluation The Final EIR for the Orcutt area identifies impacts associated with public safety as a result of development in the annexation area. These include potential exposure to Electric Magnetic Fields(EMF) due to proximity between new development and a transmission line easement; development within an airport safety zone associated with the San Luis Obispo County Airport; development near the Union Pacific Railroad and the possibility of accidents related to interaction with railroad activity, and potential environmental conditions that exist in the area such as the potential for heavy metals to be foudn in the soils near an abandoned mining operation on Righetti Hill. Conclusion In addition to the policies and programs in the GASP, specific mitigation measures have been designed to reduce potential public safety hazards to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures are described in the attached resolution, Attachment 2 and include actions such as safe pedestrian/bike passage across the railroad tracks, soil sample requirements prior to development in certain areas, and noise-dampening construction techniques. Annexation and pre-zoning of land within the Orcutt Area does not involve any direct impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials. No further mitigation measures are required. 10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 1,4 X requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X ,substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would_ am CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISpo 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 PH5-24 Issues, Discussion and Supporu._,q Information Sources Sources Potei. _ Poen tia Less Than No Significant Signifi fic 4 Issues Unl s ER # 81-10 Mitigation d Incorponted be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g. The production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide additional sources of runoff into surface waters (including, but not limited to, wetlands, riparian areas, ponds, springs, creeks,streams,rivers,lakes,estuaries,tidal areas,bays, ocean,etc.)? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding onsite or offsite? f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on X a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which X would impede or redirect flood flows? h) Will the project introduce typical storm water pollutants into X ground or surface waters? i) Will the project alter ground water or surface water quality, X temperature,dissolved oxygen,or turbidity? Evaluation According to the Final EIR for the OASP development under the specific plan would cause changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the amount of run-off. Development would also increase discharges of surface water pollutants and expose people and property to flooding hazards. Furthermore, regional detention basin storage has the potential to create downstream erosion impacts from longer durations of downstream flows and development could result in an increase in peak discharges. All new development in the annexation area will be required to comply with the requirements of the Waterways Management Plan,Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Low Impact Development standards. Conclusion The Final EIR for the OASP includes mitigation measures to adress hydrology and water quality impacts relative to development in the annexation area. The Specific Plan provides for policies and programs that have addressed potential drainage impacts. All impacts and findings associated with hydrology and drainage can be found beginning in the attached resolution and these mitigation measures were determined to reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level. Annexation and Pre-zoning will not create any direct impacts relative to hydrology and water quality,therefore,no additional mitigation is required. 11. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject: a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of 1-7 X an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b) Physically divide an established community? X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X —community conservationplans? Evaluation CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 PH5-25 Issues, Discussion and Supportmi.9 Information Sources Sources Poten._,y PotenAt iLess Than No Si ificant Si iSi fieia;$ Issues Unl M 4AIVA aela ER # 81-10 Mitigation Incorporated The Final EIR for the OASP identified potential Class 2 impacts to land use and planning because it provides for development outside of the City's Urban Reserve Line (URL). Additionally, the Specific Plan provided for slightly higher residential densities in this area than were anticipated by the General Plan due to lesser amount of development accommodated in the Margarita Area Specific Plan. The City-wide buildout is still consistent with that envisioned in the General Plan. Relocation of the Urban Reserve Line,which occurred when the OASP was adopted,was considered a Class 2 impact and mitigation was provided in the Final EIR. The OASP contains mitigations to address potential land use impacts. Development in the area will not physically divide an established community. Conclusion The Final EIR for the OASP provides mitigation measures that reduce potential land use impacts to less than significant (Attachment 2).The General Plan Land Use map has been updated to recognize the land uses and URL that correspond to the OASP. Annexation and Pre-zoning of the Orcutt area will not introduce new land use impacts that were not otherwise recognized by the OASP and the Final EIR. 12.NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable" noise 7 X levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element, or general noise levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance? b) A substantial temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome X vibration or groumdbome 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 Final EIR for the OASP identifies potential impacts relative to noise. These include exposure of land uses to temporary construction noise and long term noise from the existing railroad in excess of the City's standards for exterior noise exposure. Each of these impacts is identified as less-than-significant with the inclusion of mitigation measures that are included in the Final EIR. The build-out of the OASP will cumulatively contribute to roadway corridor noise levels on various roadways including Orcutt Road,Tank Farm Road and Johnson Avenue that already exceed 60dBA. This was considered a significant and unavoidable impact in the OASP FEIR. Mitigation measures were incorporated to reduce these impacts, however even after mitigation,the potential impacts are considered to be significant and unavoidable. All new development in the Orcutt Area will have to comply with Specific Plan mitigation measures, City Noise Element standards, the City's Noise Ordinance, and standards included in the County Airport Land Use Commission's Airport Land Use Plan. Conclusion The OASP includes goals, policies, and programs that reduce noise impacts caused by the nearby railroad. Impacts are also mitigated through compliance with the City's Noise Element, Noise Ordinance and the Airport Land Use Plan. Annexation and Pre-zoning will not create any direct impacts relative to noise,therefore,no additional mitigation is required. 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or CITY OF SAN LUIS Osispo 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 PH5-26 Issues, Discussion and Support...j Information Sources sources Poter.. i Potenti ty Less Than No Significant Sigufi gg'f�nificant, Impact A Issues Unlinp�yct; , JI ER # 81-10 Miti Inc orated indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Evaluation Development of the Orcutt Area will induce population growth in the City through the provision of housing and some jobs. However,this population growth does not exceed the City's planned build-out capacity and will implement the City's General Plan-especially goals and policies set forth in the Housing Element. Residential development is limited by the City's Growth Management Ordinance, which allocates dwelling units to the City's expansion areas up to I%per year,averaged over a five- year period. Recent changes to the growth management policies were done in recognition of the Orcutt Area potential development. Conclusion No significant impacts associated with population and housing were identified in the Final EIR for the proposed project. The supply of housing that will occur is consistent with the City's General Plan.The act of pre-zoning and annexing the project area will not modify the supply of housing from what was evaluated in the EIR and OASP. No residences will be displaced with the annexation nor will development or action on the part of current residents be required as part of the pre-zoning and annexation. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision, or need, of new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? X Other public facilities? X Evaluation The Final EIR for the OASP identifies cumulative impacts from buildout of the Specific Plan Area due to an increased number of residents served by the City's Fire Protection services and the San Luis Coastal School District. These impacts do not occur immediately upon annexation, but only after additional development in the OASP annexation area(and other areas such as the Margarita area) occurs. As service demands associated with development in the annexation area increase, additional staffing resources will be needed to ensure that the annexation areas receive the same level of service as the rest of the community. In the City of San Luis Obispo, these resources are allocated through the budget process, as opposed to the establishment of area-specific fees. In addition, mitigation measures to address defensible space, non-combustible exteriors for buildings in high fire hazard areas and standards addressing road widths and fire hydrants have been included in the Specific Plan. School services are also evaluated in the program EIR. The School District currently imposes impact fees in accordance with State law and the FEIR concludes that with the fees and the OASP's ability to accommodate a school site internal to the plan, impacts to schools are reduced to a less than significant level . The City is continuing to work with the School District towards reserving a location for a new school in the future. Conclusion All impacts associated with public services and related findings can be found in the attached resolution. CITY OF SAN Luis OBISpo 1$ INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 PH5-27 Issues, Discussion and Support,. j Information Sources Sources Poten. Po any Less Than No Significant Si cSi capj! ER # 81-10 Issues 4/ �e�i t�/"1111 Inc orated Unlike other issue areas evaluated in this initial study, increased demand for police and fire services occur immediately upon annexation. These impacts are considered less-than-significant, especially because City police and fire often respond to calls for service in this area under existing mutual aid agreements. Over the course of build-out of these annexation areas, additional staffing resources may be required New facilities, such as a new police station or fire station are not anticipated. Therefore,no additional mitigation measures are required. 15.RECREATION. Would theproject: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or 8 X other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or X expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Evaluation City standards call for 5 acres of neighborhood park and 10 acres of total parkland per 1,000 residents. The Orcutt Area meets this requirement by providing a neighborhood park, several pocket parks,a linear park at the base of Righetti Hill and bicycle/pedestrian paths throughout the Orcutt Area. Combined, the proposed parkland will total approximately 16.3 acres with an additional 4 acres of parkland planned as part of a joint use facility associated with a future school site. Conclusion Overall, development of the Orcutt Area will have no impacts on recreation facilities because the related specific plans accommodate the recreation needs of future residents. Annexation of land within the specific plan areas does not involve additional impacts relative to recreation and no additional mitigation measures are required. 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy 2,5 X establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths,and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, X including,but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and or highways? c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features (e.g. sharp X curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? X f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding X public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Evaluation According to the Final EIR for the GASP, development under the specific plan will cause levels of service at one road segment and five intersections to fall to LOS E or lower. These intersections include the Orcutt/Tank Farm Road intersection CITY OF SAN Luis Oeispo 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 PH5-28 Issues, Discussion and Support,.., Information Sources Sources Poten. , Potcnti ty Less Than No Significant Signifi t Significantq 7,lIryR Issues Unl s eta, EE`11ii ll��'11"" ER # 81-10 Mitigation , Inc ted and the Broad Street/South Street intersection. These impacts are considered less than significant following implementation of proposed mitigations. Other than these areas,the OASP integrates transportation plans that accommodate the.circulation, capacity,and access needs of the proposed land uses. The transportation plans are self-mitigating in that roadway alignments, road extensions and new intersections are planned in response to the traffic projected at build-out of the land use program Conclusion The Final EIR for the OASP assesses transportation and traffic impacts relative to development in the annexation area. With build-out of the specific plan, intersections in the vicinity of the annexation area would operate at acceptable levels when mitigations are included. All impacts associated with traffic and related findings can be found in attached resolution. Annexation will not create any direct impacts relative to transportation and traffic, therefore, no additional mitigation is required. 17.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the ro'ect: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 4 X Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water X treatment, wastewater treatment, water quality control, or storm drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project X from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and expanded water resources needed? d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, X which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitment? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations X related to solid waste? Evaluation a)b)c)d)e)f) Development in the Orcutt Specific Plan at build-out will generate the need for approximately 264 acre-feet a year of water. The City has sufficient potable and non-potable water supplies to serve new development. While existing buildings may continue to utilize individual septic systems for some period of time,development in the project area will construct new sewer facilities that will connect to existing City sewer mains. Some off-site water and sewer infrastructure may be required to be constructed in order to provide water and wastewater service to the Specific Plan area. The FEIR found the impacts to both water and wastewater impacts will be less than significant. Development in the OASP will be subject to the City's construction waste recycling ordinance and the landfill has sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. Impacts to solid waste and landfill capacity are considered less than significant because the OASP build-out is consistent with the adopted General Plan build-out. City garbage collection services will not change, as waste collection services are already serving this area(San Luis Garbage)and solid waste is transported to Cold Canyon Landfill. Conclusion: Annexation and pre-zoning will not result in potential impacts to water and wastewater or to solid waste. Existing properties may continue to utilize on-site wells and septic systems to serve their property until owners wish to deve lo their property consistent with the OASP. 18.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the }� environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife 11 q2CITY Of SAN LUIS OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 201 O PH5-29 Issues, Discussion and Support,. Information Sources Sources Pote. .y Potent] Ix. Less Than No Significant Signii(y�� t Significan'(^ 'Jl Issues ER # 81-10 U s Mitigation Incorporated 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 eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Implementation of the text amendments will not degrade the quality of the environment. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but X cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable futureprojects) No cumulative impacts are expected to occur from implementation of the annexation. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause X substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Implementation of the annexation will not create environmental effects that will have an adverse impact on human beings. 19.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 they are available for review. 1. Final Environmental Impact Report. Orcutt Area Specific Plan. December 2009. SCH#2004011059 2. Final Environmental Impact Report. Land Use Element/Circulation Element Updates, City of San Luis Obispo, August 1994. SCH#92101006 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. No effects of the proposed annexation andpre-zoning were identified. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. No mitigation measures were incorporated from earlier documents since annexation and pre-zoning do not result in impacts requiring mitt ation. 20. SOURCE REFERENCES. I. City of SLO General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element,May 2006 2. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,June 2010 3. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element,July 2000 4. City of San Luis Obispo Water and Wastewater Management Element,July 2010 5. City of San Luis Obispo Circulation Element,November 1994 6. City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element,June 2010 7. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element and Noise Guidebook,May 1996 8. City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Element,April 2001 9. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations,June 27 2008 10. CEQA Air Quality Handbook,Air Pollution Control District,2003 11. City of San Luis Obispo Land Use Inventory and Geographic Information System,current database 12. County of San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan for SLO County Airport,May 2005 13. Orcutt Area Specific Plan CITY OF SAN LUIS OBlspo 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECIQIST 2010 PH5-30 Issues, Discussion and Support._ Information Sources Sources Pote. .y Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 81-10 issues U 1_ act >M of �.. 14. Orcutt Area Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report December 2009 15. City of San Luis Obispo 2009 Water Resources Report Attachment 1: Vicinity Map/Annexation boundary Attachment 2: Resolution 10154 Certifying the OASP Final EIR and approving the OASP CITY OF SAN LUIS Owspo 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 PH5-31 \moi • _ Attachment 4 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. (2010 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RE-ZONING 3750 BULLOCK LANE WITHIN THE ORCUTT AREA FROM CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE TO MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, CONSISTENT WITH THE ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN R 105-10 (3750 Bullock Lane) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 19, 2010, for the purpose of considering Planning Application R 105-10, a project to rezone 3750 Bullock Lane, consistent with the Orcutt Area Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on March 2, 2010, and adopted the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP) and a Final EIR for the project; and WHEREAS, on December 10, 2009 the Planning Commission considered and recommended the City Council adopt the zoning of the Orcutt Area.Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, re-zoning this land is a necessary component of the specific plan process; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Initial Study and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (ER 81-10) for the project on September 21, 2010, and determined that the document adequately addresses the potential environmental effects of the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Environmental Review. The City Council does hereby adopt a Negative Declaration for the project(ER 81-10). Section 2. Action. The City Council does hereby approve Zoning to apply to land on 3750 Bullock Lane as shown in Exhibit A. Section 3. Summary. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with the names of the Council members voting for and against it, shall be published at least five days prior to its final passage, in the Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance will go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED on the 19th day of October, 2010, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the PH5-32 • Attachment 4 Ordinance No. (2010 Series) R 105-10 (3750 Bullock Lane) Exhibit A Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of , 2010, on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Elaina Cano, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: s me Dietrick, City Attorney GACD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\L.R\GASP Annex\cc ord(annx8 1-1 0).doc PH5-33 Attachmerd 4 Ordinance No. (2010 Series) R 105-10 (3750 Bullock Lane) Exhibit A OrcuttArea Annexation 13RIARWOOD 0- 0 0 --3---- J, T I . i !o _ ..-.._ -ate ./ � fir' .+�" ♦•. f ,/i�_ ,/ �l i ♦ ^X 91 ��y • .i /i A� 1 r O /�C•� aF 444 .'. 444 3750 Bullock Lane , •\♦ �! �i >:. t; '„' "' : _ '(/ '_."+ C Y°'-G _!-.r,° •'[r'�' \ HANSEN`--- ^Cr t.r^C .+F 4 . 4.,•s;., 1 / ��G .O �,` \,4, �t.•.rC wtFr•: . rC rFr 'r`rC'}♦' t� C. .. �,r' ....e �r ...�.. is ,• i r -^ .-� '. �`��,ls� _'l� '.+F,' -�rrC.w rC t��~rr,.r,.0�.i.r*,.!'{•i vol ^ . ', 'H '-� /,'...t?.ri:� t Ci.. ;.(: r Ci,.�3•.- •,i' OP r _- 1- V r r,• CHAAARRAt u• 2 7AN '�d`Y sti �.- _ , ' tTPo ..�ARALIA .' A BOXWOOD - General Plan Catagories =Current City Limit 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 j-J Low Density Residential •'•New City Limit Miles 17 Medium Density Residential .Medium-High Density Residential -High Density Residential ®Community Commerclal aty of un l:us oo'ssx. KI Park Si.o• JGIS Open Space 9/30/2010 PH5-34