Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/20/2001, 3 - DEVAUL RANCH SOUTH TENTATIVE MAP AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING FOR 130 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AT 1195 council ��� j acEnaa REpoiA It.N..bv 3 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Ron Whisenand,Development Review ManageC//1 Prepared By: Peggy Mandeville, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DEVAUL RANCH SOUTH TENTATIVE MAP AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING FOR 130 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AT 11955 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD (TR/PD/ER 87-00) CAO RECOMMENDATION Approve the Planning Commission's recommendation to: A. Introduce an ordinance to print approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration and rezoning the 13.6 acre site from Conservation/Open Space (C/OS) to R-1-PD, R-2- PD, and R-3-PD based on findings. B. Adopt a resolution approving the vesting tentative map based on findings and subject to the City's growth management phasing schedule, conditions and code requirements. DISCUSSION Background In August of last year, the City Council approved the annexation and prezoning of the DeVaul Ranch South site to Conservation/Open Space (C/OS); interim zoning for the property until residential development plans could be processed. The annexation of this property, along with the adjacent Froom Ranch, was approved by the Local Agency Commission (LAFCo) with annexation taking place after substantial construction occurs on the Froom Ranch Home Depot site. Project Description The applicant has submitted applications for subdivision, PD rezoning, architectural review and environmental review. The subdivision would allow for the development of 77 apartment units, 19 single family dwellings, 34 duplexes and the potential for 17 secondary dwelling units. The PD rezoning would allow for more variation in the project design than normal standards allow. These applications have been reviewed by both the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Commission and their recommendations are included in this report. 3- J Council Agenda Report-1ZvPD/ER 87-00 Page 2 Data Summary Address: 11955 Los Osos Valley Road Applicant: Jet-Ski Land Development County Zoning: Residential Multi-Family City General Plan: .Medium Density Residential Environmental Status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended by the Development Review Manager. Action Deadline: Legislative projects are not subject to permit streamlining deadlines. Site Description The 13.6 acre site is.located on the south westerly side of Los Osos Valley Road, north westerly of US Highway 101 and south easterly of Madonna Road (see Attachment 1, Vicinity map). The rectangular site is bordered by Los Osos Valley Road to the north- east and the Irish Hills to the southwest. The site is relatively flat and is covered in row crops. A composite drawing showing the approved DeVaul Ranch North development and the proposed Froom Ranch Costco project in relation to this project will be available for review at the meeting. A copy of the plans for the widening of Los Osos Valley Road can be found in the Council read file. Planning Commission Review On January 10, 2001 the Planning Commission recommended City Council approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, vesting tentative tract map and PD rezoning (see Attachment 2, Site plan with rezoning). The Commission determined, consistent with the City's Zoning Regulations, that the 17 secondary dwelling should be exempt from . the overall density calculation. The Commission generally supported the project and its design pursuant to the staff recommendation with the addition of 13 conditions and two mitigation measures (see Attachment 6, Planning Commission resolution). Project issues addressed by the Planning Commission can be found in the Planning Commission staff report and meeting minutes (Attachment 7 & 8).. Architectural Review Commission Review On September 5, 2000 the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) held a study session to review preliminary plans for the site and provide direction to the applicant. On February 5, 2001 the ARC reviewed the revised plans and approved the project's architectural and site design pursuant to the staff recommendation with the addition of one condition subject to Council approval of the rezoning and tentative map. The additional condition ensures that two open space areas (adjacent to Lot 31 and the detention basin) include seating for their use as private pocket parks. The Commission generally liked the project design that had been refined by the applicant in response to staff and Commission comments. The Commission particularly liked the inclusion of secondary dwelling units into the project design. Project issues addressed by the ARC 3 -z Council Agenda Report-liv-PD/ER 87-00 Page 3 can be found in the ARC staff report and meeting update (Attachment 9 & 10). Environmental Review A number of environmental initial studies have been prepared for this property and adjoining properties. The City Council certified the 1994 Land Use Element Update Supplemental EIR which addressed the potential change of use of this property from agricultural to residential including adoption of a statement of overriding considerations. The City Council certified the Final EIR for the adjacent DeVaul Ranch North project (which included a schematic design for a similar development on this property) and adopted a mitigation monitoring program to ensure that the adopted mitigation measures are implemented. The Board of Supervisors certified the Final EIR for the adjacent Eagle Hardware project that considered the impacts, of a residential development on this property similar to the current proposal. Finally, the City Council approved a Negative Declaration for the annexation and prezoning of the site to Conservation Open Space (C/OS) as interim zoning. The attached initial study(see Attachment 11)prepared for this project and revised by the Planning Commission utilizes information provided in the above environmental documents as well as information prepared specifically for this project. Mitigation measures are proposed to address potential environmental impacts. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Proposed mitigation measures include the provision of landscape buffers and view corridors, creation of a maintenance association, design of the drainage/debris basins and channels as naturally occurring features, Congdon tarplant mitigation, provision of affordable housing, granting of anavigationi easement and transportation improvements.. A letter submitted to the Planning Commission by Michael Sullivan cites inadequacies with the initial study. In response to the letter (see Attachment 12), staff made some revisions to the initial study for clarification purposes. Staff, however, did not change the environmental determination and does not support Mr. Sullivan's determination that the environmental document is inadequate. To ensure the adequacy of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared by staff, the applicant (Jet-ski Land Development) hired C.ea Environmental Consultants (the firm that prepared the DeVaul Ranch EIR) to prepare an independent evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of the DeVaul Ranch South Planned Development. e.ea's analysis (available in the Council read file) concluded that a mitigated negative declaration was the appropriate environmental document for the project. C.ca recommended two additional mitigation measures (concerning air quality and soils) to provide the project with added environmental protection. The Planning Commission reviewed these two additional mitigation measures at their meeting and voted to recommend their inclusion in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. It is important for the Council to remember that the purpose of the California 3-3 n. Council Agenda Report-T"D/ER 87-00 Page 4 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process is to fully study the impacts and develop a series of mitigation measures to reduce project impacts to a "less thansignificant" level. This can be accomplished with either a mitigated negative declaration or an EIR. It is staff and the Planning Commission's belief that the detailed environmental analysis prepared for this project(which contains 42 mitigation measures and references past EIRs that addressed the residential development of this property) fully complies with the disclosure requirements of CEQA. General Plan Compliance The Land Use Element identifies the site as within the City's Urban Reserve Line and located within one of the City's principal expansion areas. The Land Use Element also identifies the site as within the Special Design Area of the Irish Hills and calls for the site to be"zoned for appropriate urban districts upon approval of development plans." Land Use Element policy 8.10.1 says, "About 38 acres northerly from the vicinity of the Garcia Drive intersection is designated Medium-Density Residential. This area may accommodate about 500 dwellings. There should be a range of housing types, with low density, medium density, and medium-high density development each occupying about one-third of the area." Together with the DeVaul Ranch North project approvals for 269 dwelling units, a total of 399 dwelling units will be constructed within this special study area. The resulting 130 dwelling units for the DeVaul Ranch South project (with the potential for 17 secondary dwelling units) complies with the density envisioned for this property in the General Plan. Land Use Element policy 13.3.2 says that within the urban reserve line, areas which are to be developed with urban uses should be annexed before urban development occurs. The proposed subdivision and PD rezoning implement these goals and policies of the City's General Plan and therefore can be found to be consistent with the General Plan. Additional General Plan policies that apply to this project are identified and addressed in the Land Use and Planning section of the attached initial study(see Attachment 11). Compliance with Growth Management Policies The project is required to comply with the City's growth management regulations. The Council-approved residential growth management phasing schedule (see Attachment 13) allocates 150 dwelling units for DeVaul Ranch South to be constructed within 3 three- year periods between the years 2005 and 2013. As part of the City's annual consideration of the phasing schedule (which is tentatively scheduled to be heard by the City Council in March), the applicant will be requesting that these allocations be moved forward to coincide with the DeVaul Ranch North construction. As a side note, the residential growth rate in the City over the last five years, beginning with 1996 has been 0.49, 0.79, 0.74, 0.3 1, and 0.54% for an average of about 0.6%, Council Agenda Report-TiaPD/ER 87-00 Page 5 Compliance with Inclusionary Housing Ordinance The City's inclusionary housing ordinance requires residential projects within an expansion area (which this is) to build 5% low income dwelling units (7 units) and 10% moderate income dwelling units (13 units) or pay an in lieu fee. The applicant proposes to provide the affordable housing within the project by designating 2 single family units, 5 duplexes and 6 apartment units as moderate income units and 7 apartments as low income units (see Attachment 3, Exhibit C for location of affordable units). This allocation is consistent with what was provided for in the DeVaul Ranch North project (see Attachment 7, Planning Commission staff report for details). CONCURRENCES The Public Works, Utilities and Fire Departments have reviewed and commented on the proposed project. Their comments.are included as conditions of approval. FISCAL IMPACT Fiscal impacts will be limited to costs to maintain the new public improvements (City streets). The landscape parkways, the R-2-PD alleyway and detention basin are recommended to be maintained by the homeowners association which is consistent with what was required of DeVaul Ranch North. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may deny the subdivision and PD rezoning, if the Council finds that it is inconsistent with the General Plan or the necessary findings cannot be made. 2. The Council may approve the project with modified findings and/or conditions.. 3. The Council may continue action on this item if additional information is needed. Direction should be given to'staff and the applicant. Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Site plan with proposed rezoning 3. Draft PD rezoning ordinance/Exhibit A, B, and C 4. Draft resolution of approval of tentative map 5. Draft resolution of denial of PD rezoning and tentative map 6. Planning Commission resolution 7. Planning Commission staff report 8. Planning Commission meeting minutes 9. Architectural Review Commission staff report 10. Architectural Review Commission update 11. Environmental Initial Study and Mitigation Monitoring Program 12. Letter from Michael Sullivan 13. Growth management phasing schedule 3^ � ATTACHMENT g DeVaul North Froom s °s n °s Project " site m 3 Z City Limit Line . Urban Reserve Line 3- 0 1t�SrIfY1 A n � �, Y ���.,�� IML - �� ^a�.^a.ry • I ._rte mrn�: i : il r Mill ®�B ; T � WSW I � r o � • C- C ATTACHMENT 3 ORDINANCE NO. (2001 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING.THE PROJECT'S MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS MAP TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM C/OS TO R-1-PD,R-2-PD AND R-3-PD AT 11955 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD (PD 87-00; DEVAUL RANCH SOUTH) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on January 10, 2001, and recommended approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and amendment to the site's zoning as shown on Exhibit A and described in Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing on February 20, 2001 and has considered testimony of other interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed revisions are consistent with the General Plan,the purposes of the Zoning Regulations and other applicable City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff and revised by the Planning Commission;and BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of.the proposed Planned Development rezoning and vesting tentative map, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Mitigated Negative Declaration and incorporates the following mitigation measures into the project: 1. Provide a landscape buffer along LOVR and along the south side of the property boundary abutting Froom Ranch. 2. Plant palm trees to mirror the existing palms across LOVR. 3. Coordinate landscape plans for the property with plans submitted for the adjacent DeVaul Ranch North and Froom Ranch. 4. Incorporate landscaping elements including decorative paving, walls, and fencing. 5. Install public art at the project's LOVR entry. 6. Create a"maintenance association"to facilitate long term care of landscaping. � �u ATTACHMENT Ordinance No. (2001 Series) Page 2 7. Eliminate on-street parking on DeVaul Ranch Road between LOVR and Tonini Drive. 8. Design the detention basin to appear as a naturally occurring feature and revegetate the perimeter with native plants and trees to further reduce its engineered appearance. 9. Limit the height of the three apartment buildings closest to LOVR to 26 feet in height. These building heights shall be considered maximum unless during the architectural review process the applicant can demonstrate through the site plan and architectural design that views of the upper portions of the Irish Hills will not be blocked. 10. Screen from view any necessary water pumps, valves, backflow preventers, and service cabinets. 11. Design the detention basin so it does not require fencing. 12. Submit a detailed landscaping plan for the LOVR project frontage and the southern edge of the property abutting the Froom Ranch property for review and approval by the City. The plan shall identify evergreen and deciduous plant materials, retaining walls, earth mounding, the horizontal and vertical limits of plantings, and other materials used to effectively screen the parking areas and soften the views of the development,but not hinder views of the hills. 13. Exterior lighting shall be directed downward and not spill onto adjoining properties. The maximum height of lighting equipment and supporting structures, including fixtures, standard and base, shall not be higher than 20 feet above the finished grade. Lighting levels measured at finished grade directly beneath the fixture shall not exceed 10 footcandles. 14. All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered with non-potable water to prevent excessive amounts of dust. During the time period in which grading will occur, watering shall occur at least twice daily including weekends with complete coverage, preferably in the late morning and after work is finished for the day. 15. All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavating activities shall cease during periods of high winds (greater than 15 mph averaged over one hour)to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 16. If soil materials are transported on or off-site, they shall either be sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 17. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with fast germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation becomes established. 18. All disturbed areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders,jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by APCD. 3- 9 1 I Ordinance No. (2001 Series) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 3 19. On-site vehicle speed during construction shall be limited to 15 mph for any unpaved surface. 20. All unpaved areas with vehicle traffic shall be watered at least twice per day including weekends, using non-potable water. 21. Wheel washers shall be installed where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads and streets, or provisions shall be.made to wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. 22. Prior to issuing occupancy permits for each single family residence, shade trees shall be planted at a rate of not less than 1 tree/4000 s.f of land. The trees shall be planted to provide shading of the residence in the summer so as to reduce air conditioning requirements and fossil fuel use. 23. Residences shall be equipped with solar-assisted water heaters or similar energy conserving feature consistent with City policies and programs at the time of construction. One method would be to increase wall and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements. 24. Bicycle lockers shall be included in the design of the apartment project. 25. Parking for the apartment project shall accommodate electric vehicles. 26. Site preparation activities (major earthwork) shall be scheduled to occur consecutively rather than simultaneously with the neighboring projects to the north and south. This approach, along with the other air quality mitigation measures, will minimize cumulative PM 10 emissions to a less than significant level. 27. At the applicant's expense, a restoration plan shall be prepared by a qualified plant restoration ecologist. The plan shall identify the location of a suitable site ors sites in an open space area off-site (possibly at the City's wastewater treatment plant) where a colony of Congdon's tarplant (Hemizonia parryi ssp. Congdonii) can be established. The restoration plan .shall identify the number of plants to be replanted and the methods which will be used to preserve this species in this location. The plan shall also include a monitoring program so that the success of the effort can be monitored yearly over a three- to five-year period. The restoration effort shall be coordinated with the California Department of Fish and Game, the US Wildlife Service, the California Native Plant Society, and the City of San Luis Obispo. Any federal, state or local permits required to commence such a program will be acquired and implemented by the applicant. The mitigation plan shall include the provision for replacement of habitat to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager and the City Council should the initial mitigation program be unsuccessful within five years. 28. If any previously undiscovered prehistoric cultural material or buried concentrations of historic cultural materials are discovered during any construction activities, all activities that may disrupt those materials shall cease and the Community Development Director shall be notified ATTACHM'"ENT 3 Ordinance No. (2001 Series) Page 4 immediately of the discovery of archaeological materials. Under most .circumstances, the applicant will be directed to retain a qualified archaeologist to immediately visti the site, evaluate the materials recovered, and consult with the Director to determine the appropriate course.of action. Under the direction of the archaeologist, a mitigation plan shall be developed and approved by the City pursuant to the City's Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines. 29. Soils in the area have a medium to high potential for expansion and contraction. The designs of all foundations, curbs, and other structures shall be reviewed by a geotechnical engineer to ensure they are compatible with the soil properties and conditions of the site, consistent with standards of the Building Code. 30. All project related construction activity shall occur between 7 am and 7pm Monday through Saturday, with no activities occurring on Sunday or holidays. City noise regulations related to construction activities shall be posted on site and made available to all contractors and sub- contractors. 31. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the City's Noise Element through the preparation of a noise analysis for the apartment portion of the Planned Development. 32. The developer and/or property manager shall disclose to all perspective and actual Leasee/Renters that the subject property is in an airport flight traffic zone and possible noise impacts may occur. This disclosure shall be part of any sales or rental agreements which are signed by the owner or renter. 33. To maintain consistency with policy H 4.2.1 of the Housing Element, the amount of and the specific location of inclusionary housing units should be identified with the consideration of the tentative tract map and approved only if found to be consistent with the City's requirements which includes intermixing the units within the project. 34. The project shall comply with the mitigation measures established for the DeVaul Ranch North project as outlined in the DeVaul Ranch North Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program. 35. Soundproofing shall be added to reduce indoor noise from airport operations, where required by the City's Noise Element and the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan. 36. Grant an avigation easement for the protection of the San Luis Obispo County Airport, the City of San Luis Obispo, and the County of San Luis Obispo. 37. All project occupants and land uses shall comply with the compatible land use matrix of the San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan. 3�// Ordinance No. (2001 Series) ATr�aCHM"ENT 3 Page 5 38. All exterior lighting shall be shielded down-lights that do not shine skyward or interfere with aircraft flights or aircraft operations. Search-lights and strobe lights shall be prohibited. 39. The applicant shall dedicate 63 feet of right of way or as otherwise required by the City and make ultimate improvements to LOVR along the project's proposed frontage. 40. To mitigate potentially significant impacts of excessive speed on the project's residential streets, traffic calming measures shall be included as a condition of the subdivision plans. 41. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall receive approval of a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded building materials such as concrete, sheetrock, wood and metals from the construction site. 42.Building plans shall show the location of convenient facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling for each residential unit. SECTION 2. The City Council makes the following findings: 1. The components of the PD rezoning are consistent with the General Plan which calls for a range of housing types, with low density, medium density, and medium-high density development each occupying about one third of the area. 2. Features of the design (ie. traffic calming measures and design of streetscapes) achieve the intent of conventional standards as well as or better than the standards themselves. 3. Mitigation measures have been approved by the City Council in conjunction with the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration. SECTION 3. The Zoning Regulations Map Amendment (PD 87-00) is hereby approved and the property rezoned to Planned Development (R-1-PD, R-2-PD, R-3-PD) as shown on the attached Exhibit A and as described in Exhibit B contingent upon final approval of the annexation and subject to the following conditions: 1. Minimum lot widths in the R-2 zone shall be 35 feet. The applicant shall endeavor to accommodate the proposed secondary.dwelling units with any lot width redesign. 2. A minimum 4-foot wide landscape strip shall be provided between the secondary dwelling unit and the rear property line to allow adequate room for a plant material buffer between the parking space and the adjoining property. 3. Minor revisions are needed to the site plan in order for the project to comply with the City's Parking and Driveway standards. Ordinance No. (2001 Series) ' �'{"'""' 1 3 Page 6 4. Two enclosed parking spaces shall be provided for each .single family and duplex unit; one uncovered parking space for each secondary dwelling unit; and 158 parking spaces for the 77-unit apartment complex. 5. If the DeVaul Ranch North apartment project is constructed as presently approved,the two projects shall share a common driveway. aisle rather than both properties providing side-by-side single loaded driveway aisles. The resulting excess area shall be used for additional parking and landscaping. 6. The apartment project shall maintain the following streetyard setbacks: Los Osos Valley Road frontage: 5 feet; DeVaul Ranch Road frontage: 10 feet; Tonini Drive: 6 feet. A minimum 5-foot exterior side yard is required in the R-1-PD and R-2-PD zone. 7. The applicant shall coordinate with the DeVaul Ranch North developers to provide a common landscaping theme along the frontage of LOVR and within the LOVR landscape median. 8. Details of the proposed parking lot screening around the apartment project shall be provided illustrating how the parking lot is screened from public view. The use of walls will not be allowed. 9. To reduce the visibility of the long driveways in the R-I zone, a landscape mow strip shall be provided down the middle of the driveway. 10. The project shall include benches next to Lot 31 and.with the detention basin area for.use as private pocket parks. 11. The project shall include additional traffic calming measures such as bulbouts and stop signs to the maximum extent possible, to the approval of the Public Works, Community Development and Fire Departments. 12. The applicant's affordable housing program shall include 2 single-family homes, 5 duplex units and 6 apartment units as moderate income units and 7 apartments as low income units in the locations as shown on Exhibit"C". 13. A minimum of 13 and a maximum of 17 detached (or attached) secondary dwelling units shall be provided. 14. Traffic Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures identified under Tentative Tract 2307 (DeVaul Ranch) shall be met and/or guaranteed under a subdivision agreement prior to recordation of the final map for this tract; to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Community Development Director. 15. Bicycle Parking and Storage: Project plans should clearly show how bicycle parking and storage is provided in compliance with Section 17.16.060, Table 6.5 of the Zoning Regulations and with 3-13 Ordinance No. (2001 Series) Page 7 design standards contained in the Bicycle Transportation Plan(1993). 16. Water, wastewater, and traffic impact fees shall be assessed on date of building permit application and paid prior to building permit issuance. 17. Toilet retrofits to satisfy the water allocation shall be completed prior to permit issuance. 18. Apartment buildings at east side of project shall not be constructed across a property line. As shown, an area adjacent to the.stairway appears to straddle the property line. 19. A minimum backup dimension between the garage opening and the back of the paved area shall be 24 feet. Garages on lots similar to lot 15 and 16 appear to have a dimension of less than 24 feet. 20. On lots 20 through 27 cars parked in the driveway will block access to the adjacent garage. Conflicts may be created between neighbors under the proposed arrangement. Greater separation or an additional exterior parking area may alleviate the problem. 21. According to the General Plan Noise Element a portion of the buildings that front Los Osos Valley Road appear to extend into an area that exceeds acceptable noise limits for residential uses. Due to the number of units proposed, a noise study must be completed. 22. In conjunction with the applicant's application for the first phase of building permits, a noise analysis shall be submitted which identifies potential aircraft noise impacts and construction measures proposed to comply with interior noise levels. 23. Fire Department Access: Access shall be in accordance with Article 9 of the California Fire Code. Access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of a 60,000-pound fire apparatus. The surface shall provide all-weather driving capabilities. Prior to combustible construction all-weather access (i.e. base and first lift of asphalt) shall be installed and serviceable for fire apparatus. "E" Street shall be improved and connected to the adjoining DeVaul subdivision prior to the issuance of any building permits. 24. Water Supplies: Water supplies shall be in accordance with Sections 901 and 903 of the California Fire Code. An approved water supply connected to the City distribution system and capable of providing the required fire flow for fire protection.is required. The fire flow shall be determining using Appendix III-A of the California Fire Code. 25. Water lines and hydrants shall be installed, tested and serviceable prior to combustible construction. All water mains shall be a minimum of 8" in size. Submittal indicates several 6" PVC mains. 26. Fire Hydrants: Fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with Section 903.4 of the California J-1 / \ 1 Ordinance No. (2001 Series) Page 8 Fire Code. The location, number and type of hydrants connected to the City system shall be determined using Appendix III-B of the California Fire Code and the approved City Engineering Standards. 27. The Fire Department shall review and approve the installation and location of all fire hydrants. In addition to internal hydrants the project will require a fire hydrant along LOVR. 28. Fire Protection Systems and Equipment: Fire protection systems shall be in accordance with the California Fire Code and California Building Code as amended by the City. An approved fire sprinkler system shall be required for all structures per City requirements. 29. Fire Safety During Construction: Buildings undergoing construction, alteration or demolition shall be in accordance with Article 87 of the California Fire Code. 30. The irrigation systems for common areas, parks, detention basins, and other large landscape areas shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards for reclaimed water use. Appropriately sized reclaimed water mains shall be constructed from the City's trunk system to these irrigation areas. If reclaimed water is not yet available, the system shall be designed and constructed to reclaimed water standards, and temporarily connected to the City's potable water system in the area of the anticipated connection to the reclaimed water system. Appropriate backflow protection shall be installed with this connection to the satisfaction of the County Cross Connection Inspector, Henry Ruiz, who can be reached at 781-5567. 31. Potential buyers of lots that have the ability to have secondary dwelling units shall be notified that before a secondary dwelling unit established, the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City agreeing that the property will be owner-occupied and one additional on-site parking space will be provided for the unit. 32. Should the DeVaul Ranch South planned development not be pursued, the Planned Development zoning for the project shall expire with the expiration of the vesting tentative map. 33. EPA Requirement: General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and excavation results in land disturbance of five or more acres. .Storm water discharges of less than five acres,but which is part of a larger common plan of development or sale, also require a permit. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General Construction Activity Permit,the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form,with the appropriate fee,to the State.Water Board. 34. Existing plans call out Platanus acerfolia as the only street tree for this site. This particular tree is prone to anthracnose, a disease which is prevalent throughout San Luis Obispo, and only somewhat resistant to powdery mildew which is very common in San Luis Obispo, in trees subject to this disease, due to the contant fog that affects SLO throughout most of the summer months. Suitable Ordinance No. (2001 Series) Page 9 replacements for the Platanus would be Melaleuca linariifolia, Quercus suber, Gleditsia triacanthos, Tipuana tipu, or Tristania conferta (no single species should constitute more than 50% of the total street tree population for this development). Street trees for this project shall be Melaleuca linariifolia. 35. Upon development, a water allocation will be required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. Currently, a water allocation can only be obtained through the water retrofit program. The City's Water Conservation division can help in determining the needed allocation and the necessary number of retrofits. Water Conservation can be reached by calling 781-7258. The cost of retrofitting is directly credited against the project's Water Impact Fees, at a rate of$150 per bathroom retrofitted. 36. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued. Currently, the Water Impact Fee is $6,827 per residential unit, and the Wastewater Impact Fee is $2,703. 37. The owner's engineer shall submit water demand and wastewater generation calculations so that the City can make a determination as to the adequacy of the supporting infrastructure. If it is discovered that an offsite deficiency exists, the owner will be required to mitigate the deficiency as a part of the overall project. Currently, it is expected that a portion of the existing gravity sewer system will require improvement in order to accommodate the additional flows from this project. In addition, the project developer will be required to pay the project's fair share of the cost to provide additional capacity at the Water Reclamation Facility, the Laguna Lift Station, and possibly the Howard Johnson Lift Station, as well. 38. Water and wastewater facilities shall be designed in accordance with the City's design and drafting standards. The tentative map shall indicate that the minimum design standards can be achieved, including 8"min. sewer mains at 0.5%minimum slope. SECTION 3. A summary of this ordinance,together with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of the thirty (30) days after its final passage or upon final approval of the annexation by the Local Agency Formation Commission, whichever occurs later. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the day of , 2001, on a motion of seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: Ordinance No. (2001 Series) Page 10 ABSENT: Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price . APPROVED AS TO FORM: I tto ey J ' Jor en 3 ' 1 � lr4.,, d ggium �mg J7 �� rI �r � A f v i w■ r r , Q - 1. � � � ® • . � • 11 VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FOR TRACT 2401 L tvki. DESCRIPTION PARCEL D OF THE MAP OF THE SUBDIKS/ONS OF PART OF LOT 60 OF JAS. T. STRATTON S SUBDMS/ONS OF THE RANCHOS CANADA Of LOS OSOS & LA LAGUNA IN THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF C,AUFORNIA, BEING THE PROPERTY OF THE ESTATE OF R: J. BULLOCK, DECEASED. SURVEYED BY GEORGE STORY C.E, FEBRUARY, 1907, AS SHOWN ON MAP BLED IN BOOK A, PAGE 85 OF MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. .I I - 1 J`h�■�t� Sn\ ] i O MAR ■ rig. -� - ,� - -�� j -- -- -_- o a loom � �� I � I � II� frYl�® • I,. �® • t 1 _ � �I I® • • o r RESOLUTION NO. (2001 Series) f" `f A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING THE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 2401, SUBDIVIDING A 13.6-ACRE SITE INTO 54 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND ONE OPEN SPACE PARCEL AT 11955 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD (TR/PD 87-00) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on January 10, 2001 and recommended approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map TR 87-00; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on February 20, 2001 and has considered testimony of other interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan, the Zoning Regulations, and other applicable City ordinances with approval of the requested Planned Development(PD) rezoning; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the project's Mitigated, Negative Declaration for its adequacy in evaluating this request.. BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration approved in conjunction with the project's Planned Development rezoning adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project. All mitigation measures shall be applicable to this project. SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map TR 87-00 and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof,makes the following findings: 1. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the General Plan which designates this area as Medium Density Residential. 2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-1-PD, R-2-PD,and R-3-PD zones. 3. As conditioned, the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 4. The subdivision will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment with incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures into the project. SECTION 3. Approval. The request for approval of Vesting Tentative Tract.Map TR 87-00 is approved subject to the Council approval of the PD rezoning and Mitigated Negative 3-21 I / Resolution No. (2001 Series) ATTACHMENT ¢ Page 2 Declaration for the DeVaul Ranch South Planned Development and the following phasing schedule, conditions and code requirements: (Growth Management Phasing Schedule) « 1. The project shall comply with the City Council approved residential growth management phasing schedule for Irish Hills South. (Tentative Map Conditions) 1. The subdivider shall dedicate 69 feet of property adjacent to Los Osos Valley Road for public right-of-way purposes, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The proposed drainage easement shall be contiguous with the street dedication (not within the street right- of-way to be dedicated). The width of the easement depends on the alignment and whether a pipe system or open channel is constructed. 2. Los Osos Valley Road shall be improved with a 2 meter wide detached sidewalk, within a 4.267m (14 feet) wide landscaped parkway, street pavement, raised median island, signing, striping, street lights, etc., to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Said improvements shall align with the Los Osos Valley Road improvements required of Tentative Tract 2307 (DeVaul Ranch). 3. If the pavement requirements, along the Los Osos Valley Rd. frontage of this tract, are completed under another adjacent development project, the subdivider shall pay reimbursement for such work, as determined by the Public Works Director,prior to final map approval. Traffic lane transitions required by the City and/or County for such adjacent project shall not be subject to reimbursement. 4. The final alignments and grades of all street improvements, water mains, sewer mains, storm drains and utilities are subject to minor adjustments,to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and City Utilities Engineer. 5. All internal streets shall be improved with curbs, gutters & detached sidewalks, landscaped parkways and bulb-outs (without speed tables), full width street pavement, signing, striping, street lights, etc., in accordance with the approved conditions and tentative map for tract 2307, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 6. Vehicular access rights along Los_Osos Valley Road shall be dedicated to the City. 7. The subdivider shall dedicate a 2m-wide public utility easement across the frontage of each lot along internal streets and a 3 m-wide easement along Los Osos Valley Road, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Said easements shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 3-� a ATTACHMEW 4 Resolution No. (2001 Series) Page 3 8. The subdivider shall dedicate a 3m wide street tree easement across the frontage of each lot. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 9. If construction phasing of the new street pavement is proposed, the phasing shall provide for the ultimate structural street section and pavement life (per the City's Pavement Management Plan)prior to acceptance by the City. The engineer or record shall detail this requirement in the public improvement plans, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 10. The subdivider shall install street lighting and all associated facilities (conduits, vaults, fusing, wiring, luminaries, etc.)per City standards, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 11. Sewer lift station charges are required to be paid prior to recordation of the final map as determined by the Utilities Engineer. 12. Final grades and alignments of all public water, sewer and storm drains (including service laterals and meters) shall be subject to change to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Utilities Engineer. 13. The subdivider shall place underground, all existing overhead utilities along the Los Osos Valley Road frontage,to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and utility companies. If this underground work is completed by another developer, the subdivider shall reimburse such party for the pro-rata share of this work, prior to final map approval, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 14. Storm detention facilities are required. Detention basin and associated control facilities shall be privately owned and maintained by a"homeowners association". 15. All lots shall be graded to preclude cross-lot drainage, or, appropriate easements and drainage facilities shall be provided,to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 16. The final map,public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the City Engineer. 17. All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible.with Autocad(Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the City Engineer. �3-.23 Resolution No. (2001 Series) ATTACHMENT $ Page 4 18. Prior to approval of the public improvement plans, the developer's engineer shall submit a digital copy of the public improvement plans to the Director of Public Works. The format shall be compatible with Autocad(Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes. 19. Prior to acceptance by the City of any public improvements, the developer's engineer shall submit a digital copy, in addition to the plan-set, of the revised "record drawing"public improvement plans to the Director of Public Works. The format shall be compatible with Autocad(Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic.Information System(GIS) purposes. 20. Pedestrian-Bicycle Connections to Adjoining Tract: Improvement plans for this project must demonstrate how non-motorized public access will be provided from the northwest ends of Streets `B" and"C"to similar cul-de-sacs that are part of the adjoining subdivision, Tract 2307 (DeVaul Ranch) to the west. 21. Frontage Improvements and Delineation Plan: The location of the curb line along Los Osos Valley Road shall be set at its ultimate location,to the approval of the Public Works Director. A delineation plan shall be submitted that shows all modifications to lane striping and installation of medians within Los Osos Valley Road across this project's frontage. This delineation plan shall be coordinated with those for the approved subdivision to the northwest (DeVaul Ranch) and the commercial subdivision to the southeast (Froom Ranch), to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 22. Traffic mitigation measures identified under Tentative Tract 2307 (DeVaul Ranch) shall be met and/or guaranteed under a subdivision agreement prior to recordation of the final map for this tract, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Community Development Director. 23. The applicant shall prepare and submit an Affordable Housing Agreement for City review and approval per Section 17.19.110 of the Zoning Regulations. 24. All traffic and pedestrian signage shall comply with international design standards.. 25. Street name signs shall comply with the newly adopted City standards. (Code Requirements) 1. Traffic impact fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. EPA Requirement: General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and excavation results in land disturbance of five or more acres. Storm water discharges of 3-a � Resolution No. (2001 Series) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 5 less than five acres, but which is part of a larger common plan of development or sale, also require a permit. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State Water Board. 3. Existing plans call out Platanus acerfolia as the only street tree for this site. This particular tree is prone to anthracnose, a disease which is prevalent throughout San Luis Obispo, and only somewhat resistant to powdery mildew which is very common in San Luis Obispo, in trees subject to this disease, due to the contant fog that affects SLO throughout most of the summer months. Suitable replacements for the Platanus would be Melaleuca linariifolia, Quercus suber, Gleditsia triacanthos, Tipuana tipu, or Tristania conferta (no single species should constitute more than 50% of the total street tree population for this development). Street trees for this project shall be Melaleuca linariifolia. 4. Upon development, a water allocation will be required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. Currently,a water allocation can only be obtained through the water retrofit program. The City's Water Conservation division can help in determining the needed allocation and the necessary number of retrofits. Water Conservation can be reached by calling 781-7258. The cost of retrofitting is directly credited against the project's Water Impact Fees, at a rate of$150 per bathroom retrofitted. 5. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued. Currently, the Water Impact Fee is $6,827 per residential unit, and the Wastewater Impact Fee is $2,703. 6. The owner's engineer shall submit water demand and wastewater generation calculations so that the City can make a determination as to the adequacy of the supporting infrastructure. If it is discovered that an offsite deficiency exists, the owner will be required to mitigate the deficiency as a part of the overall project. Currently, it is expected that a portion of the existing gravity sewer system will require improvement in order to accommodate the additional flows from this project. In addition, the project developer will be required to pay the project's fair share of the cost to provide additional capacity at the Water Reclamation Facility, the Laguna Lift Station, and possibly the Howard Johnson Lift Station, as well. 7. Water and wastewater facilities shall be designed in accordance with the City's design and drafting standards. The tentative map shall indicate that the minimum design standards can be achieved, including 8" min. sewer mains at 0.5%minimum slope. 8. The applicant shall pay park-in-lieu fees consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.40.080 - ATTACHMENT 4 Resolution No. (2001 Series) Page 6 SECTION 4. Effective Date. The resolution shall go into effect upon completion of the annexation of the property to the City of San Luis Obispo and Council approval of the Planned Development rezoning and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of , 2001. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorney 1 i.- i' S RESOLUTION NO. (2001 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING THE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR A 55-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING AT 11955 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD (TR/PD 87-00,Tract 2401) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on January 10, 2001 and recommended approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map TR 87-00 and Planned Development Rezoning PD 87-00; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on February 20, 2001 and has considered testimony of interested parties, the 'records of the Planning,Commission hearing and action,and the project evaluation and recommendations of staff;and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for its adequacy in evaluating this request; BE IT RESOLVED.by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project. SECTION 2. Fes. That this Council, after consideration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map TR 87-00 and Planned Development Rezoning PD 87-00, the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: (Council to insert findings here) SECTION 3. Denial. The request for approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map TR 87-00 and Planned Development Rezoning PD 87-00 are hereby denied. On motion of _ , seconded by ,and on the following roll call vote: AYES: 3 � � Resolution No. (2001 Series) Page 2 NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day.of ,2001. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Jeff Jorgensen �� c i SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5305-01 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo did conduct a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San.Luis Obispo, California, on January 10, 2001, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application PD, TR and ER 87-00, Jet-Ski Land Development, applicant. ITEM REVIEWED: Request to subdivide a 13.6 acre site (DeVaul Ranch South) to allow for the development of 77 apartments, 19 single-family dwellings, 34 duplexes and the potential for 17 secondary dwelling units, planned development rezoning from C/OS to R-1, R-2 and R-3 with a Planned Development overlay to provide for flexible development standards, and environmental review DESCRIPTION: On file in the office of Community Development Department, City Hall. GENERAL LOCATION: 11955 Los Osos Valley Road WHEREAS, said Commission as a result of its 'inspections, investigations, and studies made by itself, and in behalf of testimonies offered at said hearing has established existence of the following circumstances: Findings —Tentative Map 1. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the General Plan which designates this area as Medium Density Residential. 2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones. 3. As conditioned, the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 4. The subdivision will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment with incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures into the project. —�/ Resolution No.5305-01 Page 2 Findings (PD Rezoning) 1. The components .of the PD rezoning are consistent with the General Plan which calls for a range of housing types, with low density, medium density, and medium- high density development each occupying about one third of the area. 2. Features of'the design (ie. traffic calming measures and design of streetscapes) achieve the intent of conventional standards as well as or better than the standards themselves. 3. Mitigation measures have been approved by the City Council in conjunction with the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration. 4. Due to the potential increase of affordable housing with the project, the provision of three parking spaces for parcels with secondary dwelling units will be acceptable. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that. PD, TR and ER 87-00 be approved, subject to the following conditions, mitigation measures, and code requirements: Conditions 1. Minimum lot widths in the R-2 zone shall be 35 feet. The applicant shall endeavor to accommodate the proposed secondary dwelling units with any lot width redesign. 2. A minimum 4-foot wide landscape strip shall be provided between the secondary dwelling unit and the rear property line to allow adequate room for a plant material buffer between the parking space and the adjoining property. 3. Minor revisions are needed to the site plan in order for the project to comply with the City's Parking and Driveway standards. 4. Two enclosed parking spaces shall be provided for each single family and duplex unit; oneuncovered parking space for each secondary dwelling _unit; and 158 parking spaces for the 77-unit apartment complex. 5. If the DeVaul Ranch North apartment project is constructed as presently approved, the two projects shall share a common driveway aisle rather than both properties providing side-by-side single loaded driveway aisles. The resulting excess area shall be used for additional parking and landscaping. 6. The apartment project shall maintain the following streetyard setbacks: Los Osos Valley Road frontage: 5 feet; DeVaul Ranch Road frontage: 10 feet; Tonini Drive: 6 feet. A minimum 546ot exterior side yard is required in the R-1-PD and R-2-PD zone. 3-3Z) Resolution No. 5305-01 1 Page 3 7. 'The applicant shall coordinate with the DeVaul Ranch North developers to provide a common landscaping theme along the frontage of LOVR and within the LOVR landscape median. 8. Details of the proposed parking lot screening around the apartment project shall be provided illustrating how the parking lot is screened from public view. The use of walls will not be allowed. 9. To reduce the visibility of the long driveways in the R-1 zone, a landscape mow strip shall be provided down the middle of the driveway. 10. The project shall include additional traffic calming measures such as bulbouts and stop signs to the maximum extent possible, to theapproval of the Public Works, Community Development and Fire Departments. 11. The applicant's affordable housing program shall include 2 single-family homes, 5 duplex units and 6 apartment units as moderate income units and 7 apartments as low income units in the locations as shown on Exhibit "A". 12. A minimum of 13 and a maximum of 17 detached (or attached) secondary dwelling units shall be provided. 13. The subdivider shall dedicate 69 feet of property adjacent to Los Osos Valley Road for public right-of-way purposes, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The proposed drainage easement shall be contiguous with the street dedication (not within the street right-of-way to be dedicated). The width of the easement depends on the alignment and whether a pipe system or open channel is constructed. 1. Los Osos Valley Road shall be improved with a 2 meter wide detached sidewalk, within a 4.267m (14 feet) wide landscaped parkway, street pavement, raised median island, signing, striping, street lights, etc., to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Said improvements shall align with the Los Osos Valley Road improvements required of Tentative Tract 2307 (DeVaul Ranch). 2. If the pavement requirements, along the Los Osos Valley Rd..frontage of this tract, are completed under another adjacent development project, the subdivider shall pay reimbursement for such work, as determined by the Public Works Director, prior to final map approval. Traffic lanetransitions required by the City and/or County for such adjacent project shall not be subject to reimbursement. 3. The proposed alignment of Avenue "E" shall intersect with Los Osos Valley Road at a right angle to the centerline of Los Osos Valley Road. Lots 54 and 55 shall be modified to provide said alignment, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. (Note from Transportation.Staff: One option to investigate might be to relocate the detention basin to the north side of the Street E and extend Street E to connect �/ 1 Resolution No. 5305-01 Page 4 J with LOVR at a right angle. The detention basis would be located next to the parking lot's generous landscaped buffer and might be designed to be an attractive opens space component of the project, and an integral part of the project's entrance treatment.) 4. The final alignments and grades of all street improvements, water mains, sewer mains, storm drains and utilities are subject to minor adjustments, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and City Utilities Engineer. 5. All internal streets shall be improved with curbs, gutters & detached sidewalks, landscaped parkways and bulb-outs (without speed tables), full width street pavement, signing, striping, street lights, etc., in accordance with the approved conditions and tentative map for tract 2307, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 6. Vehicular access rights along Los Osos Valley Road shall be dedicated to the City. 7. The subdivider shall dedicate a 2m-wide public utility easement across the frontage of each lot along intemal streets and a 3 m-wide easement along Los Osos Valley Road, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Said easements shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 8. The subdivider shall dedicate a 3m wide street tree easement across the frontage of each lot. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right- of-way lines bordering each lot. 9. If construction phasing of the new street pavement is proposed, the phasing shall provide for the ultimate structural street section and pavement life (per the City's Pavement Management Plan) prior to acceptance by the City. The engineer or record shall detail this requirement in the public improvement plans, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 10. The subdivider shall install street lighting and all associated facilities (conduits, vaults, fusing, wiring, luminaries, etc.) per City standards, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 11. Sewer lift station charges are required to be paid prior to recordation of the final map as determined by the Utilities Engineer. 12. Final grades and alignments of all public water, sewer and storm drains (including service laterals and meters) shall be subject to change to.the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Utilities Engineer. 13. The subdivider shall place underground, all existing overhead utilities along the Los Osos Valley Road frontage, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and utility companies. If this underground work is completed by another developer, the subdivider shall reimburse such party for the pro-rata share of this work, prior to final map approval, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. (3 _3c� Resolution No. 5305-01 Page 5 ..... i 14. Storm detention facilities are required. Detention basin and associated control facilities shall be privately owned and maintained by a "homeowners association". 15. All lots shall be graded to preclude cross-lot drainage, or, appropriate easements and drainage facilities shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 16. The final map, public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the City Engineer. 17. All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter computer floppy, disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with Autocad (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the City Engineer. 18. Prior to approval of the public improvement plans, the developer's engineer shall submit a digital copy of the public improvement plans to the Director of Public Works. The format shall be compatible with Autocad (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes. 19. Prior to acceptance by the City of any public improvements, the developer's engineer shall submit a digital copy, in addition to the plan-set, of the revised "record drawing" public improvement plans to the Director of Public Works. The format shall be compatible with Autocad (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes. 20. Pedestrian-Bicycle Connections to Adjoining Tract: Improvement plans for this project must demonstrate how non-motorized public access will be provided from the northwest ends of Streets "B" and "C" to similar cul-de-sacs that are part of the adjoining subdivision, Tract 2307 (DeVaul Ranch) to the west. 21. Frontage Improvements and Delineation Plan: The location of the curb line along Los Osos Valley Road shall be set at its ultimate location, to the approval of the Public Works Director. A delineation plan shall be submitted that shows all modifications to lane striping and installation of medians within Los Osos Valley Road across this project's frontage. This delineation plan shall be coordinated with those for the approved subdivision to the northwest (DeVaul Ranch) and the commercial subdivision to the southeast (Froom Ranch), to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 3 -33 f � Resolution No. 5305-01 L Page 6 c 22. Traffic Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures identified under Tentative Tract 2307 (DeVaul Ranch) shall be met and/or guaranteed under a subdivision agreement prior to recordation of the final map for this tract, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Community Development Director. 23. Bicycle Parking and Storage: Project plans should clearly show how bicycle parking and storage is provided in compliance with Section 17.16.060, Table 6.5 of the Zoning Regulations and with design standards contained in the Bicycle Transportation Plan (1993). 24. Water, wastewater, and traffic impact fees shall be assessed on date of building permit application and paid prior to building permit issuance. 25. Toilet retrofits to satisfy the water allocation shall be completed prior to permit issuance. 26. Apartment buildings at east side of project shall not be constructed across a property line. As shown, an area adjacent to the stairway appears to straddle the property line. 27. A minimum backup dimension between the garage opening and the back of the paved area shall be 24 feet. Garages on lots similar to lot 15 and 16 appear to have a dimension of less than 24 feet. 28. On lots 20 through 27 cars parked in the driveway will block access to the adjacent garage. Conflicts may be created between neighbors under the proposed arrangement. Greater separation or an additional exterior parking area may alleviate the problem. 29. According to the General Plan Noise Element a portion of the buildings that front Los Osos Valley Road appear to extend into an area that exceeds acceptable noise limits for residential uses. Due to the number of units proposed, a noise study must be completed. 30. Fire Department Access: Access shall be in accordance with Article 9 of the California Fire Code. Access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of a 60,000-pound fire apparatus. The surface shall provide all-weather driving capabilities. Prior to combustible construction all-weather access (i.e. base and first lift of asphalt) shall be installed and serviceable for fire apparatus. "E" Street shall be improved and connected• to the adjoining DeVaul subdivision prior to the issuance of any building permits. 31. Water Supplies: Water supplies shall be in accordance with Sections 901 and 903 of the California Fire Code. An approved water supply connected to the City distribution system and capable of providing the required fire flow for fire protection is required. The fire flow shall be determining using Appendix III-A of the California Fire Code. 3 _34 Resolution No. 5305-01 - Page 7 J 32. Water lines and hydrants shall be installed, tested and serviceable prior to combustible construction. All water mains shall be a minimum of 8" in size. Submittal indicates several 6" PVC mains. 33. Fire Hydrants: Fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with Section 903.4 of the California Fire Code. The location, number and type of hydrants connected to the City system shall be determined using Appendix III-B of the California Fire Code and the approved City Engineering Standards. 34. The Fire Department shall review and approve the installation and location of all fire hydrants. In addition to internal hydrants the project will require a fire hydrant along LOUR. 35. Fire Protection Systems and Equipment: Fire protection systems shall be in accordance with the California Fire Code and California Building Code as amended by the City. An approved fire sprinkler system shall be required for all structures per City requirements. 36. Fire Safety During Construction: Buildings undergoing construction, alteration or demolition shall be in accordance with Article 87 of the California Fire Code. 37. The irrigation.systems for common areas, parks, detention basins, and other large landscape areas shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards for reclaimed water use. Appropriately sized reclaimed water mains shall be constructed from the City's trunk system to these irrigation areas. If reclaimed water is not yet available, the system shall be designed and constructed to reclaimed water standards, and temporarily connected to the City's potable water system in the area of the anticipated connection to the reclaimed water system. Appropriate backflow protection shall be installed with this connection to the satisfaction of the County Cross Connection Inspector, Henry Ruiz, who can be reached at 781-5567. 38. Potential buyers of lots that have the ability to have secondary dwelling units shall be notified that before a secondary dwelling unit established, the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City agreeing that the property will be owner-occupied and one additional on-site parking space will be provided for the unit. Mitigation Measures 1. Provide a landscape buffer along LOVR and along the south side of the property boundary abutting Froom Ranch. 2. Plant palm trees to mirror the existing palms across LOVR. 3. Coordinate landscape plans for the property with plans submitted for.the adjacent DeVaul Ranch North and Froom Ranch. 3-35 Resolution No. 5305-01 Page 8 4. Incorporate landscaping elements including decorative paving, walls, and fencing. 5. Install public art at the project's LOVR entry. 6. Create a "maintenance association" to facilitate long term care of landscaping. 7. Eliminate on-street parking on DeVaul Ranch Road between LOVR and Tonini Drive. 8. Design the detention basin to appear as a naturally occurring featureand revegetate the perimeter with native plants and trees to . further reduce its engineered appearance. 9. Limit the height of the three apartment buildings closest to LOVR to 26 feet in height. These building heights shall be considered maximum unless during the architectural review process the applicant can demonstrate through the site plan and architectural design that views of the upper portions of the Irish Hills will not be blocked. 10. Screen from view any necessary water pumps, valves, backflow preventers, and service cabinets. 11. Design the detention basin to appear as a naturally occurring feature. 12. Submit a detailed landscaping plan for the LOVR project frontage and the southern edge of the property abutting the Froom Ranch property for review and approval by the City. The plan shall identify evergreen and deciduous plant materials, retaining walls, earth mounding, the horizontal and vertical limits of plantings, and other materials used to effectively screen the parking areas and soften the views of the development, but not hinder views of the hills. 13. Exterior lighting shall be directed downward and not spill onto adjoining properties. The maximum height of lighting equipment and supporting structures, including fixtures, standard and base, shall not be higher than 20 feet above the finished grade. Lighting levels measured at finished grade directly beneath the fixture shall not exceed 10 footcandles. 14. All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered with non-potable water to prevent excessive amounts of dust. During the time period in which grading will occur, watering shall occur at least twice daily including weekends with complete coverage, preferably in the late morning and after work is finished for the day.. 15. All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavating activities shall cease during periods of high winds (greater than 15 mph averaged over one hour) to prevent excessive amounts of dust. J to Resolution No. 5305-01 ' Page 9 16. If soil materials are transported on or off-site, they shall either be sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 17. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with fast germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation becomes established. 18. All disturbed areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by APCD. 19. On-site vehicle speed during construction shall be limited to 15 mph for any unpaved surface. 20. All unpaved areas with vehicle traffic shall be watered at least twice per day including weekends, using non-potable water. 21. Wheel washers shall be installed where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads and streets, or provisions shall be made to wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. 22. Prior to issuing occupancy permits for each single-family residence, shade trees shall be planted at a rate of not less than 1 tree/4000 s.f. of land. The trees shall . be planted to provide shading of the residence in the summer so as to reduce air conditioning requirements and fossil fuel use. 23. Residences shall be equipped with solar-assisted water heaters or similar energy conserving feature consistent with City policies and programs at the time of construction. 24. Bicycle lockers shall be included in the design of the apartment project. 25. Parking for the apartment project shall accommodate electric vehicles. 26. At the applicant's expense, a restoration plan shall be prepared by a qualified plant restoration ecologist. The plan shall identify the location of a suitable site ors sites in an open space area off-site (possibly at the City's wastewater treatment plant) where a colony of Congdon's tarplant (Hemizonia parryi ssp. Congdonii) can be established. The restoration plan shall identify the number of plants to be replanted and the methods, which will be used to preserve this species in this location. The plan shall also include a monitoring program so that the success of the effort can be monitored yearly over a three- to five-year period. The restoration effort shall be coordinated with the California Department of Fish and Game, the US Wildlife Service, the California Native Plant Society, and the City of San Luis Obispo. Any federal, state or local permits required to commence such a program will be acquired and implemented by the applicant. The mitigation plan shall include the provision for replacement of habitat to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources 1 Resolution No. 5305-01 Page 10 Manager and the City Council should the initial mitigation program be unsuccessful within five years. 27. If any previously undiscovered prehistoric cultural material or buried concentrations of historic cultural materials are discovered during any construction activities, all activities that may disrupt those materials shall cease and the Community Development Director shall be notified immediately of the discovery of archaeological materials. Under most circumstances, the applicant will be directed to retain a qualified archaeologist to immediately visti the site, evaluate the materials recovered, and consult with the Director to determine the appropriate course of action. Under the direction of the archaeologist, a mitigation plan shall be developed and approved by the City pursuant to the City's Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines. 28. All project related construction activity shall occur between 7 am and 7pm Monday through Saturday, with no activities occurring on Sunday or holidays. 29. City noise regulations related to construction activities shall be posted on site and made available to all contractors and sub-contractors. 30. The developer and/or property manager shall disclose to all perspective and actual Leasee/Renters that the subject property is in an airport flight traffic zone and possible noise impacts may occur. This disclosure shall be part of any sales or rental agreements which are signed by the owner or renter. 31. To maintain consistency with policy H 4.2.1 of the Housing Element, the amount of and the specific location of inclusionary housing units should be identified with the consideration of the tentative tract map and approved only if found to be consistent with the City's requirements which includes intermixing the units within the project. 32. The project shall comply with the mitigation measures established for the DeVaul Ranch North project as outlined in the DeVaul Ranch North Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program. 33. Soundproofing shall be added to reduce indoor noise from airport operations, where required by the City's. Noise Element and the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan. 34. Grant an avigation easement for the protection of the San Luis Obispo County Airport, the City of San Luis Obispo, and the County of San Luis Obispo. 35. All project occupants and land uses shall comply with the compatible land use matrix of the San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan.. 36. All exterior lighting shall be shielded down-lights that do not shine skyward or interfere with aircraft flights or aircraft operations. Search-lights and strobe lights shall be prohibited. 3'38' Resolution No. 5305-01 ----- Page 11 ' 37. The applicant shall dedicate 63 feet of right of way or as otherwise required by the City and make ultimate improvements to LOVR along the project's proposed frontage. 38. To mitigate potentially significant impacts of excessive speed on the project's residential streets, traffic calming measures shall be included as a condition of the subdivision plans. 39. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall receive approval of a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded building materials such as concrete, sheetrock, wood and metals from the construction.site. 40. Building plans shall show the location of convenient facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling for each residential unit. 41. Site preparation activities (major earthwork) shall be scheduled to occur consecutively, rather than simultaneously with the neighboring projects to the north and south. This approach, along with the other air quality mitigation measures, will minimize cumulative PM10 emissions to a less than significant level. 42. Soils in the area have a medium to high potential for expansion and contraction. The designs of all foundations, curbs, and other structures shall be reviewed by a geotechnical engineer to ensure they are compatible with the soil properties and conditions on the site, consistent with standards of the Building Codes. Code Requirements 1. Traffic impact fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. EPA Requirement: General Construction .Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and excavation results in land disturbance of five or more acres. Storm water discharges of less than five acres, but which is part of a larger common plan of development or sale, also.require a permit. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State Water Board. 3. Existing plans call out Platanus acerfolia as the only street tree for this site. This particular tree is prone to anthracnose, a disease which is prevalent throughout San Luis Obispo, and only somewhat resistant to powdery mildew which is very common in San Luis Obispo, in trees subject to this disease, due to the contant fog that affects SLO throughout most of the summer months. Suitable replacements for the Platanus would be Melaleuca linariifolia, Quercus suber, Gleditsia triacanthos, Tipuana tipu, or Tristania conferta (no single species should constitute more than 50% of the total street tree population for this development). Street trees for this project shall be Melaleuca linariifolia. 43 -39 Resolution No. 5305-01 ��- Page 12 4. Upon development, a water allocation will be required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. Currently, a water allocation can only be obtained through the water retrofit program. The City's Water Conservation division can help in determining the needed allocation and the necessary number of retrofits. Water Conservation can be reached by calling 781-7258. The cost of retrofitting is directly credited against the project's Water Impact Fees, at a rate of $150 per bathroom retrofitted. 5. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued. Currently, the Water Impact Fee is $6,827 per residential unit, and the Wastewater Impact Fee is $2,703. 6. The owner's engineer shall submit water demand and wastewater generation calculations so that the City can make a determination as to the adequacy of the supporting infrastructure. If it is discovered that an offsite deficiency exists, the owner will be required to mitigate the deficiency as a part of the overall project. Currently, it is expected that a portion of the existing gravity sewer system will require improvement in order to accommodate the additional flows from this project. In addition, the project developer will be required to pay the project's fair share of the cost to provide additional capacity at the Water Reclamation Facility, the Laguna Lift Station, and possibly the Howard Johnson Lift Station, as well. 7. Water and wastewater facilities shall be designed in accordance with the City's design and drafting standards. The tentative map shall indicate that the minimum design standards can be achieved, including 8" min. sewer mains at 0.5% minimum slope. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council, approval of the proposal. The foregoing resolution was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo. On motion by Commr. Cooper, seconded by Commr. Osborne, and on a separate roll call vote that the mitigated negative declaration be adopted: AYES: Commrs. Cooper, Whittlesey, Ready and Osborne NOES: Commr. Peterson ABSENT: Commrs. Aiken and Loh On motion by Commr. Peterson, seconded by Commr. Cooper, and on a separate roll call vote, that the site be rezoned from C/OS to R-1, R-2, and R-3 with a Planned Development (PD) overlay to allow more variation in the project design than normal standards would allow: Resolution No. 5305-01 - Page 13 / AYES: Commrs. Cooper, Whittlesey, Ready, Peterson and Osborne NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Aiken and Loh On motion by Commr. Peterson, seconded by Commr. Cooper, and on a separate roll call vote, that the vesting tentative tract map be approved: AYES: Commrs. Cooper, Whittlesey, Ready, Peterson and Osborne NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Aiken and Loh Dated: January 10, 2001 3-1-11 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT rr]EM a 2 BY: Peggy Mandeville, Associate Planner (781-7175)f"MEETING DATE: January 10, 2001 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manage ME NUMBER: TR/PD/ER 87-00 PROJECT ADDRESS: 11955 Los Osos Valley Road (DeVaul Ranch South) SUBJECT: Consideration of a recommendation to the City Council for a request to subdivide a 13.6 acre site (DeVaul Ranch South) to allow for the development of 77 apartments, 19 single family dwellings, 34 duplexes and the potential for 17 secondary dwelling units, planned development rezoning to provide for flexible development standards in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 zones, and environmental review. RECOMMENDATION A. Recommend to the City Council that the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project be adopted. B. Recommend to the City Council that the site be rezoned from C/OS to R-1, R-2, and R-3 with a Planned Development (PD) Overlay to allow more variation in the project design than normal standards would allow and a density bonus in the R-1 and R-2 zones. C. Recommend to the City Council that the vesting tentative tract map be approved based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements. A*CKGROUND Pr.j%.�i 131S1V:9 In August of last year, the City Council approved the annexation and prezoning of the Froom Ranch site to Retail Commercial and DeVaul Ranch South site to Conservation/Open Space (C/OS) interim zoning for the property until residential development plans could be processed.. The annexation of both properties was approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) with annexation taking place after substantial construction occurs on the Froom Ranch Home Depot site. Complete plans for the DeVaul South site have now been submitted for the tentative tract map, PD rezoning, and architectural review. The architectural review component of this project is tentatively scheduled to be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission on February 5,2001. Data Summary Address: 11955 Los Osos Valley Road Applicant: Jet-Ski Land Development Environmental status: Mitigated Negative Declaration recommended by the Development Review Manager on November 28, 2000. Project action deadline: Application was deemed complete for processing on October 19, 2000. Legislative actions are exempt from the Permit Streamlining Act. TR/PD/ER 87-00,DeVaul Ranch South January 10,2001 Planning Commission Report Page 2 Site Description The 13.6 acre site is located on the south westerly side of Los Osos Valley Road, north westerly of US Highway 101 and south easterly of Madonna Road (see Attachment 1). The rectangular site is bordered by Los Osos Valley Road on the north east and the DeVaul Ranch North site and the Irish Hills to the southwest. The site is relatively flat and covered in row crops. The City approved DeVaul Ranch North project is located to the northwest of the site (see Attachment 2) and the Froom Ranch site which includes a Home Depot is located to the southeast. .The proposed Costco site (also within the Froom Ranch site) is located to the immediate southeast (see Attachment 3). Proiect Description Jet-Ski Land Development has submitted applications to the City for the subdivision and PD rezoning of the site. The subdivision would allow the development of 77 apartment units, 19 single family dwellings, 34 duplexes and the potential for 17 secondary dwelling units (see Attachment 4). .The PD rezoning would allow for more variation in the project design than normal standards allow (see Attachment 5 and 6). The Planning Commission's action on these items should be in the form of a recommendation to the City Council. EVALUATION The evaluation section of this report is structured to provide a discussion of the application requests, General Plan compliance, environmental review, and conformance with the City's Growth Management policies. I APPLICATION REQUESTS Vesting Tentative Map Staff supports the division of land and site layout which is very similar to the layout of the approved DeVaul Ranch North project (see Attachment 2). The subdivision design provides for 19 lots for detached single family housing, 34 lots for duplex housing, and one 3.73 acre lot for a 77 unit attached apartment project. The project also allows for the development of 17 secondary dwelling units located above detached garages. The resulting 130 dwelling units (and potential for 17 secondary units) complies with the density envisioned for this property in the General Plan (see discussion below). Proposed roadways tie into the DeVaul Ranch North property at Tonini Street and DeVaul Ranch Road. The traffic calming features of the subdivision are discussed under the PD rezoning section of this report. The grading design calls for much of the site to be raised in order for the site to properly drain toward Los Osos Valley Road and provide street connections to the DeVaul Ranch North property. The fill areas will be gradual with minimal fill near Los Osos Valley Road and increased fill (up to 7 feet) near the rear of the site. Retaining walls will be needed where the property abuts vacant property to the southeast (Froom Ranch) unless the two properties develop within the same time frame. These retaining walls are envisioned to be covered by fill material at 3 -113 TR/PD/ER 87-00, DeVaul Ranch South January 10,2001 Planning Commission Report Page 3 the time the adjoining property develops. A detention basin is needed for the purposes of temporarily detaining the increased runoff created by the development of the property consistent with City stormwater runoff policies. Project plans show the basin at the southeasterly comer of the property, but at the 'request of the Public Works Department, the applicant has switched the location of the basin and the roadway(see Attachment 7). The proposed street design calls for some of the sidewalks to be detached from the curb with a landscaped parkway and some sidewalks to directly abut the curb and street which reflects the design approved for the adjacent DeVaul Ranch North project. Planning staff believes that there could be merit in allowing this consistency, however staff recommends that the exact location be reviewed and approved by staff and the ARC as part of the design review of the project. Access to the site is provided via a new public street connecting to Los Osos Valley Road. Once constructed, access will also be provided from the approved DeVaul Ranch North project via new roadways named.Tonin Drive and DeVaul Ranch Road. The subdivision design also locates pedestrian access easements connecting cul-de-sacs "B" and "C" to the DeVaul Ranch North approved cul-de-sacs. Section 66474 of the California Government Code specif es the findings for approval of a tentative map. These findings include: A. The proposed tentative map is consistent with the General Plan; B. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development; C. The design of the subdivision will not cause.substantial environmental damage or cause serious public health problems; and D:' The design of the subdivision: will not coni.ict'w+ti,pubEc:.aseymirs through or.mithin.the:-. .. . property. With approval of the Planned Development zoning and successful implementation of environmental mitigation measures, the required tentative map findings can be made. PD Rezoning As noted in the project description, the applicant proposes that the site be rezoned for residential development *(with Planned Development zoning). The PD zone is intended to encourage imaginative development and the effective use of sites. It does this by allowing more variation in project design than normal standards would allow. Through the use of PD zoning, lot size, configuration, yards, height, coverage and parking may be specified for the project without conformance to the standards of the underlying zone. Such variations from normal standards however shall provide benefits to the project occupants or to the community as a whole which could not be provided under conventional regulations. To approve the planned development rezoning, the City Council must find that the PD zoning meets one or more of the following criteria: 3 -jv� TR/PD/ER 87-00,DeVaul Ranch South January 10,2001 Planning Commission Report Page 4 1. It provides facilities or amenities suited to a particular occupancy group (such as the elderly or families with children)which would not be feasible under conventional zoning; 2. It transfers allowable development, within a site, from areas of greater environmental sensitivity or hazard to areas of less sensitivity or hazard, 3. It provides more affordable housing than would be possible with conventional development; 4. Features of the particular design achieve the intent of conventional standards (privacy, usable open space, adequate parking, compatibility with neighborhood character, and so on) as well as or better than the standards themselves; 5. It incorporates features which result in consumption of less materials, energy or water than conventional development, 6. The proposed project provides exceptional public benefits such as parking, open space, landscaping, public art, and other special amenities which would not be feasible under conventional development standards. Planned Development zoning also allows for residential densities to exceed those allowed in the underlying zone by not more than 25 percent. As shown in Attachment 8, the proposed densities comply with the underlying zone. Staff has not included the 17 potential secondary dwelling units within the total dwelling count because there is no certainty that they will be used as separate dwelling units and secondary dwelling units are not required to conform to the density requirements in the City's Zoning Regulations (see Attachment 9, Chapter 17.21: Secondary Dwelling Units). If the Commission feels that the 17 potential secondary dwelling units should be included within the density calculations, staff recommends that the Commission support the density bonus which would be necessary to allow to secondary dwelling units. Attachment .&—illustrates, the. applicant's=try :; st for- 3eviat kr-t to City standards,!and-;their. justification for the deviations. The applicant is also requesting some deviations from the general requirements for secondary dwelling units. Staff generally supports the applicant's request for PD zoning. The variations in project design proposed by the applicant offer many benefits. The variations include locating garages to the rear of the detached and duplex housing, traffic calming measures, reduced street setbacks for living areas, detached sidewalks, and the provision for secondary dwelling units. Components of the PD zoning which staff recommends the Commission discuss and provide a recommendation include the following: 1. Lot widths in the R-2 zone. The applicant's R-2 PD request calls for a minimum lot width of 32 feet, however the tentative map shows some lot widths at 31 and 28 feet. In order to provide for usable yard space, staff recommends a minimum lot width of 35 feet which is consistent with the DeVaul Ranch North project approvals for their duplex units. Staff believes that this additional yard area is especially needed because each alley lot includes the alleyway in its lot size and 50% lot coverage limitation. Excluding the alleyway in the lot size would increase the overall lot coverage upwards to 60% leaving less area for usable yard space. Included in Commission packets is a typical lot with setbacks for your review. 1 TR/PD/ER 87-00,DeVaul Ranch South January 10,2001 Planning Commission Report Page 5 2. Rear yard landscaping in R-1-PD zone. A minimum 4-foot wide landscape strip should be provided between the secondary dwelling unit parking space and the rear property line to allow adequate room for a plant material buffer between the parking space and the adjoining property. 3. Parking and driveway standards. Minor revisions are needed to the site plan in order for the project to comply with the City's Parking and Driveway standards. The applicant should submit dimensioned plans that comply with the Parking and Driveway standards. 4. Parking requirements. The applicant is proposing to provide two parking spaces in a garage for each single family and duplex unit, one uncovered parking space for each secondary dwelling unit, and 158 parking spaces for the apartments where 162 is normally required. Staff supports the applicants proposal for parking although it is somewhat less than what would normally be provided.. Historically, the Planning Commission has denied past attempts to reduce the required parking for secondary dwelling units (pursuant to.Chapter 17.21) from a total of four spaces for both units to three. The Commission should consider whether the proposed PD provides amenities that would support reduction as proposed here. 5. Apartment site design compatibility with approved DeVaul North project. If the DeVaul Ranch North project is constructed as presently approved, this project should include a shared driveway aisle with the DeVaul North project between Los Osos Valley Road and Tonini Drive rather that both properties providing side by side single loaded aisle ways. (Staff has heard from the DeVaul Ranch North applicants that they may be submitting a Planned Development Amendment to alter the design of their apartment portion of the project, although no application has been received to date).. 6. LOVR streetyard setback. The Commission should review and make a recommendation on the applicant's request to provide a minimum of 5-foot landscaped streetyard setback on the Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) frontage, a 10-foot landscaped setback on DeVaul Ranch Road (excluding the trash enclosure that staff recommends relocation outside of the setback) and a 6-foot landscaped setback on Tonini Drive where a 15-foot setback is normally required at all three locations. The applicant is essentially following the design of the DeVaul Ranch North project where Council approved a minimum 2-foot setback on Los Osos Valley Road. 7. Streetyard setbacks for exterior side yards. The Commission should review the applicant's request to have a minimum of five foot side yard on lots in the R-1 and R-2 zones. A wider setback may be more appropriate for a side yard located on a comer lot. 8. Landscaping along LOVR. The applicant shall coordinate with the DeVaul Ranch North developers to provide a common landscaping theme along the frontage of LOVR. 9. Parking lot screening. Details of proposed parking lot screening around the apartment t TR/PD/ER 87-00,DeVaul Ranch South January 10,2001 Planning Commission Report Page 6 project shall be provided illustrating how the parking lot is screened from public view. The City's Noise Element does not allow the use of walls for the purposes of noise attenuation (General Plan Policy N.1.2.15: Sound Walls). Additionally, the Commission may want to consider eliminating the,proposed fencing that surrounds the apartment lot. 10. Impervious surfaces. To reduce the visibility of the long driveways in the R-1 zone, the Commission may want to consider requiring a landscape strip down the middle of the driveway. 11. Traffic calming measures. In addition to the traffic calming measures proposed by the applicant, the Commission may want to consider the use of additional traffic calming measures such as bulbouts if acceptable to the Public Works Department. Bulbouts were approved as part of the DeVaul North development. 12.Affordable housing. The City's inclusionary housing program requires residential projects within an expansion area (which this is) to build 5% low income(7 units) and 10% moderate income dwelling units (13 units) or pay an in lieu fee. The applicant proposes to provide the affordable housing within the project by designating 2 single family homes, 5 duplex units and 6 apartment units as moderate income units and 7 apartment units as low income units. This allocation is consistent with what was provided for in the DeVaul Ranch North project (see Attachment 10). The Commission should review and provide a recommendation on the applicant's proposal. Additionally, the Commission should review the applicant's proposed locations for the project's affordable housing units which will be provided to the Commission at the Planning Commission meeting. The City's General Plan Policy H 4.2.1 requires that the affordable units;:be.-dispersp4ahroughoui the site rather than segregated into separate,.,. enclaves, therefore the Commission."should review the proposed affordable housing locations,;::: .;` for conformance with this General Plan policy(see the Population and Housing section of the attached initial study for details). 13. Secondary Dwelling Units. The applicant is seeking approval of a maximum of 17 secondary dwelling units to be located above detached garages on lots that have two story dwellings. The request deviates from City standards in that these units are normally required to be attached to or located within the living area of the primary unit. If approved, the units would be allowed by right, however, before the secondary unit is established the owner would be required to enter into an agreement with the City agreeing that the property would be owner occupied and that one additional parking space would be provided for the unit. As stated above, the Commission has previously resisted past attempts to relax the City's Secondary Dwelling Unit standards, including allowing detached units. These units however are being proposed as part of a comprehensive development plan. The Pd zoning principle behind this development therefore offers some flexibility. Staff supports the expanded housing opportunities provided within this development and therefore would support creation of detached units in this case. 3-jqp TR/PD/ER 87-00, DeVaul Ranch South January 10,2001 Planning Commission Report Page 7 14. Coordination with adjacent development proposal. The City recently received a development application from Costco to locate on the adjacent parcel to the southwest (see Attachment 3, Costco site plan). Although the site plan has not been evaluated or approved, the Commission should keep in mind that the property to the southwest is zoned for commercial development and buffering between the two land uses may be necessary. The Commission should decide which (if any) of the above items should be added as conditions or approval as none of the above items have been included in the staff recommendation located at the end of this report. IL GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE The Land Use Element of the General Plan identifies the site as within the City's Urban Reserve Line and located within one of the City's principal expansion areas. The Land Use Element also identifies the site as within the Special Design Area of the Irish Hills and calls for the site to be "zoned for appropriate urban districts upon approval of development plans." Land Use Element policy 8.10.1 says, "About 38 acres northerly from the vicinity of the Garcia Drive intersection is designated Medium-Density Residential. This area may accommodate about 500 dwellings. There should be a range of housing types, with low density, medium density, and medium-high density development each occupying about one-third of the area." Together with the DeVaul Ranch North project approvals, a total of 399 dwelling units will be constructed within this special study area. Land Use Element policy 13.3.2 says that within the u.-ban •eserve line, areas which are to be developed with urban uses should be annexed before urban development occurs. The proposed subdivision and planned development rezoning implement these goals and policies•of the,Ci"' ,i: v.:•.•t :: General Plan and therefore can be found to be consistent with the General Plan. : } Additional General Plan policies that apply to this project are identified and addressed in the Land Use and Planning section of the attached initial study(see Attachment 11). III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A number of environmental initial studies have been prepared for this property and adjoining properties. The City Council certified the 1994 Land Use Element Update Supplemental EIR which addressed the potential change of use of this property from agricultural to residential including adoption of a statement of overriding considerations. The City Council certified the Final EIR for the adjacent DeVaul Ranch North project (which included a schematic design for a similar development on this property) and adopted a mitigation monitoring program to ensure that the adopted mitigation measures are implemented. The Board of Supervisors certified the Final EIR for the adjacent Eagle Hardware project that considered the impacts of a residential development on this property similar to the current proposal. Finally, the City Council approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the annexation and prezoning of the site to Conservation Open Space (C/OS) as interim zoning. ? 4 J �O TR/PD/ER 87-00,DeVaul Ranch South January 10,.2001 Planning Commission Report Page 8 The attached initial study (see Attachment 11) prepared for this project utilizes information provided in the above environmental documents as well as information prepared specifically for this project. Mitigation measures are proposed to address potential environmental impacts. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Proposed mitigation.measures include the provision of landscape buffers and view corridors, creation of a maintenance association, design of the drainage/debris basins and channels as naturally occurring features, Congdon tatplant mitigation, provision of affordable housing, granting of an avigation easement and transportation improvements. TR/PD/ER 87-00,DeVaul Ranch South January 10,2001 Planning Commission Report Page 8 IV.-CONFORMANCE WITH GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICIES According to the City's General Plan, the City's housing supply shall grow no faster than one percent per year, averaged over a 36-month period, excluding dwellings affordable to residents . with very low and low incomes. Before a residential expansion area is developed, the City must have adopted a specific planor a development plan for it. Such plans must provide for phased development consistent with one-percent annual, citywide population growth and taking into account expected in-fill residential development within the 1994 City limits. Last year the City Council adopted a phasing schedule for the residential growth management of all of the residential expansion areas (see Attachment 12). To date, the growth of City's housing supply remains at less than one percent. No units have been constructed within the expansion areas and the first 3-year period is set to close in 2001. In response to this situation, several property owners within the expansion areas have expressed interest in amending the phasing schedule. With no application on file for development of the DeVaul South property at the time the phasing schedule was adopted, the DeVaul Ranch South property was allocated 50 dwelling units to be built in each 3-year period between 2005 and 2013. As part of this application, Jet-Ski Land Development is requesting a change to their allocation in order to allow the DeVaul South property to be developed during the same time period as the DeVaul North property. This requested change as well as any other proposed by residential expansion area property owners will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council during the first quarter of next year. t:.i!N;LNATIVES 1. The Commission may recommend that the Council deny the project Action denying the application should include the findings for denial. 2. The Commission may continue review of the project. Direction should be given to the applicant and/or staff regarding desired information. RECOMMENDATION A. Recommend to the City Council that the Mitigated Negative Declaration, vesting tentative tract map and PD rezoning be approved subject to the following findings, conditions, and code requirements: Findin s (Tentative Map) L The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the General 3 -Std TR/PD/ER 87-00,DeVaul Ranch South January 10,2001 Planning Commission.Report Page 9 Plan which designates this area as Medium Density Residential. 2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones. 3. As conditioned, the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 4. The subdivision will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment with incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures into the project. (PD Rezoning) 1. The components of the PD rezoning are consistent with the General Plan which calls for a range of housing types, with low density, medium density, and medium-high density development each occupying about one third of the area. 2. Features of the design (ie. traffic calming measures and design of streetscapes) achieve the intent of conventional standards as well as or better than the standards themselves. 3. The project incorporates features which result in consumption of less energy than conventional development. 4 Mitigation measures has been approved by the City Council in c c njunction with the approved.Mitigated Negative Declaration. Conditions (Tentative Map) 1. The subdivider shall dedicate 69 feet of property adjacent to Los Osos Valley Road for public right-of-way purposes,.to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The proposed drainage easement shall be contiguous with the street dedication (not within the street right-of-way to be dedicated). The width of the easement depends on the alignment and whether a pipe system or open channel is constructed.. 2. Los Osos Valley Road shall be improved with a 2 meter wide detached sidewalk, within a 4.267m(14 feet) wide landscaped parkway, street pavement, raised median island, signing, striping, street lights, etc., to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Said improvements shall align with the Los Osos Valley Road improvements required of Tentative Tract 2307 (DeVaul Ranch). If the pavement requirements, along the Los Osos Valley Rd frontage of this tract, are completed under another adjacent development project, the subdivider shall pay . 3 -S / TR/PD/ER 87-00,DeVaul Ranch South January 10,2001 Planning Commission Report Page 10 reimbursement for such work, as determined by the Public Works Director, prior to final map approval. Traffic lane transitions required by the City and/or County for such adjacent project shall not be subject to reimbursement. 3. The proposed alignment of Avenue "E" shall intersect with Los Osos Valley Road at a right angle to the centerline of Los Osos Valley Road. Lots 54 and 55 shall be modified to provide said alignment, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. (Note from Transportation Staff: One option to investigate might be to relocate the detention basin to the north side of the Street E and extend Street E to connect with LOVR at a right angle. The detention basis would be located next to the parking lot's generous landscaped buffer and might be designed to be an attractive opens space component of the project, and an integral part of the project's entrance treatment.) 4. The final alignments and grades of all street improvements, water mains, sewer mains, storm drains and utilities are subject to minor adjustments, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and City Utilities Engineer. 5. All internal streets shall be improved with curbs, gutters &detached sidewalks, landscaped parkways and bulb-outs (without speed tables), full width street pavement, signing, striping, street lights, etc., in accordance with the approved conditions and tentative map for tract 2307, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 6. Vehicular access rights along Los Osos Valley Road shall be dei!ic�-ted to the City. T':; subdivider shall dedicate a'2m-wide pudic utizity:r etnen.across.the :`.---(.,,rage of each. lui along internal streets and a-3 in-wide easement along Los Osos Valley Road, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Said easemonts shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 8. The subdivider shall dedicate a 3m wide street tree easement across the frontage of each lot. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 9. If construction phasing of the new street pavement is proposed, the phasing shall provide for the ultimate structural street section and pavement life (per the City's Pavement Management Plan) prior to acceptance by the City. The engineer or record shall detail this requirement in the public improvement plans, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 10. The subdivider shall install street lighting and all associated facilities (conduits, vaults, fusing, wiring, luminaries, etc.) per City standards, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 3 -�� TR/PD/ER 87-00,DeVaul Ranch South January 10,2001 Planning Commission Report Page I 1 11. Sewer lift station charges are required to be paid prior to recordation of the final map as determined by the Utilities Engineer. 12. Final grades and alignments of all public water, sewer and storm drains (including service laterals and meters) shall be subject to change to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Utilities Engineer. 13. The subdivider shall place underground, all existing overhead utilities along the Los Osos Valley Road frontage, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and utility companies. If this underground work is completed by another developer, the subdivider shall reimburse such party for the pro-rata share of this work, prior to final map approval, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 14. Storm detention facilities are required. Detention basin and associated control facilities shall be privately owned and maintained by a"homeowners association". 15. All lots shall be graded to preclude cross-lot drainage, or, appropriate easements and drainage facilities shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 16. The final map, public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units;metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of t,�c City Engineer. 17. All boundary monuments; lotcnrners and centerline tr:tf�rs_—ztions, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be. tied to the�City's'HonzontdLC6hrrol Netwwk. At ltait :,i.on rol po.4its shall;be used:anda• tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter computer floppy disk,containing the appropriate data compatible with Autocad(Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System(GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the City Engineer. 18. Prior to approval of the public improvement plans, the developer's engineer shall submit a digital copy of the public improvement plans to the Director of Public Works. The format shall be compatible with Autocad(Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System(GIS) purposes. 19. Prior to acceptance by the City of any public improvements, the developer's engineer shall submit a digital copy, in addition to the plan-set, of the revised "record drawing" public improvement plans to the Director of Public Works. The format shall be compatible with Autocad(Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes. 3 -53 TR/PD/ER 87-00,DeVaul Ranch South January 10,2001 Planning Commission Report Page 12 20. Pedestrian-Bicycle Connections to Adjoining Tract: Improvement plans for this project must demonstrate how non-motorized public access will be provided from the northwest ends of Streets "W' and"C" to similar cul-de-sacs that are part of the adjoining subdivision, Tract 2307 (DeVaul Ranch) to the west. 21.Frontage Improvements and Delineation Plan: The location of the curb line along Los Osos Valley Road shall be set at its ultimate location, to the approval of the Public Works Director. A delineation plan shall be submitted that shows all modifications to lane striping and installation of medians within Los Osos Valley Road across this project's frontage. This delineation plan shall be coordinated with those for the approved subdivision to the northwest (DeVaul Ranch) and the commercial subdivision to the southeast (Froom Ranch), to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 22. Traffic Mitigation Measures identified under Tentative Tract 2307 (DeVaul Ranch) shall be met and/or guaranteed under a subdivision agreement prior to recordation of the final map for this tract, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Community Development Director. 23. Bicycle Parking and Storage: Project plans should clearly show how bicycle parking and storage is provided in compliance with Section 17.16.060,Table 6.5 of the Zoning Regulations and with design standards contained in the Bicycle Transportation Plan (1993). 24. Water, wastewater, and traffic impact fees shall be assessed on date of building permit application and paid prior to building permit i nuance. 25:Toilei'retrofits'to•satisty :;�c water`4 oc2!lon �~iall be:crzil���-ted prior•to peiTnitsssuance:. 26. Apartment buildings at east side of project shall not be constructed across a property line. As shown, an area adjacent to the stairway appears to straddle the property line. 27. A minimum backup dimension between the garage opening and the back of the paved area shall be 24 feet. Garages on lots similar to lot 15 and 16 appear to have a dimension of less than 24 feet. 28. On lots 20 through 27 cars parked in the driveway will block access to the adjacent garage. Conflicts may be created between neighbors under the proposed arrangement. Greater separation or an additional exterior parking area may alleviate the problem. 29. According to the General Plan Noise Element a portion of the buildings that front Los Osos Valley Road appear to extend into an area that exceeds acceptable noise limits for residential uses. Due to the number of units proposed, a noise study must be completed. 30. Fire Department Access: Access shall be in accordance with Article 9 of the California Fire TR/PD/ER 87-00,DeVaul Ranch South January 10,2001 Planning Commission Report Page 13 Code. Access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of a 60,000-pound fire apparatus. The surface shall provide all-weather driving capabilities. Prior to combustible construction all- weather access (i.e. base and first lift of asphalt) shall be installed and serviceable for fire apparatus. "E" Street shall be improved and connected to the adjoining DeVaul subdivision prior to the issuance of any building permits. 31. Water Supplies: Water supplies shall be in accordance with Sections 901 and 903 of the California Fire Code. An approved water supply connected to the City distribution system and capable of providing the required.fire flow for fire protection is required. The fire flow shall be determining using Appendix M-A of the California Fiie Code. 32. Water lines and hydrants shall be installed,.tested and serviceable prior to combustible construction. All water mains shall be a minimum of 8" in size. Submittal indicates several 6" PVC mains. 33. Fire Hydrants: Fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with Section 903.4 of the California Fire Code. The location, number and type of hydrants connected to the City system shall be determined using Appendix 111-B of the California Fire Code and the approved City Engineering Standards. 34. The Fire Department shall review and approve the installation and location of all fire hydrants. In addition to internal hydrants the project will require a fire hydrant along LOVR. 35.Fire Protection Systems and Equipment: Fire protection systems scall be in accordance with the Caltfumia Fire Code:and California:Building;Code.as,amended by the.Cit,;. 'A: .pbl 1.d fire sprinkler system shall.be required for all structures per City requirements. 36. Fire Safety During Construction: Buildings undergoing construction,alteration or demolition shall be in accordance with Article 87 of the California.Fire Code. 37. The irrigation systems,for common areas,parks, detention basins, and other large landscape areas shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards for reclaimed water use. Appropriately sized reclaimed water mains shall be constructed from the City's trunk system to these irrigation areas. If reclaimed water is not yet available, the system shall be designed and constructed to reclaimed water standards, and temporarily connected to the City's potable water system in the area of the anticipated connection to the reclaimed water system. Appropriate backflow protection shall be installed with this connection to the satisfaction of the County Cross Connection Inspector, Henry Ruiz, who canbe reached at 781-5567. 38. Potential buyers of lots.that have the ability to have secondary dwelling units shall be notified that before a secondary dwelling unit established,the owner shall enter into an agreement 3 -ss TR/PD/ER 87-00, DeVaul Ranch South January 10,2001 Planning Commission Report Page 14 with the City agreeing that the property will be owner-occupied and one additional on-site parking space will be provided for the unit. Code Requirements 1. Traffic impact fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. EPA Requirement: General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and excavation results in land disturbance of five or more acres. Storm water discharges of less than five acres, but which is part of a larger common plan of development or sale, also require a permit. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State Water Board. 3. Existing plans call out Platanus acerfolia as the only street tree for this site. This particular tree is prone to anthracnose, a disease which is prevalent throughout San Luis Obispo, and only somewhat resistant to powdery mildew which is very common in San Luis Obispo; in trees subject to this disease, due to the contant fog that affects SLO throughout most of the summer months. Suitable replacements for the Platanus would be Melaleuca linariifolia, Quercus suber, Gleditsia triacanthos,Tipuana tipu, or Tristania �:)nferta(no single species should constitute more than 50% of the total street tree c=opulation for this development). Street trees for this project shall be,Me?aaeuca :.�nariifolia 4. Upon development, a water allocation will be required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. Currently, a water allocation can only be obtained through the water retrofit program. The City's Water Conservation division can help in determining the needed allocation and the necessary number of retrofits. Water Conservation can be reached by calling 781-7258. The cost of retrofitting is directly credited against the project's Water Impact Fees, at a rate of$150 per bathroom retrofitted. 5. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued. Currently, the Water Impact Fee is $6,827 per residential unit, and the Wastewater Impact Fee is$2,703. 6. The owner's engineer shall submit water demand and wastewater generation calculations so that the City can make a determination as to the adequacy of the supporting infrastructure. If it is discovered that an offsite deficiency exists,the owner will be required to mitigate the deficiency as a part of the overall project. Currently, it is expected that a portion of the existing gravity sewer system will require improvement in order to accommodate the additional flows from this project. In addition, the project 3-s� TR/PD/ER 87-00,DeVaul Ranch South January 10,2001 Planning Commission Report Page 15 developer will be required to pay the project's fair share of the cost to provide additional capacity at the Water Reclamation Facility, the Laguna Lift Station, and possibly the Howard Johnson Lift Station, as well. 7. Water and wastewater facilities shall be designed in accordance with the City's design and drafting standards. The tentative map shall indicate that the minimum design standards can be achieved, including 8" min. sewer mains.at 0.5% minimum slope. Mitigation Measures 1. Provide a landscape buffer along LOVR and along the south side of the property boundary abutting Froom Ranch. 2. Plant palm trees to mirror the existing palms across LOUR. 3. Coordinate landscape plans for the property with .plans submitted for the adjacent DeVaul Ranch North and Froom Ranch. 4. Incorporate landscaping elements including decorative paving, walls, and fencing. 5. Install public art at the project's LOVR entry. 6. Create a"maintenance association" to facilitate long term care of landscaping. 1. Eliminate on-street parking on DeVaul Ranch Road between LOVR &A Tonim Drive. :. '?"!,ia�, the detention, basin-to appear'as a :iz.tural!v....,ccunitag fca,ure and rea;egetate. the perimeter with nativeplants and trees to further reduce its engineered appearance. 9. Limit the height of the three apartment buildings closest to LOVR to 26 feet in height. These building heights shall be considered maximum unless during the architectural review process the applicant can demonstrate through the site plan and architectural design that views of the upper portions of the Irish Hills will not be blocked. 10. Screen from view any necessary water pumps, valves, backflow preventers, and service cabinets. 11. Design the detention basin to appear as a naturally occurring feature. 12. Submit a detailed landscaping plan for the LOVR project frontage and the southern edge of the property abutting the Froom Ranch property for review and approval by the City. The plan shall identify evergreen and deciduous plant materials, retaining walls, earth mounding, the horizontal and vertical limits of plantings, and other materials used to effectively screen the parking areas and soften the views of the development; but not hinder views of the hulls. � U TR/PD/ER 87-00,DeVaul Ranch South January 10,2001 Planning Commission Report Page 16 13. Exterior lighting shall be directed downward and not spill onto adjoining properties. The maximum height of lighting equipment and supporting structures, including fixtures, standard and base, shall not be higher than 20 feet above the finished grade. Lighting levels measured at finished grade directly beneath the fixture shall not exceed 10 footcandles. 14. All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered with non-potable water to prevent excessive amounts of dust. During the time period in which grading will occur, watering shall occur at least twice daily including weekends with complete coverage„ preferably in the late morning and after work is finished for the day. 15. All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavating activities shall cease during periods of high winds (greater than 15 mph averaged over one hour) to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 16. If soil materials are transported on or off-site, they shall either be sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 17. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with fast germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation becomes established. 18. All disturbed areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabEized using approved chemical, soil binders,jute netting, or other methods approved in a&-anc by APCD. 7. ` n-site vehicle'-speed during.-constructioii shai; iw livn`e iqph for a;,y unpaved surface. .: 20. All unpaved areas with vehicle traffic shall be watered at least twice per day including weekends, using non-potable water. 21. Wheel washers shall be installed where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads and streets, or provisions shall be made to wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. 22. Prior to issuing occupancy permits for each single family residence, shade trees shall be planted at a rate of not less than 1 tree/4000 s.f. of land. The trees shall be planted to provide shading of the residence in the summer so as to reduce air conditioning requirements and. fossil fuel use.. 23. Residences shall be equipped with solar-assisted water heaters or similar energy conserving feature consistent with City policies and programs at the time of construction. 24. Bicycle lockers shall be included in the design of the apartment project. TR/PD/ER 87-00, DeVaul Ranch South January 10,2001 Planning Commission Report Page 17 25. Parking for the apartment project shall accommodate electric vehicles. 26. At the applicant's expense, a restoration plan shall be prepared by a qualified plant restoration ecologist. The plan shall identify the location of a suitable site ors sites in an open space area off-site (possibly at the City's wastewater treatment plant) where a colony of Congdon's tarplant (Hemizonia parryi ssp. Congdonii) can be established. The restoration plan shall identify the number of plants to be replanted and the methods which will be used to preserve this species in this location. The plan shall also include a monitoring program so that the success of the effort can be monitored yearly over a three- to five-year period. The restoration effort shall be coordinated with the California Department of Fish and Game, the US Wildlife Service, the California Native Plant Society, and the City of San Luis Obispo. Any federal, state or local permits required to commence such a program will be acquired and implemented by the applicant. The mitigation plan shall include the provision for replacement of habitat to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager and the City Council should the initial mitigation program be unsuccessful within five years. 27. If any previously undiscovered prehistoric cultural material or buried concentrations of historic cultural materials are discovered during any construction activities, all activities that may disrupt those materials shall cease and the Community Development Director shall be notified immediately of the discovery of archaeological materials. Under most circumstances, the applicant will be directed to retain a qualified archaeologist to immediately visti the site, evaluate the materials recovered, and consult with the Director to determine the appropriate course of action. Under the direction of the archaeologist, a mitigation plan shall be developed and approv xi by the City pursuant to the City's Archaeological Resource Preset vadon Guidelines. 28. All project related construction activit;shall occur between 7 am and 7pm Monday through Saturday, with no activities occurring on Sunday or holidays. 29. City noise regulations related to construction activities shall be posted on site and made available to all contractors and sub-contractors. 30. The developer and/or property manager shall disclose to all perspective and actual Leasee/Renters that the subject property is in an airport flight traffic zone and possible noise impacts may occur. This disclosure shall be part of any sales or rental agreements which are signed by the owner or renter. 31. To maintain consistency with policy H 4.2.1 of the Housing Element, the amount of and the specific location of inclusionary housing units should be identified with the consideration of the tentative tract map and approved only if found to be consistent with the City's requirements which includes intermixing the units within the project. 3 -s9 TR/PD/ER 87-00,DeVaul Ranch South January 10,2001 Planning Commission Report Page 18 32. The project shall comply with the mitigation measures established for the DeVaul Ranch North project as outlined in the DeVaul Ranch North Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program. 33. Soundproofing shall be added to reduce indoor noise from airport operations, where required by the City's Noise Element and the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan. 34. Grant an avigation easement for the protection of the San Luis Obispo County Airport, the City of San Luis Obispo, and the County of San Luis Obispo. 35. All project occupants and land uses shall comply with the compatible land use matrix of the San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan. 36. All exterior lighting shall be shielded down-lights that do not shine skyward or interfere with aircraft flights or aircraft operations. Search-lights and strobe lights shall be prohibited. 37. The applicant shall dedicate 63 feet of right of way or as otherwise required by the City and make ultimate improvements to LOVR along the project's proposed frontage. 38.To mitigate potentially significant impacts of excessive speed on the project's residential streets, traffic calming measures shall be included as a condition of the subdivision plans. 39. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. the applicant shall receive approval of a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discatdeil N:ilding materials such as concrete, sheetrock, wood and metals f*rorr, we-..instruction site.. 40. Building plaits shall show the location of convenient facilities for interior- and ex=-I'vL on- site recycling for each residential unit. Attached: 1. Vicinity map 2. DeVaul Ranch North site plan 3. Costco reduced site plan 4. Reduced site plan 5. PD rezoning map 6. PD rezoning request- exceptions to standards 7. Revised location of proposed basin 8. Density comparison chart 9. Chapter 17.21: Secondary Dwelling Units 10. Inclusionary housing comparison 11. Environmental initial study 12. Approved residential growth management allocations 13. Applicant statement and project plans (included in Commission packets) } - ATTACHMENT DeVaul North Froom os 0 an spm Project Si e'i p6VAPL- �x�rtt �o r Z'A VIGIWIT MAP 5/Pu/90 Purcal 2 h 1 Road 5/pm/90 PorcLOS 0SOS VaU O) I C�z � I �QI m �� n ❑O Po (V L333dS)-MAI Ir/IN0 L m I El �❑ 1UF] Q N M I rn Z _ _ n I u a 3A18a 7I3NOOdS — 3 • N N N N N N N � q _ q a a n Ataa NnNYN 711 A3a I • � ~ z s a. � cj�11��: I aC v o y 11 11° I 1 N / / JLaJoI L w 8tm=s ZONING — MAP wc;7F ;, •s, .P�„8 D E VA U L R A N C H 1115 So. Broad St BS Son Luis Obispo. Co (805)544-4011. FAX 544-4294 ' 3 -ba �.. ATTACHMENT `J � � wa4LL wN$0 41 FF Ila 1 .pW a � �Ra � 0W0 N Q m 3 08 3 'A $.^. a. o atFSui1 0 -mi{ 37f y V w v p Z E Zr LL �' _ �� W 11 F x .. q _ $P �g 3 3�Qii�� � F � b r�- WN/ � � + o18 � NLLIHCIS3tl aa �z •�- 9NLLSIX3 -• // - d 11 0 �_.. ,. ---- ____ - - • � n � S - a I 45 o ; I I : : Q W ALL .OLG ' s J i y o I L"LLiLLLLr ; I 1 � ; s y - • ? i i t I I [Y � I s M > , m c S �� �� oce s• a �� � a � ul O y i � r 1 i O1 s1 x �o '� d 4 J ATTACHMENT 7 R-1 -PD EXCEPTIONS TO PROPERTY REQUEST DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS R-1 REQUIRED PROPOSED DENSITY 7/ DU NET AC 61 4FM DU/AC COVERAGE 40% 31% (MAX.) LOT SIZE 1 6000 SF 6006 SF (MIN.) MIN. WIDTH 2 50 FT 50 FT(MIN.) MIN. DEPTH 90 FT 117 FT(MIN.) MIN. FRONTAGE 20 FT 50 FT MIN, BUILDING HEIGHT 25 FT 27 FT (MAX.) YARDS FRONT 20 FT 15 FT TO PORCHES, 20 FT TO LIVING (MIN. FRONT SETBACKS) SIDE 5-15 FT 5FT(MIN.) REAR 5-15 FT 7TH MIN. 2.0 (SINGLE FAMILY) 36 SPACES (COVERED) PARKING 11 SPACES (OPEN) 1.0 (GRANNY FLATS) SEE PARKING TABLE 1 CORNER LOT SIZE 6900 SF 8,640 SF (MIN.)-, 2 CORNER LOT WIDTH 60 FT 76 FT(MIN.) ATTACHMENT R-2-PD EXCEPTIONS TO PROPERTY REQUEST DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS R-2 REQUIRED PROPOSED DENSITY 12/ DU NET(MAX.) I1.(p CDU/AC COVERAGE 50% 50% (MAX.) LOT SIZE 6000 SF 3054 SF (MIN.) MIN. WIDTH 60 FT 32 FT (MIN.) MIN. DEPTH 90 FT 90 FT(MIN.) MIN. FRONTAGE 30 FT 32 FT MIN. BUILDING HEIGHT 35 FT 24 FT (MAX.) YARDS FRONT 20 FT 5 FT MIN. TO PORCHES, 10 FT MIN. TO LIVING SIDE 5-15 FT 5FT(MIN.) REAR 5-15 FT 6TH MIN. 1.5 + .5 3 BDRM. 70 SPACES PARKING 1,5 + 1 4 BDRM. 1,0 GRANNY FLATS 4 SPACES. 74 SPACES TOTAL SEE PARKING TABLE 3-b S - J ATI:ACHh1ENT R-3-PD EXCEPTIONS TO PROPERTY REQUEST DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS R-3 REQUIRED PROPOSED DENSITY 18/ DU NET AC 16.67 DU/AC COVERAGE 60% 32% (MAX.) LOT SIZE 6000 SF 162,744 FT (MIN.) MIN. WIDTH 60 FT 320 FT (MIN.) MIN. DEPTH 90 FT 397 FT (MIN.) MIN. FRONTAGE 40 FT 320 FT MIN. BUILDING HEIGHT 35 FT 30 FT (MAX.) FROM FINISHED FLOOR YARDS-OTHER 5-10 FT 5 FT LOVR 15 FT 5 FT (MIN.) TONINI 15 FT 6 FT (MIN.) DeVAUL RANCH RD 15 FT 10 FT MIN. PARKING 1 .5 + .5 + 1/5 159 SPACES (SEE PARKING TABLE) 3 -G6 f —JulATTACHNOM Iff u --LM! 04 to , t C •� \ I �\ - - - - - - — - - -- — - - - sr lr� R i �_�`�—_ ._....�...----...._.. .._... ...._.lid..'---... L 08 � 0808 VALLEY R 3�6 � K8-/ Z8R0'd 298-1 Y61t•6Y4-408 591�!JOSSI�1N3k0'ty�7Mi�J�lI916�'Ipi1i 91%9! OO�L09j] Td 6tl0Z:60 S00Z 90 899SL86 SM 'ON 3N@Id 1S3M 'W'H W kU r�?T;acf�r�,�raT DENSITY CALCULATION FOR R-1 , R-2 & R-3 ZONING DISTRICTS LAND USE ACREAGE (NET) # OF UNITS DU/AC NET DENSITY DENSITY ALLOWED PUBLIC ROADS & N/A N/A N/A R.O.W. 5•�I cv _. R-1-PD 3.02 ACS 18 #;5t DU/AC 7 DU/AC So R-2-PD 3.01 AC 35 DU/AC 12 DU/AC R-3-PD 4.62 AC 77 16.67 DU/AC 18 DU/AC (BASIN INCLUDED) 130 10.65 AC (TOTAL NET) (TOTAL UNITS) . 3 -d � D. "Nonconforming use" is defined as defined by Chapter Chapter 17.21: SECONDARY 17.10 of this code. DWELLING UNITS E. "Primary unit' means an existing single-family residential structure that conforms with all zoning regulations in effect,including this chapter. Sections: 17.21.010 Purpose. F. "Secondary dwelling unit' means an attached dwelling 17.21.020 Definitions. unit which provides complete independent living facilities 17.21.030 General requirements. for one or more persons and complies with all provisions of this chapter. It shall include permanent provisions for 17.21.040 Performance standards. living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation on the 17.21.050 Procedure requirements. same parcel as the primary unit is sited. (Ord. 1004 - 1 17.21.060 Periodic review-Violations. (part), 1984: prior code-9910) 17.21.010 Purpose. A. This chapter is intended to implement Government 17.21.030 General requirements. Code Section 65852(.150)and (.2), which allows the City A. Application. Where this chapter does not contain a to conditionally permit second dwelling units in residential particular type of standard or procedure, conventional zones. zoning standards and procedures shall apply. B.The City intends to regulate secondary dwelling units as B. Areas Where Secondary Dwelling Units are Allowed. permitted by Section 65852.2(a)of the State Government Upon approval of an administrative use oermitand upon Code,and other applicable sections. meeting other requirements of this section, secondary dwelling units may be established in the following zones: C. The City recognizes opportunities to implement certain R-1, R-2, R-3,and R-4. policies and programs of the City Housing Element of the general plan by providing for and regulating secondary C. Areas Prohibited. Secondary dwelling units shall not dwelling units. be established in any condominium or planned development project, or any mobile home subdivision, or D. Implementation of this chapter is meant to expand trailer park,and under no circumstances shall a secondary housing opportunities for low-income and moderate- dwelling unit be allowed, where in the opinion of the income or elderly households by increasing the number of Director, a resource deficiency exists as defined by rental units available within existing neighborhoods. Chapter 2.44 of this code. Secondary,dwelling units are intended to provide livable housing at lower cost while_ providing greater security, D. Owner Occupancy. Either the primary unit or companionship and family support for the occupants. secondary dwelling unit must be owner-occupied. (Ord. 1085 - 1 Ex. A (part), 1987; Ord. 1004 - 1(part), 1984: prior code-9900) E. No Subdivision of Property. No subdivision of property shall be allowed where a secondary dwelling unit has been established unless the subdivision meets all requirements 17.21.020 Definitions. of Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. Nothing in this For the purpose of this chapter, the following words and section-shall prohibitjoint ownership of the property where phrases have the meanings given them in this section: a secondary dwelling unit has been established. A. "Administrative use permit" is defined as defined by F. Sale of Property. This section shall also apply to new Chapter 17.58 of this code. owners of property where a secondary dwelling unit has been established if the property is sold. All conditions of B. "Director" means the Director of the Community the use permit, restrictive covenants and other contractual Development Department or his designate. agreements with the City, shall apply to the property and new owners. C. "Nonconforming lot' is defined as defined by Chapter 17.12 of this code. G. Unit Type Allowed. A secondary dwelling unit shall be attached to or located within the living area of the primary unit on the lot city of san Luis oBispo 58 zonrn4 ae4ulations d0 1H. e of Secondary Dwelling Unit. The gross floor area B. Architectural Review Required. All requests shall of the secondary dwelling unit shall not exceed four receive architectural review in accordance with the hundred fifty square feet. The Planning Commission may adopted Architectural Review Commission Ordinance and authorize exception to this standard by use permit upon Guidelines. The Director shall determine, upon receiving finding that complete application,whether the project is declared minor or incidental.In the event the Director determines that the 1. The purpose of this chapter is served: project is not minor,or incidental, it shall be forwarded to the Architectural Review Commission for review. 2. Strict compliance with, the size limitation would (a) require significant structural modifications that would not C. Application Contents. All proposed secondary dwelling be required otherwise: or (b) adversely affect an historic unit requests shall be by formal application for or architecturally significant building. (Ord, 1085- 1Ex. A administrative use permit and architectural review. (part), 1987; Ord. 1034 - 1, 1985: Ord. 1004 - 1 (part), D. Additional Requirements. 1984: prior code-9920) 1. Owners Agreementwith the City. The owner shall enter 17.21.040 Performance standards. into an agreement with the City,on a form approved by the City Attorney and Community Development Director, A. Design Standards. Secondary dwelling units shall agreeing that the property will be owner-occupied. Upon conform to all applicable zoning regulations such all approval of the administrative use permit and architectural height, yards, parking, building coverage, etc., esus t fo review, this agreement shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder to provide constructive notice all density requirementsas defined by Zoning Regulations. — future owners of the. property of the use and owner ner occupancy restrictions affecting the property. If owner 1. Secondary dwelling units shall conform to all applicable occupancy is not possible,then the use will terminate,and building and construction codes. the structure will be returned to its original condition to the. 2. Nothing in this section prohibits applicants from satisfaction of the Director. requesting exceptions or variances from the strict Property owners receiving approvals for second units and interpretation of Zoning Regulations to the extent allowed establishing the use pursuant to this section shall also by said regulationsfor any other use. agree to reimburse the City for costs of all necessary 3. Secondary dwelling units shall be designed as to enforcement actions: provide separate living conditions and provide a safe and E. Appeal. Appeal procedures for this section shall be the convenient environmentfor the occupants. same as set forth for administrative use permits as defined 4. Secondary dwelling units shall also be architecturally in the City Zoning Regulations. (Ord. 1004 - 1 (part), 1984: prior code-9940) and functionally compatible with the primary unit. (Ord. 1004- 1 (part),1984; prior code-9930) 17.21.060 Periodic review -Violations. 17.21.050 Procedure requirements. A. Periodic Review. Use permits shall be subject to review after the first year and each three years Prior to filing building plans with the City Building Division, thereafter. the following shall be met B. B. Violations. Violation of any of the provisions shal A. Permit Requirement. The applicant shall apply for and be basis for revocation of the use permit in obtain an administrative use permit as defined by Zoning accordance with Chapter 17.72. (Ord. 1004 - 1(part) Regulations. 1984: prior code-9950) city of san lurs oaispo 59 zonmq ReruLwons 3 �� �IGWytol.s�tZ HOoe lLid. C�1-1PSRl5cl.J 1"om: Uurra Z(o� l30 lee, z7 13 °a low 7_ ToTvr . 0 2 0 p«i'fz1'evTTxi «T VOPUZx I Mob Mao A,mzrmo sT' 13 Mop t w -� Low Place holder for,, Item # Print this page on contrasting YELLOW paper . . . onemsided . 3- 7� ATTACHMENT $ Draft Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2001 2. 11955 Los Osos Valley Road: PD, TR, and ER 87-00; Request for planned development zoning of property for residential development, approval of a vesting tentative tract map for a 55-lot subdivision allowing the development of 145 dwelling units (Plus one lot for a detention basin); and environmental review; Jet-Ski Land Development, applicant. Associated Planner Peggy Mandeville presented the staff report and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend (a) that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project, (b) recommend that the City Council rezone the site from C/OS to R-1, R-2, and R-3 with a Plan Development (PD) Overlay to allow more variation in the project design than normal standards would allow and a density bonus in the R-1 and R-2 zones, and (c) recommend that the City Council approve the vesting tentative tract map based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements. Commr. Cooper asked if DeVaul North received a density bonus. .Associate Planner Mandeville replied yes, on the single-family component, not on the apartments. Commr. Cooper asked if the ARC commented on the possibility of incorporation of an illegal forth and fifth bedrooms since one of the dens includes a closet. Associate Planner Mandeville stated the ARC did not comment on this. She noted the density is being calculated by unit and not by number of bedrooms. Commr. Cooper had staff review site distribution of the affordable units. Associate Planner Mandeville commented that the developers had to meet the requirements of DeVaul Ranch, that is, no more than four affordable units can be located next to each other and they must be identical units. Commr. Cooper had staff comment on the alley being included in the calculations and the granny units' density calculations. Commr. Whittlesey noted there had been previous discussion of a Costco retaining wall between the two properties. She asked if this is that a part of this particular project or the Costco project. Associate Planner Mandeville stated the retaining wall would be a condition of whichever project occurs first. She noted that representatives of DeVaul North and this property owner have been encouraged to work together on grading issues, which may eliminate the need for a retaining wall. 3 ��a� Draft Minutes January 10, 2001 ATTACHMENT 8 Page 2 Commr. Whittlesey asked for comment on walls along Los Osos Valley Road. Associate Planner Mandeville stated the General Plan prohibits sound walls on Los Osos Valley Road. This project will be consistent with the DeVaul North project. Commr. Peterson asked how the open space requirement is being fulfilled. Associate Planner Mandeville responded that was addressed at the time of annexation. The purpose of the open space requirement along the Irish Hills is to have the people that have the land along the flatlands give the open space; DeVaul was viewed as one project. There were 35 acres dedicated with DeVaul North, 13 with this proposal, and 186 acres of open space. Commr. Peterson asked if there would be double driveways or roads at both the north and south ends of the project. He felt-that it may be optimal to have one road at the top of the project and one at the bottom. Associate Planner Mandeville stated that on the north side there is a condition stating that they shall coordinate one common driveway. The Costco truck entry needs to be addressed because a driveway would not be desirable next to a public road. Commr. Peterson had staff comment on the proposed agreement to have the 17 secondary dwelling units be owner-occupied and commented on the need to provide more affordable housing and a variety of housing types. He noted he would have liked to have more time to review the nine-page letter from Michael Sullivan that was distributed just prior to the beginning of the hearing. Commr. Osborne asked if the ARC's recommended changes to the garages next to the commercial zone are reflected in the tract maps. Associate Planner Mandeville replied yes, the garages are shown.in the back. Chairman Ready questioned the enforceability of the owner occupancy limitation on either the front or back units. There were no further comments/questions and the public comment session was opened. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Dick Komerowski, applicant, described the project design that has been a work in progress since February 2000. With regard to Item 1 of the Planned Development Rezoning component, he explained an alternative that would allow compliance with staffs recommended 35 feet, noting no substantial changes would be necessary to the design of the site plan, but it would involve giving up four granny flat locations in the R-2 area. With regard to the secondary units, the garages could be simply attached and could remain in the rear. 3 .-ray Draft Minutes ATTACHMENT 8 January 10, 2001 Page 3 Nick Deitch, project planner, narrated a PowerPoint presentation, describing the circulation components, the project and three dwelling design aspects, and the buffered internal common area. He noted that granny flats and affordable components would be dispersed throughout the project. Mr. Komerowski commented on the circulation between this project and the Costco project, noting serious concerns with a commercial truck/traffic driveway between the two sites. Commr. Peterson had. Public Works Engineer Kenny review project site circulation ingress and egress. Commr. Whittlesey asked how many affordable units are in the apartment section. Associated Planner Mandeville stated there are seven low- and six moderate-income units in the apartments. There is a,requirement that no more than four be located next to each other. Commr. Cooper asked if DeVaul South would have access to the any community amenity that DeVaul North has. He noted that usable open space is a major concern. Manager Whisenand stated amenities would be linked and open to the public. There will be an access trail into the Irish Hills that will be accessible as well. Chairman Ready asked for comment on the elimination of granny flats. Mr. Komerowski stated that minor adjustments could be made to the layouts and location of property lines to accommodate the granny flats. Commr. Peterson commented on the fencing surrounding the apartment parking lot along Los Osos Valley Road, noting that he does not want to see a "fortress San Luis Obispo" look. Paul Jordan, project landscape architect, continued with the PowerPoint presentation, highlighting the landscape buffer proposed for the area between Los Osos Valley Road and the apartment parking lot. Mr. Komerowski commented further on reworking of the lot layout, noting that in order to meet staffs recommendation of 35-foot lot widths, they have deleted the four granny flats on Lots 19, 30, 31, and 53. Brett Cross, 1217 Mariners Cove, felt that CEQA guidelines have not been followed, specifically regarding the conservation/open space zoning. He spoke against the dirt covered sound wall/berm, the Congdon's Tar Plant habitat, and felt the traffic study was inadequate because of area cumulative impacts. Brian Christianson, 818 Pismo Street, stated it was not his understanding that the DeVaul North project actually had environmental review for the specifics of this project, Draft Minutes ATTACHMENT 8 January 10, 2001 Page 4 and that these environmental impacts have not been reviewed. The legal noticing did not indicate a rezoning to R-1, R-2, or R-3. He commented on the proposed density, noting the General Plan designation cannot be exceeded. He felt that Class 1 traffic impacts will occur, wastewater capacity is inadequate, and building heights will impact views, and that a noise study should be required. He also noted there is no established tar plant habitat, and there were no mitigation measures associated with the negative declaration. He noted the letter submitted by Mr. Sullivan prior to the meeting included his comments as well. Commr. Cooper noted an oversight on page 18 of the Initial Study; that 17a, b, and c were left blank. Manager Whisenand recommended that "less Ahan significant with mitigation incorporated" be indicated for 17a and c and "less than significant" be indicated for 17c. Commr. Peterson had staff comment on Congdon's Tar Plant receiver sites and the DeVaul Ranch North noise study. Commr. Osborne had staff comment on Los Osos Valley Road street widening. Associate Planner Mandeville noted that the DeVaul Ranch .North EIR included the. concept of this site; the idea that there would be a mirrored image so the road would continue and that it was going to be developed with residential development. Chairman Ready asked about the noticing concerns raised by Mr. Christianson. Attorney Trujillo reviewed the public hearing notice and felt that it was sufficient. Michael Sullivan, 1127 Seaward Street, requested postponing the remainder of the hearing because noticing was defective, the 17a-c of the Initial Study were left blank, and because staff told him that it was too late to submit comments to the Planning Commission. He referred to the packet distributed to the Commission prior to the beginning of the hearing and stated the first Initial Study identified no mitigation measures and the second Initial Study identified 13 environmental issues and 40 mitigations measures that were not reviewed by LAFCO. He questioned what pages of the DeVaul Ranch North EIR refer to this project. He felt the environmental analysis for this project is inadequate. The conservations/open space prezoning tactic bypassed LAFCO's consideration of the project, and they only looked at this as a rezone and not as a residential project. Manager Whisenand explained that the Initial Study for this project specifically references the DeVaul North project and other EIRs which is within the requirements of CEQA. LAFCO reviewed the prezoning and the Initial Study noted this area was slated for residential development. Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS: 3 -lad Draft U' ATTACHMENT 8 raft Minutes January 10,2001 Page 5 Commr. Peterson asked for staff comment on items 17a-c being left blank. Attorney Trujillo stated it is the Commission's responsibility to review the mitigated negative declaration and determine whether or not it is complete and adequate and whether or not the mitigation measures proposed are satisfactory. He added that any consideration of the annexation would be inappropriate tonight. Commr. Whittlesey asked for staff comment on the General Plan's expected build out of this area. Manager Whisenand stated the General Plan anticipates 500 units for this area. Commr. Peterson spoke in favor of the granny flats and said he would prefer an exception to the lot widths in order to achieve the granny flats.. Commr. Cooper moved that the applicant shall endeavor to incorporate more granny flats while maintaining 35-foot lot widths. Commr. Whittlesey seconded the motion. AYES: Commrs. Cooper, Whittlesey, Osborne, Peterson and Chairman Ready NOES: None REFRAIN: None The motion carried 5-0. Commrs. Aiken and Loh were absent. Commr. Peterson moved to approve Condition 2 page 5 Rear Yard Landscaping in R- 1-PF Zone as recommended by staff. Commr. Cooper seconded the motion. AYES: Commrs. Peterson, Cooper, Osborne, Whittlesey, and Chairman Ready NOES: None REFRAIN: None The motion carried 5-0. Commrs. Aiken and Loh were absent. Commr. Peterson moved to include Condition 3, page 5, Parking and Driveway Standards as recommended by staff. Commr. Cooper seconded the motion AYES: Commrs. Peterson, Cooper, Osborne, Whittlesey, and Chairman Ready NOES: None REFRAIN: None The motion carried 5-0. Commrs. Aiken and Loh were absent. Commr. Osborne moved to allow the 158 parking spaces based on the Finding 3, that it provides more affordable housing than would be . possible with conventional development. Commr. Peterson seconded the motion. AYES: Commrs. Osborne, Peterson, Whittlesey, Peterson, and Chairman Ready NOES: None REFRAIN: None 3;T� Draft Minutes January 10,2001 ATTACHMENT 8 Page 6 The motion carried 5-0. Commrs. Aiken and Loh were absent. Commr. Cooper moved to recommend that this prosect share a driveway with DeVaul North proiect with the potential benefit of additional landscaping and parking. Commr.. Peterson seconded the motion. AYES: Commrs. Cooper, Peterson, Whittlesey, Osborne, and Chairman Ready NOES: None REFRAIN: None The motion carried 5-0. Commrs. Aiken and Loh were absent. Commr. Peterson moved to approve Condition 6, page 5, as recommended by staff. Commr. Cooper seconded the motion.. AYES: Commrs. Peterson, Cooper, Whittlesey, Osborne, and Chairman Ready NOES: None REFRAIN: None The motion carried 5-0. Commrs. Aiken and Loh were absent. Commr. Peterson moved to include Condition.7, page 5, as proposed by staff, with the five-foot side yard setback including on the.-comer lots, deleting the second sentence of the condition. Commr. Osborne seconded the motion. AYES: Commrs. Peterson, Osborne, Cooper, Whittlesey, and Chairman Ready NOES: None REFRAIN: None The motion carried 5-0. Commrs. Aiken and Loh were absent. Commr. Cooper .moved to approve Condition 8, page 5, as recommended by staff, including a landscaped median along LOVR. Commr. Osborne seconded the motion. AYES: Commrs. Cooper, Osborne, Whittlesey, Peterson, and Chairman Ready NOES: None REFRAIN: None The motion carried. Commr. Aiken and Loh were absent. Commr. Peterson moved to approve Condition 9, page 5, as recommended .by staff. Commr. Cooper seconded the motion. AYES: Commrs. Peterson, Cooper, Whittlesey, Osborne, and Chairman Ready NOES: None REFRAIN: None The motion carried 5-0. Commrs. Aiken and Loh were absent 3 -�a Draft Minutes January 10, 2001 ATTACHMENT f Page 7 Commr. Peterson moved to recommend that a landscaped strip down the middle of the driveway be incorporated Commr. Cooper seconded the motion AYES: Commrs. Peterson, Cooper, Whittlesey, Osborne, and Chairman Ready NOES: None REFRAIN: None The motion carried 5-0. Commrs. Aiken and Loh were absent Commr. Peterson moved to recommend Condition 11 and to include that the applicant should be _required to provide traffic calming measures including bulbouts and stop signs to the maximum extent possible as determined by Public Works and the Community Development Director. Commr. Cooper seconded the motion AYES: Commrs. Peterson, Cooper, Whittlesey, Osborne, and Chairman Ready NOES: None REFRAIN: None The motion carried 5-0. Commrs. Aiken and Loh were absent. Commr. Osborne moved_ to accept the applicant's proposal for affordable housing including the location and dispersal Commr. Cooper seconded the motion . AYES: Commrs. Osborne, Cooper, Whittlesey, Peterson, and Chairman Ready NOES: None REFRAIN: None The motion carried 5-0. Commrs. Aiken and Loh were absent. Commr. Osborne moved to approve Condition 13 page 6 to allow a minimum of 13 and a maximum of 17 attached or detached secondary dwelling units. Commr.- Peterson seconded the motion AYES: Commrs. Osborne, Peterson, Cooper, Whittlesey, and Chairman Ready NOES: None REFRAIN: None The motion carried 5-0. Commrs. Aiken and Loh were absent. There was no motion for Condition 14, page 7. Commr. Cooper moved that this proiect does not require a density bonus Commr. Whittlesey seconded the motion AYES: Commrs. Cooper, Whittlesey, Peterson, Osborne,and Chairman Ready NOES: None REFRAIN: None 3 --7 a q Draft Minutes �ll January 10, 2001 J ATTACHMENT 8 Page 8 The motion carried 5-0. Commrs. Aiken and Loh were absent. Commr. Cooper moved to recommend approval of the Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration as presented by staff, with the following amendments: (1) that 17a indicate "less than significant with mitigation incorporated," (2) 17b indicate "less than significant impact," (3) 17c indicate "less than significant with mitigation incorporated," and (4) with the additional mitigation measures as addressed by the environmental consultants. Commr. Osborne seconded the motion. Commr. Peterson commented on the complexity of this project and felt it should have come forward in a preliminary form for prior Commission review. AYES: Commrs. Cooper, Osborne, Whittlesey, and Chairman Ready NOES: Commr. Peterson REFRAIN: None The motion carried 4-1. Commrs. Aiken and Loh were absent. Commr. Cooper moved to recommend to the City Council that the site be rezoned from C/OS to R-1, R-2, and R-3 with--a Planned Development (PD) Overlay to allow more. variation in the prosect design with_findings and conditions outlined in the staff report, with the deletion of(PD Rezoning) Finding 3, page 9. Commr. Whittlesey seconded the motion. AYES: Commrs. Cooper, Whittlesey, Peterson, Osborne, and Chairman Ready NOES: None REFRAIN: None The motion carried 5-0. Commrs. Aiken and Loh were absent. Commr. Osborne moved to recommend to the City Council that the vesting tentative tract map be approved based upon .findings and subject to conditions and code requirements as listed on pages 8 and 9. Commr. Cooper seconded the motion. AYES: Commrs. Osborne, Cooper, Whittlesey, Peterson, and Chairman Ready NOES: None REFRAIN: None The motion carried 5-0. Commrs. Aiken and Loh were absent. 3 .7 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION STAFF REPORT rrEM a a BY: Peggy Mandeville, Associate Planner MEETING DATE: February 5, 2001 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manag4 FILE NUMBER: ARC 87-00 PROJECT ADDRESS• 11955 Los Osos Valley Road (DeVaul Ranch South) SUBJECT: Review of architecture and site design for the DeVaul Ranch South project; .a proposed 130 unit residential planned development on a 13.6 acre site on the southwest side of Los Osos Valley Road between approved DeVaul Ranch North residential project and Froom Ranch. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Grant final approval to the project effective 30 days after final Council passage of the project's PD rezoning, based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements. BACKGROUND Proiect History In August of last year, the City Council approved the annexation and prezoning of the DeVaul Ranch South site to Conservation/Open Space (C/OS); interim zoning for the property until residential development plans could be processed. The annexation of this property, along with the adjacent Froom Ranch, was approved by the Local Agency Commission (LAFCo) with annexation taking place after substantial construction occurs on the Froom Ranch Home Depot site. On September 5, 2000 the Architectural Review Commission held a study session to review preliminary plans for the site and provide comments/direction to the applicant. The tentative map and PD zoning requests were revised in response to ARC direction and heard by the Planning Commission on January 10, 2001. At the meeting the Planning Commission unanimously recommended City Council approval of the tentative tract map and PD rezoning. The Commission generally liked the project design that has been refined by the applicant in response to staff and Commission comments. Project plans included in Commission packets are the same plans reviewed by the Planning Commission last.month. A separate revised site plan included in Commission packets reflects changes made by the Planning Commission. Site plan reductions attached to this report also reflect the Planning Commission's recommendations. Data Summary Applicant: Jet-Ski Land Development Zoning: Proposed R-1-PD, R-2-PD, R-3 PD General Plan: Medium-Density Residential Environmental Status: Mitigated Negative Declaration recommended by the 3-73 �l� ARC 87-00,DeVaul Ranch South February 5,2001 Architectural Review Commission Report Page 2 Development Review Manager on.November 28, 2000. Project Action Deadline: The proposed rezoning is a legislative act which is not subject to the Permit Streamlining Act processing deadlines. Site Description The 13.6 acre site is located on the south westerly side of Los Osos Valley Road, north westerly of US Highway 101 and south easterly of Madonna Road (see Attachment 1). The rectangular site is bordered by Los Osos Valley Road on the north east and the DeVaul Ranch North site and the Insh Hills to the southwest. The site is relatively flat and covered in row crops. The City approved DeVaul Ranch North project is located to the northwest of the site (see Attachment 2) and the Froom Ranch site which includes a Home Depot is located to the southeast. The proposed Costco site (also within the Froom Ranch site) is located to the immediate southeast (see Attachment 3). A composite drawing showing the approved DeVaul Ranch North development and the proposed Froom Ranch Costco in relation to this project will be available for review at the meeting. Project Description Jet-Ski Land Development has submitted applications to the. City for the subdivision, PD rezoning, architectural review and environmental review. The subdivision would allow the development of 77 apartment units, 19 single family dwellings, 34 duplexes and the potential for 17 secondary dwelling units (see Attachment 4). The PD rezoning would allow for more variation in the project design than normal standards allow (see Attachment 5). The submitted design follows the General Plan Policy 8.10.1 which requires a range of housing types with low density, medium density and medium high density each occupying about one third of the area. Access to the site is provided via a new public street which intersects Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR). Once constructed, access will also be provided from the approved DeVaul Ranch North project via new roadways named Tonini Drive and DeVaul Ranch Road. The project design also locates pedestrian access easements connecting cul-de-sacs "B" and "C" to the DeVaul Ranch North approved cul-de-sacs.. The proposed street design calls for some of the sidewalks to be detached from the curb with a landscaped parkway and some sidewalks directly abut the curb and street which reflects the design approved for the adjacent DeVaul Ranch North project. The architectural design of the single family and duplex homes locate the garages at the rear of the property to address the Commission concerns with the prominence of garages. The apartment design includes eight 2-story structures encircles by double and single loaded parking aisles. A pool and recreation building are located in the center of the apartment project. Building materials consist of stucco siding and composition shingle roofing. Colors and materials will-be available for review at the meeting. 3 -74 �►a ARC 87-00, DeVaul Ranch South February 5,2001 Architectural Review Commission Report Page 3 Previous Architectural Review Commission Comments On September 5, 2000 the Commission offered some general comments about the project (see Attachment 6, ARC minutes and applicant's notes) during a project study session. The comments and applicant response are as follows: 1. Provide a landscaped median at the project entry-included in revised design. 2. Intermix different unit designs and provide some zero foot setbacks for some garages- some revisions have been made. 3. Provide an extensive landscape buffer along LOVR-applicant will address at meeting. 4. Consider providing granny flats over the garages-included in revised design. 5. Maximize density and affordable housing as much as possible-.applicant will address at meeting. 6. Consider a future access point to the adjoining commercial property-Public Works will allow pedestrian access, but no vehicular access. Additionally, vehicular access is discouraged by General Plan Policy LU 3.5.4 which states, " Access to Service and Manufacturing areas should be provided by commercial collector streets; to avoid customer traffic on residential streets or delivery routes which pass through residential areas. " 7. Provide bulb-outs with decorative paving-included in PC recommendation. 8. Provide a buffer from Froom Ranch-applicant will address at meeting. 9. Consider wind and sun orientation when siting buildings- applicant will address at meeting. 10. Provide more of a mix of materials and siding-included in revised design. 11. Consider two dead end alleys with green spaces at the terminus rather that one through alley- applicant considered, but was unable to implement. Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the proposed tentative map and PD zoning with the following conditions related to design (see Attachment 7, PC resolution): 1. Require a minimum 35 foot wide lot width in the R-2-PD zone. 2. Require a minimum 4-foot wide landscape strip between the secondary dwelling unit and the rear property line in the R-1-PD zone to allow adequate room for a plant material buffer between the secondary dwelling unit parking space and the adjoining property. 3. Comply with the City's Parking and Driveway standards. 4. Provide two enclosed parking spaces for each single family and duplex unit; one uncovered parking space for each secondary dwelling unit; and 158 parking spaces for the 77-unit apartment project. 3 -75 ARC 87-00,DeVaul Ranch South February 5,2001 Architectural Review Commission Report Page 4 5. Provide a common driveway aisle between the DeVaul North and DeVaul South apartment projects should the DeVaul Ranch North project be constructed as currently approved. 6. Maintain the following setbacks for the apartment project: Los Osos Valley Road: 5 feet; DeVaul Ranch Road: 10 feet; Tonini Drive: 6 feet. Maintain a minimum 5 foot exterior side yard in the R-1-PD and R-2-PD zones. 7. Provide a common landscaping theme with DeVaul Ranch North along Los Osos Valley Road and within the LOVR median. 8. Provide a Hollywood driveway (a mow strip down the middle of the driveway) in the R-1- PD zone. 9. Include additional traffic calming measures such as bulb-outs and stop signs to the maximum extent possible to the approval of the Public Works, Community Development, and Fire Departments. 10.Provide a minimum of 13 and a maximum of 17 detached or attached secondary dwelling units within the project. EVALUATION Staff generally supports the applicant's proposed architecture and site design for the DeVaul Ranch South project. Staff recommends that the Commission discuss and provide a recommendation on the following components of the project design: 1. Secondary dwelling unit balcony. To provide more usable space and further articulation of the two story building, staff recommends that the balcony of the secondary dwelling unit be enlarged to the length of the garage door below. 2. Garage door designs. Project elevations show some "single unit" garage doors with architectural detailing beyond the standard paneled door. The Commission should consider if the applicant should be required to provide architecturally detailed garage doors as was proposed and required of the adjacent DeVaul Ranch North project. 3. Windows. To ensure the high quality architectural design as shown in the project elevations, staff recommends that all project windows be of architectural grade quality. 4. Mechanical equipment. Staff recommends that all mechanical equipment be screened from view of the public right of way with landscaping and/or architectural treatments compatible with the building design. `iILi ARC 87-00, DeVaul Ranch South February 5,2001 Architectural Review Commission Report Page 5 5. Lot 7. All Plan "B" single family homes are designed to include a secondary dwelling unit with the exception of Lot 7 which is an affordable lot. Staff recommends that Lot 7 also include a secondary dwelling unit if the required parking can be provided. 6. Lot 18 driveway. The driveway for Lot 18 appears wider than necessary for vehicular circulation. Staff recommends that the driveway width be reduced where possible to increase the amount of pervious surface on the lot. 7. Shade trees/palm trees. As a project environmental mitigation measure (see Attachment 7), the applicant is required to plant palm trees to mirror the-existing palms across LOVR and plant shade trees at a rate of not less than one tree/4000 square feet of land. 8. Decorative paving. The ARC may want to consider requiring decorative paving at all of the apartment entry driveways. 9. LOVR frontage landscaping. The ARC should review and take action on the proposed landscaping for the LOVR frontage. The project's Mitigated Negative Declaration calls for the landscaping to screen the parking area from view of the public right of way. Staff recommends that screening be provided through the use of retaining walls, berming and plant materials. 10. Shared driveways south of "E" Street. Lots 19-29 have shared driveways which access garages at the rear of the property. To reduce the amount of paving, staff recommends that the Hollywood driveway be reduced from 28 feet to 12 feet in width at the driveway entry, narrow down from 12 feet to 10 feet between homes and widen to a maximum of 24 feet (30 feet is proposed) between the residences and the garages (see Attachment 8, Driveway graphic). 11.Roof overhangs. For aesthetic and energy conservation purposes, staff recommends that the minimum roof overhang be 2 feet. A similar requirement was placed on the DeVaul Ranch North project. 12. Identical homes. To allow the applicant flexibility with regard to-the .specific location of each home design, staff recommends that the project be conditioned to not allow any two identical building designs/color schemes to locate next to each other. 13.HOA approval. Because this is a planned development, staff recommends that property owners receive HOA approval of any remodels or addition prior to applying for a City building permit. 14. Revised driveways. The applicant's revised site plan locates two new driveways on Street 3 -77 ARC 87-00,DeVaul Ranch South February 5,2001 Architectural Review Commission Report Page 6 "E" for secondary dwelling unit parking and a new driveway cut for Lot 30. Staff recommends that the driveways for the secondary dwelling units be increased in depth so the_parking space will be located outside of the street yard and that the area within the street yard be turf block. Additionally, staff recommends that the exact location of Lot 30 driveway be approved by the Director of Public Works. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Comments from other Departments are included as conditions of approval in the attached Planning Commission resolution. ALTERNATIVES 1. Grant schematic approval with direction on items to return to the Commission with final review of plans. 2. Continue review of the project. Direction should be given to the applicant regarding desired information or needed revisions to plans. 3. Deny the project. Action denying the application should include the basis for denial. RECOMMENDATION Grant final approval to the project effective upon final Council approval of the project's PD rezoning, based on findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings 1. The proposed project complies with property development standards for the R-1-PD, R-2- PD and R-3-PD zones as outlined in the project's PD zoning. 2. The proposed scale and design of the project will be compatible with surrounding residential and commercial uses. 3. The proposed project is consistent with goals contained in the City's Architectural Review Guidelines. Conditions 1. Secondary dwelling unit balconies shall be enlarged to the length of the garage door below. 2. Architecturally detailed garage doors shall be utilized throughout the project. 3. Architectural grade windows shall be utilized throughout.the DeVaul Ranch project. 4. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from the public right of way with landscaping and/or architectural treatments compatible with the building design. 3 -7t ARC 87-00, DeVaul Ranch South . February 5,2001 Architectural Review Commission Report Page 7 5. Lot 7 shall include a secondary" dwelling unit if the required parking can be provided. 6. The driveway width for Lot 18 shall be reduced where possible to increase the amount of pervious surface. .7. Palm trees shall be planted along the LOVR frontage to mirror the existing palms across the street. Shade trees shall be planted at a rate of not less than 1 tree/4000 sq. ft. of land., 8. Decorative paving shall be provided at all apartment entry driveways. 9. LOVR frontage landscaping shall screen the apartment's parking area from view from the public right of way through the use of retaining walls, berms and plant materials. 10.To reduce the amount of paving of Lots 19-29, the proposed driveways shall be reduced from 28 feet to 12 feet at the driveway entry, reduced from 12 feet to 10 feet between the homes, and widened to a maximum of 24 feet between the residences and the garages. 11. A minimum 2-foot overhang shall be provided on all residences. 12. No two identical homes/color schemes shall be located next to each other. 13. Home owners association approval shall be required prior to submittal of a planning or building permit application for a building addition. 14. Driveways on "E" Street which provide parking for the secondary dwelling units shall be increased in depth so the parking space will be located outside of the .street yard and the area within the street yard shall be constructed of turf block.. Additionally, the exact location of Lot 30 driveway shall be approved by the Director of Public Works. Attached: 1. Vicinity map 2. Approved DeVaul Ranch North site plan 3. Proposed Costco site plan 4. Project site plan 5. PD zoning request 6. ARC meeting minutes of September 5, 2000 and applicant meeting notesi 7. Planning Commission resolution (includes project mitigation measures) 8. Hollywood driveway diagram 9. Reduced plans (project plans included in Commission packet) Pmandevi\ARC\ARC 87-00112 i i i 7 MEN "' ri5s Tiiwsr�r��.i � I �� � I® : • I M Q lip- J 1 0) Int`,h m .0 I = m tm it m d 4 '•s D_ 0)' O c c tl � ° c°' ° CLO W V L � I a O C! > '' _n .D —n •b� �o Q LOF ®oe mos I (D'a C_^cam �Qc � a � 9 �a m �r �0 CYO > MZE �o �s r c - o � o ° m ° 0 i Ii � r• � r t� � f{IIr N r �- c co o I.,II u I . �i�'I I I•i ie �� V— C .. o I V/ v t U T m Ioc as » � a gg �� n y 0 tos ou . V J J J 6 3 i C�pCp yF yti #-------4 OC MA o 00 d cro >0 z �� h § m r. C O O , m � O o ' m o L-0 a rag !i I 7-0 — N m o06NOE- IW�-tll o II m C0 P�l1 tm � � 0 — m p u ,III v>V m m _ w T m � oC ° 'oO m U �- - - a f(i'� j� v t Q i �r"Cg oc°' E a 300 3 �vg 0 O'o >O)zoo o at<m 3 '93 so lift . Q . 0 1 1 ° 'i�I V '�i1 C i t i 1 1— c 1i1 0 fill i i, a it a L to cm f _m O coo �1!it � " '1� 1 �..I �• �. ^` p o — a � O J , CCC C C 3 $da �a � mS >mZ ma J Z 3-84 1i i O C O O. i o a 1 t i O ��Fi1 O O N mco O_ V� L cm to IP'� Q C ° a�c �. . Q 9 � Y 4 Q. 0 L Cm Om � . m orm .12 o O J N C C E 3 �0 E > . �c >13)z o No L O�a m 3-S� co a1► r� 0 0 a J 0 0 i m 0(V) O o pi c fj !i 0 0 C f iI O0 a� 1 � u _ a s U �J J od E 3 � 0 gm cr 0 0�m� >O)z o p0 %� J Z t.�.V�IIJENl ,. M 7FyRj -2 S - E N � � p € SF _ m Iji1 o N NN po L.a c i ii n a 5 :IIIb.! r�� c- 1 CL_F }[ 1 j III I i i0 Li I — ro n Y L 0 V J V Q d C3.8 d cco vm92 v)Z O 00131 J _ m 3 - 7aigb I f II I� 4 fll�l i o c I o M Q h��l�l� 0 iIII L 3m CD m U 5 . ° r C n r1 c O o ® finr c mm® I m _. O om — � u L H o 0 LLI" L U 5 1 I� - �. ® � czJ cyt cc oc $ a —3 0.9 �o m oto aDP > OZ o ma m� D. <m 3 -88' a 0 I Cl) mmmm AI I I u ; (D n v_ Cm f0! o 00 �o 0 1�1 I I sees rm I u O w 7 A. 1 I � � N C E . 3 a >O i >MZ o J Z � gq�gq Q 0 n C C O O II O N I1 (D-C u po i d Cho �o O m „ C.cl r i O O i i G C ' M_ G C 6 O O E 0 0 OV u pC O E Ca C = 0 O�mD >CDz o o0 mR zD —a* !V ► Q � m i r C U N m- N I V}/ e H o. �r m �- Wit• Q1 ` 3 c � m C Y 0 m 0 0 — c c 6 0 U N Q� N 0 L' N m m E Cu L DU :r' •� ��-� Com, o a 300 �o$Z m C =o ] C,Z0 mC mH Z� at<m 3-91 iC4: • 1 Mal 3KLL 4A o• cn LLIr • • ui - r I�r I' �i ill • ��!, • 'F 1 • LU ui LU - '. ,_ LLI . � .^ 4 r O • • • U A2 LL rlr CL E 75 • n • n • a • •i 44-4r 4.1 fl rAT aj CM A4, N to Nt AL L.0 . !l Q �z kk,;� RA .. .. ....... vrl v Sc.. L Q. 4i 16� . .......... La ;I ycr 16 .ey O a.i'Y � •// 't M1 L l<t mil/ � 4-�L IT lie -A 1.15Z del 1,V To DEVAUL RANCH SOUTH SUMMARY OF NOTES OF 9;5/00 ARC NILETING Comments Specific to R-I I. Consider moving garages to rear P.L.to increase usable outdoor space . 2. Consider providing granny Mats over garages 3. Consider additional wood siding details at gables&dormers 4. Preference expressed for using stacked cut-stone& inlieu of river rock stone 5. Consider wind and sun orientation when siting buildings 6. Consider more mux of color&materials on stucco surfaces 7. Consider varying frontyard setbacks with porches closer to.sidewalk 8. Culdesac pedestrian linkage to be resolved Comments Specific to R-2 1. Consider intermixing back-to-back duplex units to break symmetry 2. Consider increasing usable private courtyard space by reducing front-yard setbacks 3. -Overall agreement&support for lane/alley. Request was made to consider two dead end alleys with green spaces at the terminus rather than one through alley. 4. Along'E" Street consider zero foot setbacks,at garages to provide additional buffer& screening from Froom Ranch. . 5_ Consider alternative chimney designs Comments Specific to R-3 1. Provide an extensive landscape buffer along LOVR 2. LOVR parkway design to match proposed DeVaul North landscape 3. Consider palm trees along.LOVR to match existing palms 4. Consider possible pedestrian linkage through parking lot onto the LOUR parkway 5. Explore opportunity of using a shared driveway between DeVaul North_ &DeVaul South with shared access onto.LOVR. General Comments 1. Provide a landscaped median at the project entry 2. Provide "open" fencing&landscape buffer along south P.L. ('E'Street) 3. Consider using bulb-outs with decorative paving for traffic calming 4. Consider using period-style lights 5. Maximize density 6. Consider future access point to the adjoining commercial property. 3-9S��15 ARC Minutes September 5, 2000 ATTACHMENT. Page 6 I COMMISSION COMMENTS Commr. Lopes suggested more 2-bedroom duplex units along the south side and reducing the number of driveway cuts. He asked about detached garages. Commr. Schultz suggested a landscaped median at the entry to the project. He asked about the R-1 plan 3 and felt that the laundry and• closet portion o the structure. projected out and didn't fit in. Commr. Rawson suggested intermixing different unit designs in the duplexes and moving some garages to "O° setback and asked about making the most of the open space. He thought this was a great start to the project. Commr. Stevenson asked about the use of materials in Craftsman designs such as shingle or lap siding. Commr. Chandler said that since this is a sensitive site and a rural gateway into the city, the project needs an extensive landscape buffer from Los Osos Valley Road, perhaps 40 feet. Commr. Stevenson asked about the possibility of providing granny flats over the garages. Commr. Metz asked about access from Los Osos Valley Road to the apartments and said she would like to see the cul de sacs connect to the DeVaul Ranch north property. She liked the idea of including granny units and suggested including permeable surfaces Commr. Lopes wanted to maximize density and affordable housing as much as possible. He wanted to explore the idea of extending streets to DeVaul Ranch north and consider a future access point to the adjoining commercial property. He liked the idea of a median at the project entry. He felt that veneers other than river rock would work. He asked about the side and front doors and said that the door may look like the front but may not be. He asked that plans show structures and improvements off-site. He wanted to see more modifications with colors. He felt that the setback from Los Osos Valley Road is not really there and suggested checking the building setback. He asked what was happening along the southerly property line and suggested the idea of placing a window at this location. He suggested that the applicant move the street and eliminate parking to provide more landscaping and design the street for a 25 mph speed limit on curves. He also suggested bulbouts with decorative paving, an option for granny flats over garages, a buffer from Froom Ranch, pervious surfaces and a median at the entry. He suggested that applicant look where people walk. He suggested combining chimneys in the middle of buildings and smaller units and a 10 to 15 foot setback for R-1 units along main street. ARC Minutes September 5, 2000 ATTACHMENT 10 Page 7 Commr. Lopes also suggested that applicant look at wind and sun orientations. He thought that putting the units closer to the street would allow more privacy, and suggested more of a mix of materials and siding. Commr. Stevenson thought that this was a terrific project and a true representation of San Luis Obispo. He liked the alley approach for parking with a green space in the middle. He also liked the single family approach with a studio above the garage. The Commission then thanked the applicant for their efforts in the study session and continued the item for further review to a date uncertain. 4. 1000 Olive Street ARC 75-00; Review of motel a ansion to add 15 new rooms, parking, and related improvements to the Oli Tree Inn; C-T zone; Kirit Patel, applicant. Pam Ricci Peggy Mandeville, Associate Planner, presented t staff report, recommending the Commission grant final approval to the project, ased on findings and subject to conditions which she outlined. The Commission had questions about parki and signage, driveway widths and the color board. Commr. Metz asked about what was ha ening under 5 units. Commr. Stevenson inquired about cess to the trash enclosure and arrangement for parking off-site. The public hearing opened. There were no public comm ts. The public hearing close . COMMISSION COM NTS: Commr. Lopes a ressed concern about the storage, building and the opportunity for noise buffering He was also concerned about the architecture and felt that the elevation on a top right used two different approaches to the architecture (north elevation). felt that there was an opportunity to embellish and liked the vents shown on the col oard. AMENDED INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 87-00 1 . Project Title: DeVaul Ranch South Planned Development 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: Peggy Mandeville, 781-7175 4. Project Location: 11955 Los Osos Valley Road 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Jet-Ski Land 'Development #3, LLC 484 Mobil Ave., Suite 19 Camarillo, CA 93010 6. General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential 7. Zoning: Conservation/Open Space (interim zoning) 8. Description of the Project:. The proposed planned development rezoning from C/OS to R-1-PD, R-2-PD and R-3-PD, subdivision of. the 13.6 acre site into 55 lots, and architectural review would allow the development of 77 apartment units, 19 single family units, 34 duplexes and the potential for 17 secondary dwelling units. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: To the general south is the Froom Ranch. ranchland, farmhouse and outbuildings. County approvals allow the development of a home improvement store at this location. To the general north and west is agricultural land with City approvals for single and multi-family residential development. To the general east is existing single family residential development and a school. 10. Project Entitlements Requested: Vesting tentative map, planned development rezoning and architectural review. 11 . Other public agencies whose approval is required '(e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): Airport Land Use Commission 3 -98' 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 Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services Agricultural Resources Hazards & Hazardous Recreation Materials X X Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation & Traffic X X Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service Systems X X Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Energy and Mineral Population and Housing Resources 0 There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees. The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code.. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial-evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there X will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant' impact(s) or"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attache 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 o NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or Cmr OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 3- 99 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. February 8, 2001 Signature Date Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager Community Development Dir.. Printed Name For 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 Administrators Code. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBIsPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 3-Al) Issues and Supporting Informa.._.t Sources Sources Pott. ,y Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 87-00, Jet-Ski Planned Development Issues with Impact P Mitigation 11955 Los Osos Valley Road Incorporated 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. 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not X limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 8,9 X quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which 2 X would adversely effect day of nighttime views in the area, Views This section of Los Osos Valley Road is identified in the City's Circulation Element as a"road with moderate to high scenic value". The scenic designation is based on the visual quality of the landscape through which the road travels. The high visual quality of the Los Osos Valley Road corridor is generally defined by two primary factors: the unobstructed views of the adjacent hillsides and the rural character of the valley floor. This hig visual quality rating is moderated in areas where views of the hillsides are reduced or wherethe visual integrity of the rural open space has been altered. The project site which is currently in use for crop production is visible from Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR). No structures are located on the site other than perimeter wire fencing. Prominent visual features seen from Lo Osos Valley Road include the site's pasture/agricultural lands in the foreground and the scenic backdrop of the Irish Hills. Introduction of the project features will eliminate the rural elements of the existing view and will create a definite urban appearance. The Land Use and Open Space Elements of the City's General Plan alto for urban development of this and adjoining sites. It is important however, that this development maintain views of the Irish Hills which will soften the impact of interjecting an urban development into a rural landscape It also creates the sense that the project is cognizant of its environment and has taken steps to blend into it surroundings. Previous project approvals on either side of this property (DeVaul Ranch North and Froom Ranch) will alter the existing rural character of the area. Likewise, the widening Los Osos Valley Road (required by the Froom an DeVaul Ranch North projects) will also alter this rural image. Although the visual characteristics of the area will further change with the development of this project, given the scale of this project and the fact that it i located between two developing properties, the project will not result in a significant impact to the visual quality of the area. Along Los Osos Valley Road, the visibility of the proposed apartments as well as the view of the Irish Hills will depend on the plant materials selected, the width of the landscape area and the final landscape design. A wel planned and effective berm and landscape strip may not be possible given the limited space shown on project plans. This impact is potentially significant unless the width of the landscape strip is increased, or the applicant demonstrates that the proposed strip can effectively screen the project and improve the visual qualit of the site and surrounding area. Additionally, coordination with the DeVaul Ranch North landscape plan an the inclusion of palm trees in the landscape plan will provide a continuation of the existing landscape patter along LOVR and helps to integrate the project into the area. �i CITY OF SAN Luis Oaispo 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 3 -101 Issues and Supporting Informa.bn Sources Sources eotL_ .1Y Less Than Less Than No Significant_ Significant Significant Impact ER 87-00, Jet-Ski Planned Development Issues with Impact P Mitigation 11955 Los Osos Valley Road Incorporated Generally, landscaping which is sufficiently dense and tall to screen completely the proposed apartments coul also limit the ridgeline views of the hills. To mitigate this potential impact, the applicant should be required t submit a detailed landscaping plan for City review and approval. The plan should identify evergreen an deciduous plant materials, the horizontal and.vertical limits of plantings, the materials used to screen the apartments and parking areas, but not hinder views of the hills. The project's southeasterly boundary will be in full view from LOVR since minimal screening is proposed along this boundary.. Development of the adjacent parcel may eventually screen the site and reduce its exposure however there is no guarantee adjacent screening will be adequate. Failure to screen this view could b considered a potentially significant impact. To mitigate this potential impact, the applicant should submit detailed landscape plan for this area for City review and approval. Maintaining a two-story height limit for the apartments will retain ridgeline views of the Irish Hills. Although the apartments will block lower elevation views of the hills, maintaining the upper views helps preserve the imagery that a rural and urban interface exists. Additionally, the applicant's proposal to locate public art at th project's Los Osos Valley Road frontage may help make the site more visually appealing and interesting. Light and Glare To ensure project lighting does not create any negative aesthetic impacts, proposed lighting should be reviewe and approved by the City for compliance with City standards. CONCLUSION: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measures: 1. Provide a landscape buffer along LOVR and along the south side of the property boundary abutting Froom Ranch. 2. Plant palm trees to mirror the existing palms across LOVR. 3. Coordinate landscape plans for the property with plans submitted for the adjacent DeVaul Ranch North and Froom Ranch. 4. Incorporate landscaping elements including decorative paving, walls, and fencing. 5. Install public art at the project's LOVR entry. 6. Create a "maintenance association" to facilitate long term care of landscaping. 7. Eliminate on-street parking on DeVaul Ranch Road between LOVR and Tonini Drive. 8. Design the detention basin to appear as a naturally occurring feature and revegetate the perimeter wit native plants and trees to further reduce its engineered appearance. 9. Limit the height of the three apartment buildings closest to LOVR to 26 feet in height. These building heights shall be considered maximum unless during the architectural review process the applicant ca demonstrate through the site plan and architectural design that views of the upper portions of the Iris Hills will not be blocked. 10. Screen from view any necessary water pumps, valves, backflow preventers, and service cabinets. 11. Design the detention basin so it does not require fencing. 12. Submit a detailed landscaping plan for the LOVR project frontage and the southern edge of the propert abutting the Froom Ranch property for review and approval by the City. The plan shall identify evergreen and deciduous plant materials, retaining walls, earth mounding, the horizontal and vertica limits of plantings, and other materials used to effectively screen the parking areas and soften the views of the development, but not hinder views of the hills. 13. Exterior lighting shall be directed downward and not spill onto adjoining properties. The maximum height of lighting equipment and supporting structures, including fixtures, standard and base, shall no be higher than 20 feet above the finished grade. Lighting levels measured at finished grade direct) beneath the fixture shall not exceed 10 footcandles. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 3 -/D a Issues and Supporting Informal,. o Sources Sources Polc_ _ty Less Than Less Than No _ Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact P ER 87-00, Jet-Ski Planned Development Issues Mitigation 11955 Los Osos Valley Road Incorporated 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of 6,10, X Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps 16 pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, X due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? The 13.6 acre site is identified as having prime agricultural soils based on the 1984 USDA Soils Conservation Service Survey. The soil is well suited for vegetable crops, dryland farming and pasture, however, crop production is greatly reduced during the winter unless surface and subsurface drainage systems are installed For agricultural production, it has a capability of Class IIs-5 when irrigated. This means the soil has moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or requires moderate conservation practices. The site has been used for grazing and periodically for field crops. The County Agricultural Commissioner has determined that development of the propertywould not result in significant agricultural resource issues (letter dated 9/5/00 from Robert Hopkins to Paul Hood). The City's General Plan and Zoning Regulations designate the site for residential development. Additionally, 269-unit residential development has been approved on the property to the immediate northwest and a Home Depot home improvement store has been approved to the southeast leaving a limited area available fo agricultural production and the potential for land use conflicts should the agricultural production continue at location surrounded by urbanized development. Finally, it is generally recognized that there are agricultura benefits with locating residential suburbs within existing urban areas versus locating these uses further out i the rural areas with the accompanying set of problems for agriculture. The site is not within a Williamson Act preserve. Therefore, no conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract will result. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. Because the intent of the City's General Plan is to eventually convert the property to residential uses, this project is not considered a significant impact. In addition, the City Council, i adopting the Land Use Element EIR, recognized the loss of agricultural land on this property and adopted statement of overriding considerations. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially 4,8, X to an existing or projected air quality violation? 17 b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable 4,17 X air quality plan? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number X of people? e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any 4,8 X criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? The project's impact to air quality will be from several different sources. Construction related emissions suc CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 3 - CD3 Issues and Supporting Informal,,o Sources Sources Pote.. _ .y Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 87-00, Jet-Ski Planned Development Issues With Impact Mitigation 11955 Los Osos Valley Road Incorporated as dust from grading will contribute to short termair quality impacts. Vehicular or mobile source emissions will incrementally degrade regional air quality as a result of trips to and from the project site. Emissions from various household sources will also incrementally degrade regional air quality over a long period of time. Short-term Impacts During project construction of future development, there will be increased levels of fugitive dust associate with construction and grading activities, as well as construction emissions associated with heavy-duty construction equipment. Compliance with the dust management practices contained in Municipal Code Sectio 15.04.040 X. (Sec. 3307.2) will adequately mitigate short-term impacts. Long-Term Impacts San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State ozone and PM,, (fine particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter) air quality standards. State law requires that emissions of non-attainment pollutants and their precursors be reduced by at least 5% per year until the standards are attained. The 199 Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County was developed and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) to meet that requirement. The CAP is a comprehensive planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor vehicle use. Land Use Element Policy 1..18.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan. Motor vehicles account for about 40% of the precursor emissions responsible for ozone formation, and are als a significant source of PM,o. Thus, a major requirement in the CAP is the implementation of transportation control measures designed to reduce motor vehicle trips and miles traveled by local residents. The APC recommends that site development include mitigation measures to encourage transportation alternatives to th single occupant vehicle and make the project attractive to bicyclists and pedestrians. CONCLUSION: Less than.significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measures: 14. All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered with non-potable water to prevent excessive amounts of dust. During the time period in which grading will occur, watering shall occur a least twice daily including weekends with complete coverage, preferably in the late morning and after work is finished for the day. 15.All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavating activities shall cease during periods of high wind (greater than 15 mph averaged over one hour) to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 16. If soil materials are transported on or off-site, they shall either be sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust., 17. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initia grading shall be sown with fast germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation become established. 18.All disturbed areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by APCD. 19. On-site vehicle speed during construction shall be limited to 15 mph for any unpaved surface. 20.All unpaved areas with vehicle traffic shall be watered at least twice per day including weekends, using non-potable water. 21.Wheel washers shall be installed where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads and streets, or provision shall be made to wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. 22. Prior to issuing occupancy permits for each single family residence, shade trees shall be planted at rate of not less than 1 tree/4000 s.f. of land. The trees shall be planted to provide shading of the residence in the summer so as to reduce air conditioning requirements and fossil fuel use. 23. Residences shall be equipped with solar-assisted water heaters or similar energy conserving featur CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 -ID4 Issues and Supporting Informatwn Sources Sources Potei.__,y Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 87-00, Jet-Ski Planned Development Issues with Impact P Mitigation 11955 Los Osos Valley Road I Incorporated consistent with City policies and programs at the time of construction. One method would be to increase wall and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements. 24. Bicycle lockers shall be included in the design of the apartment project. 25.Parking for the apartment project shall accommodate electric vehicles. 26.Site preparation activities (major earthwork) shall be scheduled to occur consecutively, rather tha simultaneously with the neighboring projects to the north and south. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or 1 X indirectly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat 12,8, X or other sensitive natural community identified in local or 9 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 1 X biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (e.g. Heritage Trees)? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native 9 X resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat X Conservation 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? Animals No federal or state-listed wildlife species have been located or are expected to occur on the project site Typical wildlife expected to utilize the site include common birds and mammals adapted to human disturbance Wildlife observed on the site include the red-winged blackbird, red-tailed hawk, mourning dove, turkey vulture jackrabbit, and California ground squirrel. Plants The site is presently is use for agricultural production. In 1997, Dr. VL Holland observed at least one live Congdon's tarplant and scattered dry individuals of Congdon's tarplant in the site's fallow agricultural fields. I surveys conducted in 1998, 1999 and 2000, the Congdon's tarplant was common along the fenceline and dir roads of the agricultural fields. While most of the 13.6 acre site is in row crops, the occurrence of Congdon' tarplant along the fencelines and roadsides indicate that the site and surrounding area are historical an potential habitat for this species. In 1998, the City Council amended the City's Open Space Element to allow for on-site and off-site protection of plant species on the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) List 1B and 2 when no practical alternative exists (see Attachment 5, Definition of practicable alternative). The Congdon's tarplant is one of the plant CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo a INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2000 *3-IDG Issues and Supporting Informat�o Sources Sources rote. .y Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 87-00, Jet-Ski Planned Development issues with Impact P Mitigation 11955 Los Osos Valley Road Incorporated identified on the CNPS's list (see Attachment 6, Tarplant location map). In this particular case, no practical alternative exists on-site and therefore off-site mitigation is recommended. This approach would protect the plant through an off-site mitigation program and maintain the General Plan's capacity for housing. CONCLUSION: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measures: 27.At the applicant's expense, a restoration and transplanting plan shall be prepared by a qualified plan restoration ecologist. The plan shall identify the location of a suitable site or sites in an open space are off-site (possibly at the City's wastewater treatment plant) where a colony of Congdon's tarplant (Hemizonia parryi ssp. Congdonii) can be established. The restoration plan shall identify the number o plants to be replanted and the methods which will be used to preserve this species in this location. Th plan shall also include a monitoring program so that the success of the effort can be monitored yearly ove a three- to five-year period. The restoration effort shall be coordinated with the California Department o Fish and Game, the US Wildlife Service, the California Native Plant Society, and the City of San Luis Obispo. Any federal, state or local permits required to commence such a program will be acquired an implemented by the applicant. .The mitigation plan shall include the provision for replacement of habitat t the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager and the City Council should the initial mitigation program be unsuccessful within five years. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X a historic resource? (See CE(2A Guidelines 15064.5) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of 11 X an archeological resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 8,9 X resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred 8,9 X outside of formal cemeteries? An archival search identified several archaeological sites in the vicinity, but noton the subject property. Likewise, a surface survey did not find any signs of prehistoric cultural materials. Based on the surface survey and records search, the property is not likely to have a significant adverse impact on prehistoric cultural resources. CONCLUSION: Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures: 28. If any previously undiscovered prehistoric cultural material or buried concentrations of historic cultura materials are discovered during any construction activities, all activities that may disrupt those material shall cease and the Community Development Director shall be notified immediately of the discovery o archaeological materials. Under most circumstances, the applicant will be directed to retain a qualifie archaeologist to immediately visti the site, evaluate the materials recovered, and consult with the Directo to determine the appropriate course of action. Under the direction of the archaeologist, a mitigation pla shall be developed and approved by the City pursuant to the City's Archaeological Resource Preservatio Guidelines. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 1 X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient 1 X manner? CIT/OF SAN Luis Obispo 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKusT 2000 3 -/D Issues and Supporting Informatiun Sources sources Potee.._,y Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 87-00, Jet-Ski Planned Development Issues with Impact P Mitigation 11955 Los Osos Valley Road Incorporated c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 1 X resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? The Energy Element states that, "New development will be encouraged to minimize the use of conventional energy for space heating and cooling, water heating, and illumination by means of proper design an orientation, including the provision and protection of solar exposure." The City implements energy conservation goals through enforcement of the California Energy Code which establishes energy conservatio standards for residential and nonresidential construction. Any development of the site must meet those standards. The City also implements energy conservation goals through architectural review. Project designer are asked to show how a project makes maximum use of passive solar energy by means of reducing conventional energy demand, as opposed to relying on mechanical systems to maintain comfort. CONCLUSION: No impact, as any development must comply with City established energy conservation standards and all applicable state requirements. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: 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 7 X the 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? Il. Strong seismic ground shaking? 7 X III. Seismic related ground-failure, including liquefaction? 7 X IV. Landslides or mudflows? 7 X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 7 X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or 7 X that would become unstable as a result of the project, anc potentially result in on or off site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidance, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B o• 13 X the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKUST 2000 3-/D7 Issues and Supporting Informal,...[ Sources Sources Pott ,;y Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 87-00, Jet-Ski Planned Development Issues with Impact P Mitigation 11955 Los Osos Valley Road Incorporated Faulting The closest mapped active fault is the Los Osos Fault zone, which extends to within about 0.75 mile and i northwest of the site. Other active faults in the region include the San Simeon-Hosgri fault zone, locate approximately 12 miles to the west, the San Andreas fault zone about 30 miles to the northeast, and the Nacimiento fault approximately 12 miles to the northeast. A fault investigation was performed on the DeVaul Ranch North property in June, 1998. Theinvestigation revealed a trace fault within the Los Osos fault zone in the designated open space area. The investigatio concluded that the property contained no mapped faults, nor was evidence of active faulting found, within 5 feet of any proposed residential lots. An Engineering Geology Investigation was completed and a subsurface fault investigation conducted by the applicant's consultants for the DeVaul South property. A 510-foot long trench was excavated approximate) 15 feet deep and no evidence of faulting was discovered within the trench. Routine development conditions, engineering, and construction procedures are measures which will mitigate any potential seismic impacts to less than significant level. Soils Results from the subsurface investigation show that soils are generally expansive, of low plasticity, relative) dense, moist to very moist with a moisture content greater than 40 percent, and have a high cohesion. Sit soils are generally lean clays with groundwater at approximately 25 feet below ground surface. Assuming th recommendations of the soil engineering report are implemented, the potential for seismically induce settlement and differential settlement is considered to be low. Review of plans by a geotechnical engineer wil ensure compliance with required codes. The potential for grading and erosion impacts, while always present, is not likely to be disproportionately large or unique at this location. Cumulative grading and erosion impacts can be mitigated through continued projec review and the application of City required erosion control measures. CONCLUSION: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measures: 29. The designs of all foundations, curbs, and other structures shall be reviewed bya geotechnical engineer to ensure they are compatible with the soil properties and conditions on the site, consistent with standards of the Building Codes. S. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1 X environment though the routine use, transport or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1 X 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 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 X hazardous emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of X CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 3 -/ate Issues and Supporting Informativtl Sources Sources Potet,. .y Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 87-00, Jet-Ski Planned Development Issues with Impact p Mitigation 11955 Los Osos Valley Road Incorporated hazardous 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 5 X within 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 1 X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose, 1 X injury, or death, involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? The site does not contain any known hazardous substances and is not located in an area of high risk. The site is within Airport Land Use Zone 6, Other Land in Planning Area. Residential development is "compatible" use within Area 6. Because the site is within an area where airplanes are known to fly, safety and noise can be issues. The Airport Land Use Commission reviewed the applicant's request to annex this property for residential development and recommended approval of the residential development with condition called out in the Airport Plan as well as notification of potential residents of the site's proximity to the airport and possible flight overpath impacts. See the Transportation section of this initial study for airport relate mitigation measures. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (eg. The production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the 14 X capacity of existing or planned storm-water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site 14 X or 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 14 X or area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding onsite or offsite? f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as 14 X mapped on 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 14T I I X which would impede or redirect flood flows? CITY OF SAN LUIS OatsPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 3 -i a9' Issues and Supporting Informativn Sources Sources Potem.-ddy Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 87-00, Jet-Ski Planned Development Issues with Impact P Mitigation 11955 Los Osos Valley Road Incorporated h) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1 X The City's plans and ordinances for minimizing flood damage are based on anticipated flooding from a 100-yea storm. All new construction must be designed so that the lowest floor of all residences is at least one foo above the 100-year flood elevation. Furthermore, all improvements must be designed in a way that accommodates drainage and does not contribute to flooding in downstream areas. In conjunction with City- wide programs to maintain drainage channels and minimize flood hazards, these measures reduce the cumulative potential for flooding impacts. Potential increases in storm runoff from new development along this section of Los Osos Valley Road are avoided on a project-by-project basis through the design and construction of detention basins and othe drainage improvements in individual developments. With the proposed improvements, estimated discharges ar less than pre-development conditions which demonstrate that the design can maintain peak flows at or belo their current levels and not contribute to downstream flooding or impede the design of other drainag improvements in future developments. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. Increases in surface runoff represent a potentially significant impact, bu improvements required of any development in the City will mitigate this impact to a less than significant level. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulatior 1 X of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted fo the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmenta effect? b) Physically divide an established community? 1 X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan o 1 X natural community conservation plans? The City's General Plan applies a designation of Medium Density Residential (12 du/ac) to the site. The proposed DeVaul Ranch South project proposes 130 dwelling units on a 13.6 acre site resulting in a density o 9.5 du/ac. complying with the densities called for in the General Plan. The project also complies with the following General Plan policies: LU 1.13.4: Development and Services Actual development in an annexed area may be approved only when adequate City services can be provided fo that development, without reducing the level of services or increasing the cost of services for existing development and for build-out within the City limits as of July 1994, in accordance with the City's water management policies. Water for development in an annexed area may be made available by any one or an combination of the following: A) City water supply, including reclaimed water, B/ Reducing usage of City water in existing development so that there will be no net increase in long-ter water usage; C1 Private well water, but only as an interim source, pending availability of an approved addition to City wate sources, and when it is demonstrated that use of the well water will not diminish the City's municipa groundwater supply. The City currently has adequate water treatment capacity for build-out of the DeVaul Ranch project and ha planned capacity upgrades to meet the needs of full build-out under the General Plan. Development impar fees reimburse the City's water fund for capital expenses required to ensure that new development funds it fair share of the cost of developing additional water supplies. Until the City obtains a supplemental source o supply, new development must retrofit to offset twice its expected water use before construction can begin Phased development of the DeVaul Ranch will proceed with a combination of water offsets, reclaimed water and on-site well water. Compliance with the provisions of the Water Allocation Regulations and the paymen CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPo 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 3 - // D Issues and Supporting Informat in Sources Sources Poteii��ally Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues With Impact ER 87-00, Jet-Ski Planned Development Mitigation 11955 Los Osos Valley Road Incorporated of water impact fees will adequately mitigate the effects of increased water demand. LU 2.1.5: Neighborhood Connections All areas should have a street and sidewalk pattern that promotes neighborhood and community cohesiveness There should be continuous sidewalks or paths of adequate width, connecting neighborhoods with each othe and with public and commercial services to provide continuous pedestrian paths throughout the City. The DeVaul Ranch project has been designed with pedestrian and vehicular connections to adjacent propertie thereby complying with this policy. LU 2.2.2: Separation and Buffering Residential areas should be separated or screened from incompatible, nonresidential activities, including most commercial and manufacturing businesses, traffic arteries, the freeway, and the railroad. Residential area should be protected from encroachment by detrimental commercial and industrial activities. Screening and buffering of the neighboring commercial development on Froom Ranch will be addressed throug the architectural review process. LU 2.2.12: Residential Project Objectives Residential projects should provide: a. Privacy, for occupants and neighbors of the project, b. Adequate usable outdoor area, sheltered from noise and prevailing winds, and oriented t receive light and sunshine c. Use of natural ventilation, sunlight, and shade to make indoor and outdoor spaces comfortabl with minimum mechanical support; OF. Pleasant views from and toward the project,• e. Security and safety; f. Separate paths for vehicles and for people, and bike paths along collector streets; g. Adequate parking and storage space; h_. Noise and visual separation from adjacent roads and commercial uses. (Barrier walls, isolating project, are not desirable. Noise mitigation walls may be used only when there is no practicable alternative. Where walls are used, they should help create an attractive pedestrian, residentia setting through features such as setbacks, changes in alignment, detail and texture, places fol people to walk through them at regular intervals, and planting). i. Design elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction, such as front porches, front yard along streets, and entryways facing public walkways. j. Buffers from hazardous materials transport routes, as recommended by the City Fire Department. As part.of the architectural review process, the project will be evaluated for compliance with the policy. LU 8.10.1: Medium Density Residential Development About 38 acres northerly from the vicinity of the Garcia Drive intersection is designated Medium Density Residential. This area may accommodate about 500 dwellings. There should be a range of housing types with low-density, medium density, and medium-high density development each occupying about one third o the area. The DeVaul Ranch project complies with this policy by providing a range of housing types and a total of 13 dwelling units. Together with the previously approved DeVaul Ranch North project, the area will provid CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 3 -111 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources PotentiallyLess Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues With Impact ER 87-00, Jet-Ski Planned Development Mitigation 11955 Los Osos Valley Road Incorporated approximately 400 dwelling units. CONCLUSION: No impact because the project is in compliance with the City's General Plan. 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of people to or generation of "unacceptable" 1,8,9 X noise 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 8 X in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive 8 X groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels? d) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or 5 X within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The most significant short term noise source is noise related to the construction activity. Because the construction will occur over several years, it is a potentially significant impact, however mitigation measure are available to reduce the potential impact to a less than significant level. The most significant long-term noise source in the vicinity is traffic related noise along LOVR. Increases i traffic will incrementally increase noise along LOVR. The City's Noise Element includes a land use compatibility table to identify acceptable levels of noise exposure for different types of land uses. For residentia development, the maximum allowable noise exposure for transportation-related noise sources is 60 dB Ldn fol outdoor activity areas and 45 dB Ldn for interior spaces. According to the General Plan Noise Element, a portion of the apartments that front Los Osos Valley Road appear to extend into an area that exceeds acceptable noise limits for residential uses. Compliance with the City's Noise Element will reduce any long term noise impacts to a less than significant level.Compliance must be demonstrated prior to the issuance of a building permit. Airplane noise is also identified as a transportation noise source which could impact the site. The Airport Lan Use Commission reviewed the applicant's request to annex this property for residential development an recommended approval with conditions called out in the Airport Plan as well as notification of potentia residents of the site's proximity to the airport and possible flight overpath impacts. CONCLUSION: Less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. Mitigation Measures: 30. All project related construction activity shall occur between 7 am and 7pm Monday through Saturday, wit no activities occurring on Sunday or holidays.City noise regulations related to construction activities shall be posted on site and made available to all contractors and sub-contractors. 31. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstratecompliance with the City Noise Element through the preparation of a noise analysis for the apartment portion ofthe Planned Development. 32. The developer and/or property manager shall disclose to all perspective and actual Leasee/Renters that th subject property is in an airport flight traffic zone and possible noise impacts may occur. This disclosure shall be part of any sales or rental agreements which are signed by the owner or renter. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 3 -//;k Issues and Supporting Informatci Sources Sources Potenhratly Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 87-00, Jet-Ski Planned Development Issues with Impact P Mitigation 11955 Los Osos Valley Road Incorporated a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, eithe 1 X directly (for example by proposing new homes of businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extensior of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people 1 X necessitating the construction of replacement housint elsewhere? The project proposes to build 19 single family units, 34 duplex units, the potential for 17 secondary dwelling units, and 77 apartment units. City policy requires payment of in lieu fees or the provision of 5% of these units to be affordable to persons with low incomes and 10% of these units to be affordable to persons with moderate incomes as defined by the City's Housing Element. The applicantproposes to provide these units on- site, therefore complying with the General Plan policy. Housing Element Policy H 4.2.1 requires affordable housing to be intermixed within the project itself rather than segregated into separate enclaves. Through the tentative map and architectural review process, the project will be evaluated for compliance with this policy. CONCLUSION: Less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. Mitigation Measures: 33. To maintain consistency with policy H 4.2.1 of the Housing Element, the amount of and the specific location of inclusionary housing units should be identified with the consideration of the tentative tract ma and approved only if found to be consistent with the City's requirements which includes intermixing the units within the project. 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? 1 X b) Police protection? 1 X c) Schools? 1 X d) Parks? 1 X e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? 1 X f) Other public facilities? 1 X Police and fire protection services are available to serve the site. The City expects that service demands will increase in proportion to the amount of new development, and that the increase will be at a gradual pace ove several years. The school districts in the state are separate governing bodies with authority to collect fees to finance schoo construction and parcel acquisition. Section 65995 of the Government Code prohibits the City from denying subdivision or collecting any fees beyond those required by the school district itself, to mitigate effects o inadequate school facilities. Any effect that this project will have on school facilities will be mitigated in whole or in part by the district's per-square-footage fees, charged at the time of building permit issuance of each dwelling unit. A neighborhood park to serve the development will be provided on the adjoining DeVaul Ranch site via a 3-acr park. The park will be constructed prior to the occupancy of the DeVaul Ranch North property which ha approvals for 269 dwelling units. The existing 435-acre Laguna Lake Community Park will also be available t residents of this project. Additionally, the project applicants are required to provide parkland or pay park in liel. fees as a condition of any development approvals. CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 3 -113 . Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues With Impact ER 87-00, Jet-Ski Planned Development Mitigation 11955 Los Osos Valley Road Incorporated As a condition of any development approvals, the applicants are required to widen and improve Los Oso Valley Road between Madonna Road and Calle Joaquin and pay their fair share of numerous off-site roadway improvements. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. 14. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional park: 1 X or 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 1 X expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? See discussion above under Public Services section. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation 1,8,9 X to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of 8 X service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways? c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features (e.g. 1 X sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1 X e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? 2 X f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative 1 X transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport 5 X Land Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards, noise, or a change in air traffic patterns? The EIRs for the DeVaul Ranch North and Froom Ranch projects included traffic studies that considered th development of this property in the traffic analysis. Twelve intersections were studied and projections for project impacts at 10-year and buildout were formulated and mitigation measures developed. Specifically, prior to the occupancy of any development, the developers are required to dedicate and improve sufficient right o way along the project's Los Osos Valley Rd. frontage to accommodate the City and County adopted stree section to include six (ultimate) travel lanes, median island, bike lanes, sidewalk, bus turnout, landscape parkway and parking (adjacent to the developed properties, southeasterly of Auto Park Way), generally a depicted on improvement plans prepared by Central Coast Engineering. The dedication varies from 63 ft. wid along the northeasterly 800 feet (+/-) of the annexation area, tapering to the southeast to meet the existin right of way line near the intersection of Calle Joaquin. Offsite dedication to the southeast may be required to provide project specific mitigation of four lanes of traffic between Madonna Rd. and Calle Joaquin, consistent with the County-approved Eagle Hardware/Madonn project - D970143D. The traffic signal.shall be relocated to the intersection of the proposed new onsite street, per the tentative minor subdivision map. (M.S. SLO 00-041). Additionally, the developers are required to pay their fair share of the following improvements: CITy OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 3 -1/� Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potennittly Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 87-00, Jet-Ski Planned Development Issues with Impact p Mitigation 11955 Los Osos Valley Road Incorporated • Madonna/U.S. 101 intersection improvements • LOVR/U.S. 101 intersection improvements • LOVR/Calle Joaquin intersection signalization • LOVR widening between South Higuera Street and U.S. 101 Details of these improvements can be found in the Traffic and Circulation sections of the County approve Eagle Hardware EIR and City approved DeVaul Ranch Planned Development EIR. The Airport Land Use Commission reviewed the applicant's request to annex this property for residential development and recommended approval of residential development at this location with conditions called ou in the Airport Plan as well as notification of potential residents of the site's proximity to the airport and possible flight overpath impacts (see additional mitigation measures called out in Section 11). CONCLUSION: Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures: 34. The project shall comply with the mitigation measures established for the DeVaul Ranch North project a outlined in the DeVaul Ranch North Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program. 35. Soundproofing shall be added to reduce indoor noise from airport operations, where required by the City' Noise Element and the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan. 36. Grant an avigation easement for the protection of the San Luis Obispo County Airport, the City of San Luis Obispo, and the County of San Luis Obispo. 37. All project occupants and land uses shall comply with the compatible land use matrix of the San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan. 38. All exterior lighting shall be shielded down-lights that do not shine skyward or interfere with aircraft flight or aircraft operations. Search-lights and strobe lights shall be prohibited. 39. The applicant shall dedicate 63 feet of right of way or as otherwise required by the City andmake ultimate improvements to LOVR along the project's proposed frontage. 40. To mitigate potentially significant impacts of excessive speed on the project's residential streets, traffic calming measures shall be included as a condition of the subdivision plans. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the 15 X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new 1,15 X water treatment, wasterwater treatment, or storm drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the 15 X project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and expanded water resources needed? d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment 15 X provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demanc and addition to the provider's existing commitment? �r CITY OF SAN LUIS OsisPO 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNECKLIsT 2000 3 - I1 S Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less ThanNo Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 87-00, Jet-Ski Planned Development Issues with Impact P Mitigation 11955 Los Osos Valley Road Incorporated e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity 3 X to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and 3 X regulations related to solid waste? See the Land Use and Planning section above for information regarding the City's water supplies. Wastewater The City will provide wastewater collection and treatment services for the project. The wastewater treatment capacity required to serve development in the Irish Hills area will be provided by adding planned modules at th existing Water Reclamation Facility, funded through developer contributions and development impact fees. The City's wastewater collection system will be extended into the site as development occurs. Service extensions will be paid for by the development. A portion of the existing collection system may require up- sizing in order to accommodate the additional flows from the development. Any needed augmentation of th existing system, will be the responsibility of the developer. Wastewater from the site will ultimately flow to the Howard Johnson and Laguna Lift Stations, which are currently at or very near capacity. The Laguna Lift Station replacement project is currently under construction The new Laguna Lift Station is expected to be completed prior to occupancy of the proposed development The Howard Johnson Lift Station will also require replacement within the next several years. Although it i reaching the end of its service life, the Howard Johnson Lift Station has capacity available to serve the proposed development. The City's draft Wastewater Facilities Master Plan has tentatively scheduled the replacement of the Howard Johnson Lift Station between 2005 and 2009. The developer is required to pay for their share of the additional capacity at the Water Reclamation Facility, as well as the two lift stations. Based on the proposed development of 18 single-family and 109 multi-family units, the total of these costs is $68,397. This will be collected with the Water and Sewer Impact Fees at the time building permits are issued. Solid Waste Solid waste from the site will be delivered to Cold Canyon landfill, which currently has a capacity to accept solid waste for approximately 18.5 years, based on the current rate of disposal and ongoing trends showing reduction in per capita waste generation. To help reduce the waste stream associated with the projec construction, a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials should be prepared To help reduce the waste stream created by the new residents, the project should include facilities for interior and exterior recycling. CONCLUSION: Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures: 41. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall receive approval of a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded building materials such as concrete, sheetrock, wood and metals from th construction site. 42. Building plans shall show the location of convenient facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling for each residential unit. 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality X of the 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 CITY OF SAN Luis OaisPO 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 3 -114 Issues and Supporting Informatrvn Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 87-00, Jet-Ski Planned Development Issues with Impact P Mitigation 11955 Los Osos Valley Road Incorporated 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? Without mitigation, the project could have the potential to have adverse impacts on all of the issue area checked in the table on Page 2. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited X but 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) The impacts identified in this initial study are specific to this project and would not be categorized a cumulatively significant. cl Does the project have environmental effects which will X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? With the incorporation of mitigation measures, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts o humans. 18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one o 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. The DeVaul Ranch and Froom Ranch EIR's as well as the City of San Luis Obispo 1994 Land Use Element Update EIR supplement can be reviewed at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scop of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and stat whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. This initial study relies on data found in the final DeVaul Ranch and Froom Ranch EIR's and the final supplemental EIR for the City's 1994 Land Use Element Update. Information regarding noise, traffic 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 t which they address site-specific conditions of the project. Mitigation measures contained within this document address site specific conditions of this project. Th EIR's for the neighboring Froom Ranch and DeVaul Ranch were reviewed and considered when th mitigation measures were developed for this project. 19. SOURCE REFERENCES 1. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan: Land Use, Circulation, Noise, Energy, Open Space, Safety, Water and Wastewater Management Elements 2. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations, February 18, 2000 3. City of San Luis Obispo Source Reduction and Recycling Element 4. 1995 Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County CITY OF SAN LUIS OsiSPo 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 3- // 7 5. SLO County Airport Land Use Plan 6. City of San Luis Obispo Informational Map Atlas 7. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990 8. Final EIR for the DeVaul Ranch North development certified by the San Luis Obispo City Council on December 15, 1998 9. Final Supplemental EIR for the Madonna/Eagle Hardware and Garden certified by the County Board of Supervisors on November 2, 1999. 10. City of San Luis Obispo 1994 Land Use/Circulation Element Update and EIR supplement 11. City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, October 1995 12. Congdon's tarplant survey prepared by Dr.. V.L. Holland, October 10, 2000 13. Site Soils Engineering Report prepared by GeoSolutions, March 3, 2000 14. City of San Luis Obispo Flood Damage Prevention Guidelines, 1979 15. City of San Luis Obispo Urban Water Management Plan, 1994 16. County of San Luis Obispo Department of Agriculture Letter dated Sept. 5, 2000 17. Air Pollution Control District Letter dated Dec. 13, 2000 `� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 21 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 • I� 20. MITIGATION MEASURESIMONITORING PROGRAM 1. Provide a .landscape buffer along LOVR and along the south side of the property boundary abutting Froom Ranch. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of plans submitted for a building permit. 2. Plant palm trees to mirror the existing palms across LOVR. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of plans submitted for a building permit. 3. Coordinate landscape plans for the property with plans submitted for the adjacent DeVaul Ranch North and Froom Ranch. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of plans submitted for a building permit. 4. Incorporate landscaping elements including decorative paving, walls, and fencing. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of plans.submitted fora building permit. 5. Install public art at the project's LOVR entry. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of plans submitted for the final map improvement plans and building permits. 6. Create a"maintenance association"to facilitate long term care of landscaping. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of the project's CC&R's. 7. Eliminate on-street parking on DeVaul Ranch Road between LOVR and Tonini Drive. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Public Works and Community Development Department staff through the review of final map improvement plans. �i CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 22 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 3 -119 0 8. Design the detention basin to appear as a naturally occurring feature and revegetate the perimeter with native plants and trees to further reduce its engineered appearance. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Public. Works and Community Development Department staff through the review of final map improvement plans. 9. Limit the height of the three apartment buildings closest to LOVR to 26 feet in height. These building heights shall be considered maximum unless during the architectural review process the applicant can demonstrate through the site plan and architectural design that views of the upper portions of the Irish Hills will not be blocked. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of plans submitted for grading and building permits. 10. Screen from view any necessary water pumps, valves, backflow preventers, and service cabinets. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of plans submitted for a building permit. 11. Design the detention basin so it does not require fencing. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Public Works and Community Development Department staff through the review of final map improvement plans. 12. Submit a detailed landscaping plan for the LOVR project frontage and the southern edge of the property abutting the Froom Ranch property for review and approval by the City. The plan shall identify evergreen and deciduous plant materials, retaining walls, earth mounding, the horizontal and vertical limits of plantings, and other materials used to effectively screen the parking areas and soften the views of the development,.but not hinder views of the hills. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Public Works and Community Development Department staff through the review of final map improvement plans and building permits. 13. Exterior lighting shall be directed downward and not spill onto adjoining properties. The maximum height of lighting equipment and supporting structures, including fixtures, standard and base, shall not be higher than 20 feet above the finished grade. Lighting levels measured at finished grade directly beneath the fixture shall not exceed 10 footcandles. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of plans submitted for a building permit. 14. All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered with non-potable water to prevent excessive amounts of dust. During the time period in which grading will occur, watering shall CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 23 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 3 -/Alo occur at least twice daily including weekends with complete coverage, preferably in the late morning and after work is finished for the day. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of final map improvement plans and grading permits. 15. All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavating activities shall cease during periods of high winds (greater than 15 mph averaged over one hour) to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of final map improvement plans and grading permits. 16. If soil materials are transported on or off-site,they shall either be sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this.requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of final map improvement plans and grading permits. 17. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with fast germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation becomes established. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of final map improvement plans and grading permits. 18. All disturbed areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders,jute netting,or other methods approved in advance by APCD. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of final map improvement plans and grading permits. 19. On-site vehicle speed during construction shall be limited to 15 mph for any unpaved surface. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of final map improvement plans, grading and building permits. 20. All unpaved areas with vehicle traffic shall be watered at least twice per day including weekends, using non-potable water. Vi CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 24 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 3 -1 Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of final map improvement plans, grading and building permits. 21. Wheel washers shall be installed where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads and streets, or provisions shall be made to wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of final map improvement plans, grading and building permits. 22. Prior to issuing occupancy permits for each single family residence, shade trees shall be planted at a rate of not less than 1 tree/4000 s.f. of land. The trees shall be planted to provide shading of the residence in the summer so as to reduce air conditioning requirements and fossil fuel use. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of plans submitted for final map improvement plans and building permits. 23. Residences shall be equipped with solar-assisted water heaters or similar energy conserving feature consistent with City policies and programs at the time of construction. One methos would be to increase wall and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of plans submitted for a building permit. 24. Bicycle lockers shall be included in the design of the apartment project. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the.review of plans submitted for a building permit. 25. Parking for the apartment project shall accommodate electric vehicles. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of plans submitted for building permits for the apartments. 26. Site preparation activities (major earthwork) shall be scheduled to occur consecutively rather than simultaneously with the neighboring projects to the north and south. This approach, along with the other air quality mitigation measures, will minimize cumulative PM 10 emissions to a less than significant level. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Public Works and Community Development Department staff through the review of final map improvement plans. and grading permits. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 25 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 3 -�aa O O 27. At the applicant's.expense, a restoration plan shall be prepared by a qualified plant restoration ecologist. The plan shall identify the location of a suitable site ors sites in an open space area off-site (possibly at the City's wastewater treatment plant) where a colony of Congdon's tarplant (Hemizonia parryi ssp. Congdonii) can be established. The restoration plan shall identify the number of plants to be replanted and the methods which will be used to preserve this species in this location. The plan shall also include a monitoring program so that the success of the effort can be monitored yearly over a three- to five-year period. The restoration effort shall be coordinated with the California Department of Fish and Game, the US Wildlife Service, the California Native Plant Society, and the City of San Luis Obispo. Any federal, state or local permits required to commence such a program will be acquired and implemented by the applicant. The mitigation plan shall include the provision for replacement of habitat to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager and the City Council should the initial mitigation program be unsuccessful within five years. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by the Natural Resources Manager and Community Development Department staff through the review of final map improvement plans and building permits. 28. If any previously undiscovered prehistoric cultural material or buried concentrations of historic cultural materials are discovered during any construction activities, all activities that may disrupt those materials shall cease and the Community Development Director shall be notified immediately of the discovery of archaeological materials. Under most circumstances, the applicant will be directed to retain a qualified archaeologist to immediately visti the site, evaluate the materials recovered, and consult with the Director to determine the appropriate course of action. Under the direction of the archaeologist, a mitigation plan shall be developed and approved by the City pursuant to the City's Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of final map improvement plans and building permits. 29. Soils in the area have a medium to high potential for expansion and contraction. The designs of all foundations, curbs, and other structures shall be reviewed by a geotechnical engineer to ensure they are compatible with the soil properties and conditions of the site, consistent with standards of the Building Code. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of final map improvement plans. 30. All project related construction activity shall occur between 7 am and 7pm Monday through Saturday, with no activities occurring on Sunday or holidays. City noise regulations related to construction activities shall be posted on site and made available to all contractors and sub- contractors. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 26 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 3 -1�3 Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of final map improvement plans and building permits and by the Police Department during construction. 31. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the City's Noise Element through the preparation of a noise analysis for the apartment portion of the Planned Development. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by the Community Development Department staff through the review of building permits. 32. The developer and/or property manager shall disclose to all perspective and actual Leasee/Renters that the subject property is in an airport flight traffic zone and possible noise impacts may occur. This disclosure shall be part of any sales or rental agreements which are signed by the owner or renter. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the.review of the project's CC&R's. 33. To maintain consistency with policy H 4.2.1 of the Housing Element, the amount of and the specific location of inclusionary housing units should be identified with the consideration of the tentative tract map and approved only if found to be consistent with the City's requirements which includes intermixing the units within the project. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of the project's inclusionary housing program. 34. The project shall comply with the mitigation measures established for the DeVaul Ranch North project as outlined in the DeVaul Ranch North Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Public Works and Community Development Department staff through the review of plans submitted for final map improvement plans and building permits. 35. Soundproofing shall be added to reduce indoor noise from airport operations, where required by the City's Noise Element and the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of plans submitted for a building permit. 36. Grant an avigation easement for the protection of the San Luis Obispo County Airport, the City of San Luis Obispo, and the County of San Luis Obispo. CITY OF SAN LUIS 09ispo 27 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 3 qol q f Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of the project's CC&R's and updated title report. 37. All project occupants and land uses shall comply with the compatible land use matrix of the San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of the project's CC&R's and plans submitted for building permits. 38. All exterior lighting shall be shielded down-lights that do not shine skyward or interfere with aircraft flights or aircraft operations. Search-lights and strobe lights shall be prohibited. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of plans submitted for building permits. 39. The applicant shall dedicate 63 feet of right of way or as otherwise required by the City and make ultimate improvements to LOVR along the project's proposed frontage. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by' Community Development Department staff through the review of final map improvement plans. 40. To mitigate potentially significant impacts of excessive speed on the project's residential streets, traffic calming measures shall be included as a condition of the subdivision plans. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of final map improvement plans. 41 . Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall receive approval of a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded building materials such as concrete, sheetrock, wood and metals from the constriction site. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of plans submitted for a building permit. 42.Building plans shall show the location of convenient facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling for each residential unit. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of plans submitted for a building permit. �� CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 28 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 From Michael C.Sullivan to City of San Luis Obispo-Planning Commission hearing on 10 Jan.2001. Item: Proposed Rezoning,Planned Development,Tent Tract Map, Arch.Review etc. DeVaul Ranch South-11955 Los Osos Valley Rd. Page 1 of 9 From: Michael C. Sullivan, 1127 Seaward St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Tel 805-545-9614 To: City of San Luis Obispo (Planning Commission and Council) RE: Planning Commission hearing on 10 Jan .2001. Project : "DeVaul Ranch South" residential development plan for 13.6 acre site at 11955 Los Osos Valley Road. Proposed Rezoning (from Conservation/Open Space zoning to Planned Development (PD) zoning , Tentative Tract Map subdivision to allow 77 apartments, 19 single family dwellings, 34 duplexes, and the potential for. 17 secondary dwelling units, and environmental review. The following comments pertain to the information and analyses in the Staff Report of the Planning Department of the City of San Luis Obispo for the Planning Commission hearing on 10 Jan. 2001 for the above project. Abbreviations used: CEQA-California Environmental Quality Act CEQA GL-CEQA Guidelines Neg Dec- Negative Declaration SLO-San Luis Obispo Issue # 1 - Certain Findings for approval of the tentative map are not factual and are not based on substantial evidence in the record. (See SLO City Plan. Comm. Staff report, 10 Jan 2001, at p. 3) A. "The proposed tentative map is consistent with the General Plan of the City of San Luis Obispo and the General Plan of the County of San Luis Obispo." (1) Inconsistencies with City General Plan The uannexation 62'approved by LAFCO(21 Sep 2000, 16 Nov 2000) annexed two separate properties,the Froom Ranch (proposed for 'big-box store'commercial use) and the DeVaul Ranch South (proposed 145- unit mixed-type residential use). The prezoning of the Froom Ranch portion of the annexation to commercial use was inconsistent with the following sections of the General Plan Land Use Element(Aug 1999): Land Use Element 1.13.2 - Annexation purposes and timing. (City of SLO Gen. Plan Land Use Element Aug 1999 at p. 20)'Areas within the urban reserve line which are to be developed with urban uses should be annexed before urban development occurs." Conflict This provision was violated when the City allowed approval of the Annexation 62 (Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South) in a manner that allowed commercial development of Froom Ranch prior to annexation,whereas the City General Plan requires annexation first, followed by development. This is one of several reasons why the annexation of Froom/DeVaul Ranch was improper and illegal. Land Use Element 1.13.4 - Development and Services (City of SLO Gen. Plan Land Use Element Aug 1999 at p. 21) 'Actual development in an annexed area may be approved only when adequate City services can be . provided.." o From Michael C.Sullivan to City of San Luis Obispo-Planning Commission hearing on 10 Jan.2001. Item: Proposed Rezoning,Planned Development,Tent Tract Map,Arch.Review etc. DeVaul Ranch South-11955 Los Osos Valley Rd. Page 2 of 9 Conflict The LAFCO staff report(Annexation 62, 21 Sep 2000 and 16 Nov 2000)stated that the city's retrofitting program might be able to help provide sufficient water for the Froom/DeVaul Ranch south annexation, but gave no substantial evidence to prove that assertion. That staff report also stated that potential water sources from Salinas Reservoir and Nacimiento Lake remain uncertain at this time, but those uncertainties are not addressed by the City or by LAFCO for the water supply for DeVaul Ranch South. Also, see City of SLO Plan.Comm.staff report of 10 Jan 2001 for DeVaul Ranch South, at p. 14,paragraph 6, which states, 06. The owner's engineer shall submit water demand and wastewater generation calculations so that the City can make a determination as to the adequacy of the supporting infrastructure. If it is discovered that an offsite deficiency exists,the owner will be required to mitigate the deficiency as part of the overall project Currently, it is expected that a portion of the existing gravity sewer system will require Improvement in order to accommodate the additional flows from this project.... This information shows that the City does not yet know if sewer and water capacity are adequate for the project. There is no substantial evidence to show that adequate sewer and water services can be provided. Also, the City has failed to provide the determination required by Govt. Code sec. 66474.6 which states, 'The governing body of any local agency shall determine whether the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system would result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by a California regional water quality control board...' Land Use Element 8.10 - Irish Hills(City of SLO Gen. Plan Land Use Element Aug 1999 at p. 91-92) C. Sufficient setbacks for traffic noise mitigation. Conflict: The setbacks along Los Osos Valley Road and adjacent to Costco are minimal and will probably not meet the noise mitigation standard. D. Building heights, setbacks, and spacing to allow views of the Irish Hills from Los Osos Valley Road. nfli : With the raised elevation of the building sites that will be required for the project, and with two-story buildings,there will be significant obstruction of views of the Irish Hills from Los Osos Valley Road. (2) Inconsistencies with County General Plan SLO County Framework for Planning(inland)07 Nov 1996: General Goal 11 -'Design and maintain a land use pattern and population capacity that is consistent with the capacities of existing public services and facilities, and their programmed expansion where funding has been identified.* nfl` : Both the City and LAFCO have failed to show substantial evidence that the City can indeed meet the water demands of the DeVaul Ranch South project. The LAFCO staff report(21 Sep 2000, 16 Nov 2000) gives no fmn evidence to show that retrofitting or other means can meet demand. This is especially critical in light of the fact that environmental review for Costco(at Froom Ranch) was also improperly deferred. There has been insufficient review in a cumulative and city-wide or regional context of the water demands and potential supplies during the next decade. Air Quality Goal 4 -"Determine, and mitigate where feasible,the potential adverse air quality impacts of new development! n i : For the DeVaul Ranch South project(residential development for 145 housing units)there was no adequate environmental review by either the City or LAFCO because the project, for purposes of annexation, was only considered as interim rezoning to Conservation Open/Space and therefore only an unmitgated Negative Declaration was prepared, although there was substantial evidence to show that the project could have significant environmental effects and that these effects should be addressed in a supplemental EIR. In essence,the true environmental effects of the project were disguised and the environmental review was 3-�a 7 From Michael C.Sullivan to City of San Luis Obispo-Planning Commission hearing on 10 Jan.2001. Item: Proposed Rezoning,Planned Development,Tent Tract Map,Arch..Review etc. DeVaul Ranch South-11955 Los Osos Valley Rd. Page 3 of 9 improperly deferred until after annexation. Because of this deficiency, 4 was not possible to meet Ac Quality Goal 4,to'determine, and mitigate where feasible,the potential adverse air quality impacts of new development.' "C. The design of the subdivision will not cause substantial environmental damage or cause serious public health problems." Conflict: There has been no adequate environmental review consistent with the requirements of CEQA. For purposes of the annexation,the DeVaul Ranch South project received an unmitigated Negative Declaration (approved by City Council 05 Sep 2000; Notice of Determination filed with County Clerk 14 Sep 2000) because the annexation would supposedly onlytresult in an interim rezoning to Conservation/Open Space. In reality,the City and LAFCO both knew ahead of time that the project was more than just a rezoning to Conservation/Open space; the City and LAFCO knew the details of the development plan proposal for the 145-unit housing development at DeVaul Ranch South, yet both the City and LAFCO failed to conduct proper environmental review for DeVaul Ranch South prior to annexation. The DeVaul Ranch South project is a major residential development with multiple potentially significant impacts. The DeVaul Ranch South project must have a supplemental EIR because earlier environmental analyses do not sufficiently describe or analyze the actual.project . The earlier analyses(City's General Plan update of 1994; County's"Eagle Hardware"EIR of Oct. 1998; DeVaul Ranch Final EIR certified by City of SLO 15 Dec 1998)do not provide specific details about the proposed residential development at DeVaul Ranch South and do not discuss potential impacts arising from DeVaul Ranch South. There is also no analysis of the cumulative and regional impacts of DeVaul Ranch South in relation to Annexation 62(Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South). And the current"mitigated Negative Declaration'(30 Nov 2000,contained in SLO City Plan.Comm. staff report 10 Jan 2001) is inadequate for the reasons given below. One cannot make the finding that the DeVaul Ranch project will not cause any significant environmental impacts when there has been inadequate environmental review for the prior "Annexation 62 consideration by the City and by LAFCO and when the current "mitigated Negative Declaration" is inadequate. Issue # 2 - Environmental Review was inadequate under CEQA The staff report("Environmental Review'at p. 7) mentions the following environmental documents: (1) City's 1994 General Plan Land Use Element Update Supplemental EIR (2) City of SLO-Fnal EIR for DeVaul Ranch North project(Oct 1998) . (3) County of SLO- Final supplemental EIR for Eagle Hardware project(Oct 1998) (4) City of SLO-Negative Declaration(unmitigated; incorrectly stated in staff report at bottom of p. 7 that it was a mitigated Neg. Dec.) for the annexation and prezonmg of the site to ConservaVorVOpen Space as interim zoning. A Environmental analysis was t is inadequate None of the above documents has a detailed description or analysis of the 145-unit residential project proposed for DeVaul Ranch South. None of these earlier EIRs sufficiently or completely or specifically addresses the actual impacts that can arise from the 145-unit housing project now known as DeVaul Ranch South. DeVaul Ranch North and DeVaul Ranch South are two separate projects and the EIR for DeVaul Ranch North.pertains only to the specific proposal known as DeVaul Ranch North. The DeVaul Ranch South residential project can and will have impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative) not previously analyzed,such as growth-inducing impacts, impacts on city services (water,sewer, etc.), air pollution,traffic, etc. The City,and LAFCO,cannot argue that the earlier EIRs addressed those impacts when the project in question(DeVaul Ranch South residential development with 145 units of mixed housing type) was not even described in the earlier EIRs. And,even if the City is claiming that these earlier EIRs satisfy the requirement for environmental review, a negative declaration for a subsequent phase of the project is not proper. The city must either use the earlier EIR, or must prepare a supplemental EIR or EIR addendum. If the atvuses an earlier EIR to=ly to From Michael C.Sullivan to City of San Luis Obispo-Planning Commission hearing on 10 Jan.2001. Item: Proposed Rezoning,Planned Development,Tent Tract Map,Arch.Review etc. DeVaul Ranch South-11955 Los Osos Valley Rd. Page 4 of 9 a later project under authority ofCEGA Guidelines 15153 (j the use of a Negative Declaration forth later project is not apr nate. (See discussion of Remy. M. 1999. Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act. Solan Press, Point Arena, CA; at p. 905.) B Prezoning of DeVaul Ranch South to -Conservation/Open Space (not the intended use) was inconsistent with CEQA The courts of California have determined that it is illegal to pre-zone'an annexation area for a use which does not accurately reflect the intended use of the property. For example, in City of Santa Clara v. LAFCO (19 8 3) 139 Cal App 3d 923, 189 Cal Rptr 112,the court found that 'Prezoning of a territory to a use which is different from the intended use directly violates the intent of the Knox-Nisbet Act, the Rozung v. LAFCO (1975) decision, and LAFCO's own procedures, since the environmental consequences of the proposed project are not brought to light at the earliest possible point in the approval process.' The City has used this illegal tactic not only for DeVaul Ranch South, but also for other recent annexations, such as for the Damon-Garcia sports complex property at Broad Street and Industrial Way. C. Initial Studies were not based on substantial evidence or ignored substantial evidence. The City of SLO has prepared two separate initial studies,both labeled"ER 87-00.' The first Initial Study ER 87-00 concluded that the project(DeVaul Ranch South residential development) would have no environmental consequences. (See Exhibit 1 - Initial Study ER 87-00 for annexation of DeVaul Ranch South portion of Annexation 62, LAFCO File 8-R-00) This initial study resulted in an unmitigated Negative Declaration which was approved by City Council 05 Sep 2000. The second Initial Study ER 87-00(30 Nov 2000, included in Cjty of SLO Plan.Comm.staff report of 10 Jan 2001)for the same identical project (development phase)concluded that there were 13 potential environmental impacts each of which could be mitigated to-less than significant with mitigation incorporated.'(See SLO City Plan. Comm.staff report 10 Jan 2001). Many of the assumptions and assertions in the earlier environmental analysis of the City(ER 87-00)for DeVaul Ranch South annexation are either false, misleading,or not based on substantial evidence. The Cjty's conclusion for the annexation was that an unmitigated Negative Declaration was sufficient for the annexation of DeVaul Ranch South. This was based,presumably,on the City's characterization of the Devaul Ranch South project as'Annexation and prezoning. No development is proposed at this time.' (See LAFCO•FILE 8-R-00,for hearings of 21 Sep 2000 on Annexation 62(Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South), at p. B-1/46, Exhibit G, City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study checklist, ER 87-00, paragraph 9, Entitlements Requested.) The unmitigated Neg Dec for the annexation of DeVaul Ranch South was approved by City Council on 05 Sep 2000 and filed with the County Clerk on 14 Sep 2000. The current(30 Nov 2000) initial stuff for the development phase of DeVaul Ranch South(again labeled as ER 87-00, even though it is differentfrom the earlier ER 87-00 for the annexation of DeVaul Ranch South) is Contained in the staff report for the City of SLO Planning Commission hearing of 10 Jan 2001. A comparison of the earlier ER 87-00(as approved by City Council 05 Sep 2000)with the current ER 87-00 (Planning Commission, 10 Jan 2001)shows that the earlier analysis listed no impacts of significance and no mitigation;the current ER 87-00(10 Jan 2001) shows potential impacts in 13 different categories and includes mitigation measures! It is rather curious that the same identical project(residential development with 145 housing units)could have no possible impacts prior to annexation, but could have a total of 13 different possible impacts(each of these requiring mitigation)atter annexation. Haw is this possible? It is possible because the City has illegally characterized the annexation project as nothing more than an interim rezoning to Conservation/Open space. 3 -�a9 O O From Michael C.Sullivan to City of San Luis Obispo-Planning Commission hearing on 10 Jan.2001 Item: Proposed Rezoning,Planned Development,Tent.Tract Map,Arch.Review etc. DeVaul Ranch South-11955 Los Osos Valley Rd. Page 5 of 9 The initial study for the DeVaul Ranch South development plan (ER 87-00, dated 30 Nov 2000, found in staff report for Plan: Comm. hearing of 10 Jan 2001) has numerous flaws, inaccuracies,and assumptions not validated by substantial evidence. There are examples of potential environmental impacts which were not identified; examples of potential impacts that were identified as"less than.significant with mitigation incorporated'or'less than sgnificarrt impact'or'no impact'which are incorrect and should berated as "potentially significant issues.' Some examples follow (Refer to staff report, SLO City Plan. Comm. 10 Jan 2001) Aesthetics 1 b-The project could have a potentially significant effect, because the site will be graded at a raised elevation of about 7 feet, and two-story structures will probably block views of the hills from Los Osos Valley Road. Agriculture resources 2a-The project will have a potentially significant effect because it will be built on prime agricultural land. Air quality 3a-Long term air quality impacts are likely. The project will have cumulative impacts which have not been analyzed. LAFCO never analyzed the cumulative impacts of the project in conjunction with Annexation 62. Biological resources 4a- The mitigation plan for Congdon's tar plant is uncertain. Neither the plan details, nor the mitigation monitoring plan, are presented. The site for relocation/replanting of tar plants remains uncertain. 4f- There is potential for hydrological interruption due to the large amount of covered surface (covered by pavement and housing). There is potential for runoff of oil,grease,transmission fluid, etc. from parking areas. Hydrology and Water Quality gh-There has been no approval by Regional Water Quality Control board for wastewater discharge required by Govt Code 66474.6. This could be a significant impact. Land Use and Planning 10a-The project is inconsistent with City and County General Plans.. Nose 11a-Noise levels could be unacceptable especially along Los Osos Valley Road and adjacent to Costco. There has been no evidence to show that the minimal setback from Los Osos Valley Road can meet the noise standards. Population and Housing 12a-There was no discussion of population growth by either the city or LAFCO. Such impacts are probable. Recreational 14a-The project would increase use of local parks(e.g. Laguna Lake park;golf course). Transportation/Traffic 15a-The proposed mitigations are inadequate. There has been no discussion of the cumulative effect of Annexation 62(Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South). 15b-Some capacities are already at or near maximum capacity,for example, intersection at Los Osos Valley Road/US 101. The Costco project included a traffic analysis that pointed these out. 3 43V From Michael C.Sullivan to City of San Luis Obispo-Planning Commission hearing on 10 Jan.2001. Item: Proposed Rezoning,Planned Development,Tent Tract Map,Arch.Review etc. DeVaul Ranch South-11955 Los Osos Valley Rd. Page 6 of 9 Utilities and service systems 14 16b, 16c- City Plan. Comm.staff report 10 Jan 2001 indicates there is uncertainty about City's ability to fumish sufficient water and sewer services. Earlier analyses 18a, 18b-Earlier analyses did not describe or analyze the specific project(145-unit residential development known as DeVaul Ranch South) 18c- Mitigation measures are inadequate. D. The or000sed Mitigation Monitoring program is inadequate under CEQA. There is no adequate'mitigation monitoring program.' A mitigation monitoring program is required by CEQA (see, for example, CEQA sec. 21081.6, CEQA Guidelines 15097). The mitigation measures to be . monitored or the subject of reporting must be"fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures! CEQA 21081.6(b), CEQA Guidelines 15091(d). CEQA Guidelines 15097 gives guidance on methods that can be used for mitigation monitoring, mitigation reporting, or both See also CEQA Guidelines 15074(d) (Mitigation monitoring program required for mitigated Negative Declaration). (a) The proposed Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Program is given in the Plan. Comm. Staff report of 10 Jan 2001 following the Initial Study. For many of the mitigation measures,there is no monitoring or reporting program specified. For example, Mitigation measures 1 thru 25, 28,29, 31 thru 40 have no discussion of monitoring or reporting. Mitigation measure 32 refers to the mitigation measures established for the DeVaul Ranch North project but there is no information provided to the public or to city decision makers about the specifics of those mitigation measures or monitoring programs. Such information should be provided. (b) Also,those mitigatiohs for DeVaul Ranch North were for a separate project that did not include DeVaul Ranch South. It is not appropriate to use a blanket inclusion of mitigations from an earlier,separate project when that project is different from, and separate from, the DeVaul Ranch South project. The general public and the city's decision makers cannot know what those mitigations were. The details of those mitigations, and the details of monitoring programs for them,should be set forth in the staff report for the City Planning Commission and for Council. (c) Some of the proposed mitigation monitoring methods are not enforceable. For example item 26 states that the pian for re-planning of Congdon's tar plant at an aftemative site'shall also include a monitoring program so that the success of the effort can be monitored yearly over a three to five year period.' This merely requires a monitoring program but does not say what the.program is or how it will be enforced. As another example, Item 27 does not include any enforcement or oversight of construction activity by a trained archaeologist. E New information about Costco and changed circumstances for Froom Ranch and DeVaul Ranch South reouiryprreparration of an EIR or supplement i EIR for Annexation 62 (Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South), Michael Sullivan and Brian Christensen presented information to LAFCO(hearing of 16 Nov 2000)that showed that the newly proposed Costco commercial project at Froom Ranch could have significant environmental effects and should be included as part of the analysis for the annexation. Sullivan and Christensen also pointed out that the Froom Ranch project had significant differences from the earlier Eagle Hardware project in that the new project included subdivision for more intense development of the site and also included city services. LAFCO ignored this information,and that was an abuse of discretion. Also the city's deceitful characterization of the DeVaul Ranch South project as only a rezoning, rather than as a residential project, meant that LAFCO did not analyze the DeVaul Ranch South project for its actual potential environmental consequences. For these reasons a supplemental EIR is needed for Annexation 62 and for the DeVaul Ranch South development phase. ,3 -131 C" From Michael C.Sullivan to City of San Luis Obispo-Planning Commission hearing on 10 Jan.2001. Item: Proposed Rezoning,Planned Development,Tent Tract Map,Arch.Review etc. DeVaul Ranch South-11955 Los Osos Valley Rd. Page 7 of 9 F Substantial evidence shows the need for an EIR (or supplemental EIR) for Annexation 62 (Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South) and for the development phase of DeVaul Ranch South On 05 Sep 2000,the city adopted an unmitigated Neg Dec for the annexation of DeVaul South. On 21 Sep 2000 and 16 Nov 2000, LAFCO approved the annexation based on City's defective Neg Dec, in spite of protests from Michael Sullivan and Brian Christensen. There are two major problems with the Neg Dec that was considered by LAFCO(21 Sep 2000, 16 Nov 2000) (1) Significant new information has become known showing that there will be substantially more commercial development at Froom Ranch than what was originally assessed in the Eagle Hardware EIR of Oct 1998. The Eagle Hardware EIR assessed the impacts only of the Eagle Hardware store. That EIR considered one large'big box'store(Eagle Hardware)on a large lot and two smaller commercial projects(potential future projects) on two additional smaller lots. The revised plan,which was not considered in the earlier EIR of Oct 1998, considers a total of 4 large lots, each of which could support large obig box"stores; a large Home Depot store is already approved by the County on one of those lots, in the same location where the earlier Eagle Hardware had been proposed. (The Home Depot relied on the Eagle Hardware EIR of Oct-1998 for consideration of environmental impacts.) The higher intensity of development in the revised plan is made possible by the annexation,because annexation will provide city services (water, sewer,etc.). The impacts analyzed for the earlier proposal (Eagle Hardware)considered a development in County jurisdiction, without city services. In that earlier plan,the intensity of development was necessarily less than in the current plan, because septic systems would have been required and additional land for leach fief would have been needed, leaving less territory available for structures, parking lots,etc. On 13 Nov 2000,the City of San Luis Obispo received an application for a large(150,000 sq ft.) "Costco" commercial development("big box'store), including a°tire center'(a garage for sale and installation of tires) and a gasoline station with 12 fueling stations. On 14 Nov 2000, the public first became aware of this proposed project through a story in the SLO Tribune newspaper. This large commercial project will be roughly the same size as Home Depot, thus essentially doubling the impacts that were previously assessed in the Oct 1998 Eagle Hardware EIR The impacts of this new proposal(direct and indirect Impacts,cumulative impacts, growth-inducing impacts, and regional impacts) were not addressed by the earlier EIR of Oct 1998, nor in the environmental analysis of the City for the Neg Dec(approved by City Council 05 Xy 2000), nor in LAFCO'S environmental review for the proposed annexation(LAFCO hearings of 22 Oct 2000, 16 Nov 2000). M. Sullivan and B. Christensen raised these issues before LAFCO(22 Oct 2000, 16 Nov 2000) but LAFCO refused to after its Neg Dec for the annexation. (2y' Pre-zoning of DeVaul Ranch South to interim " - nservation/open Space"zoning is/was inconsistent with CEQA. The City and LAFCO have both bypassed the CEQA requirements for adequate environmental review by disguising the annexation of DeVaul South as a conversion to Conservation/Open Space interim zoning. The City and LAFCO improperly deferred environmental analysis of the residential proposal. The Cityknew at least as early as May 2000 that residential use was proposed for the DeVaul Ranch South site, because in May 2000 the City received application for a residential development at the site. Both the City and LAFCO have allowed environmental analysis of the impacts of residential development to be delayed until after annexation. Therefore, LAFCO did not analyze the true impacts of the project(such as cumulative and regional impacts, impacts on city services,etc.) As stated in LAFCO's staff report of 16 Nov 2000 for Annexation 62(Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South), 'The DeVaul Ranch South is designated for future residential development consistent with the City's General Plan. After annexation, the property owner will request approval of the development plans for the property which will include another rezoning to allow residential development at the same location." (LAFCO File 8-R-00. Annexation No. 62 to City of SLO. Staff Report of 16 Nov 2000). Similarly,the City used the same deferral of environmental review. In the City's files for DeVaul South annexation, a"Notice of Environmental Determination" for project ER 87-00, Project address 11955 Los Osos Valley Road, described the project as follows: "The applicant is requesting prezoning and annexation of a 3 -� 32 1 From Michael C.Sullivan to City of San Luis Obispo-Planning Commission hearing on 10 Jan.2001. Item: Proposed Rezoning,Planned Development,Tent Tract Map,Arch.Review etc. DeVaul Ranch South-11955 Los Osos Valley Rd. Page 8 of 9 13.6 acre parcel lying within the City's urban reserve tine. The area to be annexed contains vacant land designated for future residential development consistent with the city's general plan. This initial study addresses the annexation and prezoning of this property to interim open space. Subsequent environmental analysis will be required to address the rezoning, subdivision and proposed development plans for the property! (City of SLO, Planning Dept files for DeVaul South annexation; `Notice of Environmental Determination'(unmitigated Neg Dec) for publication in SLO Tribune for hearing date of 18 July 2000 for Planning Commission). This strategy of the city and of LAFCO to defer environmental analysis and.to disguise the true ultimate use of a property to be annexed (by use of interim zoning as conservationtopen space)defeats the mandates of CEQA for environmental analysis as early as feasible. A case on point is City of Santa Clara v. LAFCO of Santa Clara County (1983) 139 Cal App 3d 923, 189 Cal Rptr112: -Prezoning of a territory to a use which is different from the intended use directly violates the intent of the Knox-Nisbet Act(the older name of the 1985 Knox-Cortese Act,regulating LAFCO),the Sozung v.LAFCO(1975)decision,and LAFCO's procedures,since environmental consequences of the proposed project are not brought to light at the earliest possible point in the project approval process. Annexation of parcels without stated intentions of urban use is premature and encourages urban sprawl.' City of Santa Clara v. LAFCO of Santa Clara County (1983)139 Cal App 3d 923,189 Cal Rptr 112. (3) According to CEQA Guidelines 15070, if there is any substantial evidence of a potential significant environmental impact, an EIR must be prepared. There is abundant significant evidence to show there are potential significant impacts. For example, (a) the water and sewer capacities might be inadequate(See SLO City Plan. Comm.staff report 10 Jan 2001 at p. 8- Planning Commission and Council have not yet reviewed the applicants request for an advance water allocation; See SLO City Plan. Comm.staff report 10 Jan 2001 at p. 14,corxfition 6, which shows that water and sewer demands have not yet been calculated.); (b) there has been no discussion of cumulative impacts(air quality, traffic,growth inducement, etc.) of the project imrelation to the Annexation 62(Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South, approved by LAFCO 21 Sep 2000 and 16 Nov 2000); (c)there has been no determination whether discharge of wastewater and sewage can meet standards of Water Quality Control Board under Govt Code 66474.6; (CO.There are various potential impacts not properly addressed in the Initial Study(ER 87-00,dated 30 Nov 2000 and contained in Plan. Comm.staff report of 10 Jan 2001); (e) There are potentially significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated, as identified in the earlier DeVaul Ranch North EIR of Oct. 1998; (f) There is new information available for the Proposed Costco commercial development adjacent to DeVaul Ranch South, and the potential impacts of that project on DeVaul Ranch South have not been adequately addressed, nor have the cumulative impacts of Costco been addressed in relation to the Annexation 62 approved by LAFCO 21 Sep 2000/16 Nov 2000, even though LAFCO had been alerted to the new Costco development and its potential impacts. The remedy which the City should pursue is to bring this annexation proposal back to the City's Planning Dept for analysis of the project (annexation of DeVaul Ranch South)as a residential development,rather than as a mere conversion to'conservation/open space' use. The annexation proposal should be reconsidered by the Planning Commission and by the City Council,to determine if a Neg Dec is appropriate or if an EIR might be required for the annexation. Following that, LAFCO should be required to do the same(i.e. analyze the project as a residential development,rather than merely as a rezoning to Conservabon/Open Space), and LAFCO should reconsider its decision of 21 Sep 2000 and 16 Nov 2000 approving annexation of Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South. 3 -/33 From Michael C.Sullivan to City of San Luis Obispo-Planning Commission hearing on 10 Jan.2001. Item: Proposed Rezoning,Planned Development,Tent Tract Map,Arch.Review etc. DeVaul Ranch South-11955 Los Osos Valley Rd. Page 9 of 9 O Earlier environmental analyses (DeVaul Ranch EIR of Oct 1998 EIR for City of S10 Land. Use Element Update of 1994 Eagle Hardware EIR of Oct 1998) do not adequately address current DeVaul Ranch South project• and City must provigg references to Rage numbers in earlier documents which are pertinent to the two Initial studies ER 87-00 for DeVaul Ranch South roject(for annexation: and for rezoning/development plan/tract map etc) The earlier environmental analyses do not specifically describe or analyze the project known as DeVaul Ranch South (a 145-unit mixed-type residential development): Neither of the two initial studies ER 87-00 (for annexation, and for development phase)indicates the specific page numbers for information in support of conclusions. This information should be included. H Discussion-of Alternatives (City's analysis of Neg Deg for DeVaul Ranch South project was As inadequate. The first Neg Dec (approved 05 Sep 2000 by City Councio for annexation of DeVaul Ranch South was an unmitigated Neg Dec and included no analysis of aftematives. The second Neg Dec (a proposed mitigated Neg Dec, given in SLO City Plan. Comm. staff report, 10 Jan 2001) for DeVaul Ranch South development phase also has inadequate discussion of alternatives. 1 Interagency / responsible agency consultation and response has not been disclosed for Neg Dec for DeVaul Ranch South project The proposed mitigated Neg Dec for DeVaul Ranch South development phase (SLO City Plan. Comm. 10 Jan 2001) does not list the agencies consulted, nor does it include their responses or recommendations (for example, for possible mitigations). List of Exhibits Exhibit 1 - Initial Study ER 87-00 for annexation of DeVaul Ranch South portion of Annexation 62, LAFCO Riie 8-R-00(Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South), LAFCO hearings of 21 Sep 2000, 16 Nov 2000. Signed, / /+ Date: _10 Jan. 2001_ Michael C. Sullivan 3-13� Noticr :f Determination To: Office of Planning and Research FROM: City of San Luis Obispo 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Community Development Department Sacramento, CA 95814 990 Palm Street San Luis Obi",WJJJ 1-3249 X County Clerk County of San Luis Obispo FI L 1144 Monterey Street, Suite A San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 'SEP 1 4 2000 Subject: JIILIE L RCDE`NALD,COUMY CLERK g�Ca I ISP TO Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108or 21152 of th� � �(�esources Code, Project Title DeVaul Ranch South Annexation and Prezone: ER 87-00 State.Clearinghouse Number Lead Agency Area Code/Telephone/Ex (if Submitted to Clearinghouse) Contact Person Peggy Mandeville, Associate Planner (805) 781-7175 Project Location (include county): 11955 Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis Obispo (San Luis Obispo) Project Description: Prezonirig and annexation of a 13.6-acre parcel lying within the City's Urban Reserve Line. The area to be annexed contains vacant land designated for future residential development consistent with the City's General Plan. This is to advise that the City Council IN Lead Agency ❑ Responsible Agency ] has approved the above describ, project on September 5, 2000, and has made the following determination regarding the above described project.- 1. roject:1. The project [0 will ■ will not] have a significant effect on the environment. 2. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. ■ A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation measures [0 were IN were not] made a condition of approval of the project. 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations [0 was ■was not] adopted for this project. 5. Findings [Rwere ❑ were not] made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This is to certify that the final EIR/Negative Declaration and record of project approval is available to the general public at: City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 1.3 _C00 (ENDORSED) Signature (Public Agency) Date a� Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager L+"' EL by Pam Ricci, Acting Development Review Manager Date received for filing at OPR: SEP ] 4 2100 Jt1LIE L PC)ilf•'dALu,CGi; ITY CLERK 5y C iERIE AiSFURO OEPUT7 MEW( .. y 3-135- city Of son IUIS OBI SPo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 INITIAL STUDY ( Exhibit "G") ZiY V AnV64141C10 Ir6 l rVnlvl ER 87-00 1. Project Title: DeVaul Ranch South Annexation and Prezone (ANNX/R 87-00) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo ^fin-i��4 �o.o.+n onr' tnnnc A{ar.•,n�r• �ac�n:wo �{_r,;,or •�oncv 1Aanrlc„i{!� 781-7175 4. Project Location- 11955 Los.Osos Valley Road 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Jet-Ski Land Development ,#3, LLC, 484 Mobil Ave., Ste. 19, Camarillo,-CA 9.3010 6. General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential and within the urban reserve line. 7. Current County Zoning: Residential Multi-Family 8. Description of the Project: The applicant is requesting prezoning and annexation of a 13.6-acre parcel lying within the City's Urban Reserve Line. The area to be annexed contains vacant land designated for future residential development consistent with the City's General Plan: This initial study addresses -the annexation and prezoning -of this property to Interim -Open Space. Subsequent environmental analysis will be required to address the rezoning., subdivision and proposed development plans for the property. 9.. Entitlements Requested: Annexation and Prezoning. No development is proposed at this time. 10. Surrounding Land Uses: Just outside the proposed annexation area to the south .is..the.-Froom.:Ranch-ranchland, .-farmhouse.-and -outbuildings. To the immediate west is agricultural land, used for grazing. Running roughly parallel with Los Osos Valley Road are the Irish Hills, which provide a visual backdrop.to the site. To the north ofthe project site is the DeVaul Ranch North property, which is currently farmed/grazed .but approved for residential development. Across Los Osos Valley Road are houses and a school. /© The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services.Programs and activities. V Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. i . 11 . Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, .financing approval, or participation agreement): Local Agency Formation Commission Airport Land. Use Commission Txd 2 3-/37 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. Land Use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics . Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources Resources Geological Problems Hazards Recreation Water Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Air Quality Public Services Transportation and Utilities and Service Circulation Systems FqThere is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish and wildlife resources orthe 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. L1The 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. 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 X 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 the mitigation measures described on a attached sheets have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project May have a significant effect on the environment, and a ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s).on the environment, but at leas one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant.to applicable lega standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis a described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or is 'Potential) Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must 2 3-13`6 (�Exh,ibitG analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed L find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, ther WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided o mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are impose upon the proposed project' June 1, 2000 S%natufe Date Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir. Printed Name For 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. "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). 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. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 3 - rC4 x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 g g 7 2 \ 2 7 7 N k \ ` / 5 ' n L 0 7 k . U \ 0Clq 0 © 040 o f / T q • o ( \ . . . .0 w o R o 0 0 0 o 0 � 2 7 0 » 2 R - o § A � f � � k : t5(a ca CD g q o 0 0 $ 2 $. � / k }k k . � a a-) = I a) E (ED [ \ � k $ \ � c - EL / R E 2 S 2 � $ 0 ¢ k / k E C3 • 9w 2o2 § & 2 cu 75 k ' ®� k \ � { < / qk CD Q 2 CD (30 2 \ / \ � / . _ % !112 =1 � f � � \ f �0)S, 0 0 0 0 0 Co 0 0 0 7 p a- -e E � .. 2 ¥ 9 & o LO o m o o . 0 3 » 6 ■ 9 . � _ CM to t ro— E E k CD � � / ƒAD) Z6 � § - q - oma � $ � 2o 22 Kf § \ k \ fk . . eco � q = o = a2m C) ■ - § w2a C) . a2r ~ g o 0 o 0 o o \ df cc x o o - u ® T.- q � w o k # \ � 2E ƒ § 2Mn � . � => -or _ _ r \ A� $ § \ 2 k § ] IBU- 2 \ . o o . a o . $ % = F7 2 cu 2U) x § � = G27 I \ / 7 2 & § 0 k f \ k J ka. ± ° z z L m a = J = a 6 ° 2 � 3 $ $ v � � d \ 22 § 0 . 2 m o ■ _ ■ � � _ c = CIO _ _ O ■ o n c t £ f / ] c \ 2 § & m0BM0 § \ a) a) _ a a) o fe ° k8 : w 2 ca §§ $ § $ $ g k E k k § � \ $ $ (D0000 § k ■ e 2 a ■ m \ .00 / 3-J40 RECEIVED �N TIN(ao-oiAGGEt�NaDA 3 From Michael C.Sullivan to City of San Luis Obispo-City CoUNILI-lffge�rP9�Feb..tRw FEB 1 Item: Proposed Rezoning, Planned Development,Tent.Tract Map, Arch. Review etc. s DeVaul Ranch South-11955 Los Osos Valley Rd. Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO :OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT From: Michael C. Sullivan, 1127 Seaward St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Tel 805- 545 - 9614 To: City of San Luis .Obispo (Planning Dept. - Attn: Ron Whisenand; Administration Dept - Attn: Ken Hampian; and Council) RE: Planning Commission hearing on 20 Feb 2001. Project "DeVaul Ranch South" residential development plan for 13.6 acre site at 11.955 Los Osos Valley Road. Proposed Rezoning (from Conservation/Open Space zoning to Planned Development (PD) zoning , Tentative Tract Map subdivision to allow 77 apartments, 19 single family . dwellings, 34 duplexes, and the potential for 17 secondary dwelling units, and environmental review. The following comments pertain to the information and analyses in the Staff Report of the Planning Department of the City of San Luis Obispo for the City Council hearing on 20 Feb. 2001 for the above project. Abbreviations used: CEQA-California Environmental Quality Act CEQA GL-CEQA Guidelines EIR-environmental impact report Neg Dec- Negative Declaration SLO- San Luis Obispo The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) requires full disclosure of information that reveals the analytical route used to ascertain potential environmental impacts and used to show how such impacts could and would be mitigated. Some items of information are missing or insufficient. I request that the City provide the items below to me and to the Council prior to the Council hearing on this matter scheduled for 7 p.m. on 20 Feb. 2001. 1. The Staff Report at p. 3-3 states that environmental review is based on three previous EIRs, i.e. (a) 1994 Land Use Element Update Supplemental EIR; (b) Final EIR for DeVaul Ranch North project; (c) Final EIR for Eagle Hardware project. I have reviewed the above environmental documents, but it has been difficult to determine which"specific pages in those documents pertain to the DeVaul Ranch South residential project which is currently being considered in the staff report for Council hearing of 20 Feb. 2001. 1 request that the City staff furnish me and the Council information on the specific page numbers within those documents where such information can be found. I request that the City staff furnish me and the Council information on the specific page numbers in the DeVaul Ranch North EIR showing a"schematic design for a similar development on this property." 2. The staff report recommends adoption of the mitigation measures and presumably also the mitigation monitoring program of the DeVaul Ranch North EIR (of 1998), yet the public and Council has no knowledge, based on the staff report, of what those specific measures and monitoring programs are. Staff report only gives a single blanket type of monitoring program for all of those various measures, without any discussion of the specific mitigation measures and monitoring programs for each measure. Such information should be included for the public and for Council. I request that the City provide the above information to me in writing prior to the Council hearing of 20 Feb 2001. 1 can pick up the information at City Hall on Tuesday I have also requested this information (in item 1, above) in a telephor to Ron W I on— 5/2001. ❑�lG'0 . D FIR: ❑ NEY Michael Sullivan C rmwomrj LoIroi6i C:HF p ` 10REC DIR::' rI11M DIR Q ' [pLFERS DIR P M -� - MEETING AGENDA -L)ATE ' - :22 .ITEM # Richard J. Komorowsla Land Development 484 Mobil Avenue,Suite 19 Camarillo,CA 93010 Tel: (805) 383-3377 • Fax: (805) 987-5068 February 9, 2001 7ve, on DIR FIN U7 Mayor Allen Settle FIR:City of San Luis Obispo o eou _990 Palm Street C REL Dh❑UTIL DLSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 ❑Pegs DIr, Re: DeVaul Ranch South, (TR/PD/ER 87-00) Dear Mayor Settle, We are scheduled for a City Council Hearing on February 20th for action on the subject PD. The project will complete the development of the DeVaul Ranch which you approved last October. It is also a key component of the development of the Irish Hills Expansion Area and of the Los Osos Valley Road Improvements. If you have any questions about the Development or if you would like additional information, we will meet with you at your convenience or respond by phone, fax or e=mail. Yours truly R. J. Komorowski Jet-Ski Land Development # 3, LLC Managing Member RECEIVED FEB 1 9 2001 SLO CITY CLERK zIZOhl ZO 101 i S S52 e7a � de ve/0 (300 - /C2616 Jf y add /1� ;(A� �� �� r lol -A2, AAe--- te �� E IVED N'cETING AGENDA 3 -a FEB2 n gflef Fro Brian Christensen and Michael Sullivan to City of (CotIq�or9ae+geilear3agrEM �� 20 Allow DeVaul Ranch South development plan(tentative tract map), rezoning,environmental review,etc. Issues and Concerns Page 1 of 3 i_T: , From: - Brian Christensen, 818 Pismo St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805-542-9385 - Michael C. Sullivan, 1127 Seaward St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 805-545-9614 To: City of San Luis Obispo (Planning Commission and Council) RE: City council hearing on 20 Feb 2001. Project : "DeVaul Ranch South" residential development plan (Vesting Tentative Tract Map), rezoning, environmental review etc 11955 Los Osos Valley Road. Proposed Rezoning (from Conservation/Open Space zoning to Planned Development (PD) zoning (R-1-PD, R-2-PD, R-3-PD) , Tentative Tract Map subdivision to allow 77 apartments, 19 single family dwellings, 34 duplexes, and the potential for 17 secondary dwelling units, and environmental review. UNCIL ❑CDP DIP Abbreviations used: l ❑FIN U CEQA=California Environmental Quality Aa ®prr( ❑FIR: =:::�F LOVR=Los Osos Valley Road i , Fti'a -Staff report 220)01=Staff report of City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Dept.for Co cal 2001 on development plan tentative tract map), rezoning,environmental review,etc. �. �PiC Foil a f$0 -SLO=San Luis Obispo ❑ :3:, TE::1 ❑REC DIP �"❑UTIL DIP General Summary of Concerns kN ❑PERS DIP 1. The proposed Initial Study and mitigated Negative Declaration(staff report 2/20/01)for the development phase (tentative tract map), rezoning and environmental review of the DeVaul Ranch South project is inconsistent with CEQA. Substantial evidence in the record as a whole indicates there is a fair argument that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Substantial evidence in the record indicates that the mitigation measures and monitoring program are inadequate, and that potential significant impacts would remain. There are certain"Class I" (unavoidable and unmitigabfe) significant impacts associated with this project, therefore, a mitigated Negative Declaration is inappropriate; the City must prepare an EIR. CEQA Guidelines 15073.5(4). Examales of he"Class I" big=are: A. Traffic- Cumulative effects of the project create Level of Service"F (use exceeds capacity)at certain key intersections (e.g. LOVR/Madonna Rd, US101/Madonna, US101/LOVR), as indicated in the DeVaul Ranch North Final EIR which considered cumulative impacts of DeVaul Ranch North and DeVaul Ranch South. The Eagle Hardware EIR (p. V-64)states that it will be necessary to widen US101 to 6 lanes because of cumulative impacts of development at or near Froom Ranch, but this issue has not been addressed. B. Agricultural land-Prime ag land will be permanently lost;the loss contributes to the cumulative loss of ag land in the county. C. Noise -The allowable noise limits will be exceeded; mitigation measures will be ineffective to prevent this. D. Water/Wastewater-Adequacy of water supply is uncertain; future studies are needed to determine adequacy of water and wastewater facilities(See,for example, Condition 6 at p. 3-25, staff report 2(20/01); water allocation needed for construction is unavailable until 2005; if water is allocated for this project early, other potential water users in other locations in the City will have a diminished supply; adequacy of wastewater collection and treatment is incertain; city has not made finding required by Govt Code 66474.6(i.e.that wastewater plan is approvable by Regional Water Quality Control Board). E. Aesthetics- Uncertainty about 100-year flood level and probable necessity for up to 7 feet of fill mean that effective height of buiklirtgvvs will likely be taller,so buildings are likely to block views of Irish Hills from Los Osos Valley Road. F. Biology- Inadequate mitigation measure(inproper deferral of formulation of mitigation; uncertainty of availability of suitable off-site locations for replanting)for protection of Congdon's tar plant means a significant impact will be likely.. 2. The various findings for aproval (staff report 2/20/01) are inadequate, insufficient, or not supported by substantial evidence. (See discussion in attachments). The proposed tentative tract map must be denied. 3. The water allocation for the project is insufficient until year 2005. (See staff report 2/20/01, p.3-140). Therefore, one cannot make the finding that existing entitlements suffice for water supply. (See staff report 2/20/01, p. 3115, Utilities and Service Systems 16(c).) If there is a readjustment of the allocation, it must be approved first by Council; this is tentatively scheduled for hearing in March 2001. This must be accomplished before this project can be considered for approval by council. bi From Brian Christensen and Michael Sullivan to City of SLO(Council)for Council hearing of 20 Feb.2001 RE: DeVaul Ranch South development plan(tentative tract map),rezoning,environmental review,etc. Issues and Concerns Page 2 of 3 4. The mitigation measures and mitigation monitoring program are inadequate and ineffective. Significant potential impacts will remain. (See additional discussion in attachments; see paragraph 1, above.) The mitigation*monitoring program uses a"rubber stamp"approach(City will review plans) for monitoring many mitigation measures, but merely reviewing plans is insufficient in those cases where compliance can only be assured by inspection or other on-site monitoring, for example,to check for landscaping installation (Measure 1), or to check for soil stabilization (Measure 18), etc. Other monitoring programs are vague and/or unenforceable, for example Measures 3, 6, etc. Some mitigation measures illegally defer the formulation of specific mitigation plans or depend on future studies or analyses, so their chance of success is unknown, for example Measures 31 (requires future noise analysis), 28 (requires creation of a future mitkjation pian for archaeology), 27(requires a future restoration plan for Congdon tar plant), 29 (requires future soil study to check for expansion and settling properties of soil), etc. 5. Secondary dwelling units are not allowed in the PD zone. City zoning ordinance 17.21.030 (C). Secondary dwelling units mean attached dwelling units. City zoning ordinance 17.21.020(F). Secondary dwelling units should not be considered or allowed for this project. 6. Since there have been significant revisions in the initial study dated 08 Feb 2001, the initial study must be recirculated. CEQA 15073.5 The significant changes include two new additional mitigation measures, and a new mitigation monitoring program. (Staff report 2/20/01, p. 3-98 through 3-125; compare to Initial Study of 30 Nov 2000 in Attachment 5.) Although CEQA requires recirculation of the initial study related to the proposed Neg Dec,this matter may be moot, since an EIR, rather than a Negative Declaration, is required. 7. Various procedures followed by city in the CEQA process have been inconsistent with requirements of CEQA. A. There has been inadequate public disclosure of information needed to ascertain potential environmental effects, for example: There is insufficient information about 100-year flood hazard zone, noise analysis; water availability, etc. B. City has failed to provide in staff report information about agencies consulted in initial study process, and their responses. C. Reference to pertinent page numbers from earlier EIRs must be given. D. If City uses mitigation measures from earlier documents,city must clearly explain explicitly which measures were used and how they pertain to concerns of the cement project, and where this information can be found. City has failed to do this,for example, in its reference to mitigation measures in the earlier DeVaul Ranch North EIR of 1998. See,for example, condition 34, staff report 2/20/01, p. 3-11, "The project shall comply with the mitigation measures established for the DeVaul Ranch North project as outlined in the DeVaul Ranch North Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program." Which specific measures are adopted, for which concerns of the current project? What mitigation monitoring program exists?(None is specified in the earlier EIR.) 8. The proposed DeVaul Ranch South development plan is inconsistent with the City General Plan and County General Plan (For example, see discussion in letter of Michael Sullivan, staff report 2/20/01,p. 3-126. 3-127). 9. The"annexation 62" (Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South, LAFCO File 8-R-00)was and is inconsistent with CEQA (and other laws). Prezoning of DeVaul Ranch South to ConservatiorVOpen Space was inconsistent with CEQA. (See Sullivan's letter, staff report 2/20/01, p. 3-132, 3-133). Failure of LAFCO to require an EIR for annexation 62 was inconsistent with CEQA. (See Sullivan's letter, staff report 2/20/01; p. 3-126 through 3-137). Therefore the annexation must be voided by both LAFCO and the City of SLO, and a new annexation process must be conducted. Conclusions 1. The City has failed to meet the requirements of CEQA and other laws; the environmental analysis(initial study)for DeVaul Ranch South project is inadequate; an EIR, rather than a mitigated Negative Declaration, is required for the development phase of DeVaul Ranch South. 2. The proposed tentative tract map and rezoning for DeVaul Ranch South must be denied, because the supporting findings are false.. 3. The"Annexation 62" (Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South) (as approved by LAFCO in its actions of 21 Sep 2000 and 16 Nov 2000)must be voided; Annexation 62 requires an EIR for the DeVaul Ranch portion of the annexation EIR or I al EIR f \the Froom Ranch portion of the annexation. ®� Brian Cfriste,risen Michael C. Sullivan From Brian Christensen and Michael Sullivan to City of SLO(Couhcu)for Council hearing of 20 Feb.2001 RE: DeVaul Ranch South development plan(tentative tract map),rezoning,environmental review,etc. Issues and Concerns Page 3 of 3 List of Attachments 1. Letter of 2/20/2001 from Brian Christensen and Michael C. Sullivan- Issues and Concerns - DeVaul Ranch South residential project. 2. Letter(1 page)from Michael Sullivan to City of San Luis Obispo(Ron Whisenand, Planning Dept; Ken Hampian, Administration Dept; City Council), received 16 Feb 2001, requesting disclosure of page numbers from earlier EIRs, and of information regarding mitigation measures and monitorning programs in earlier EIRs. 3. Letter(2 pages) of 4/18/1997 from Paul Hood (LAFCO)to Judith Lautner(City of SLO) regarding LAFCO requirments for DeVaul Ranch North. (Source: DeVaul Ranch North Rnal EIR of 1998) 4. Copy of staff report(pages B-1/1 through B-1/61)for LAFCO File 8-R-00, hearing of 21 Sep 2000, Annexation 62 to the City of San Luis Obispo(Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South) -Contains Initial Study ER 87-00 of June 1, 2000 at Exhibit G. 5. Copy of Initial Study ER 87-00 of 30 Nov 2000, excerpt from City's staff report for Planning Commission hearing of 10 Jan 2001 on DeVaul Ranch South development phase(tentative tract map, rezoning). 6. Copy of documents from City Community Development Dept files AE: Costco application (a commercial development at Froom Ranch) including (a) Planning Application signed by applicant 11/09/2000 and received by City 11/13/2000 (b) Project Description (10 pages) (c) Impacts analysis, including traffic analysis(13 pages including appendix) 7. Photographs (3) of DeVaul Ranch South in Flood on 2119/2001. 8. Newspaper article(San Luis Obispo Tribune, Tuesday 2/20/2001 at pages A-1 and A-6, discussing the financial situation of San Luis Coastal School District. "Layoffs pretty much a given" RECEIVED From Michael C.Sullivan to City of San Luis Obispo-City Council Hefting on 20 Feb.2001. FEB 161 Item: Proposed Rezoning, Planned Development,Tent.Tract Map,Arch. Review etc. DeVaul Ranch South-11955 Los Osos Valley Rd. Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SAN LUIS OSISPO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT From: Michael C. Sullivan, 1127 Seaward St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Tel 805 - 545 - 9614 To: City of San Luis Obispo (Planning Dept. Attn: Ron Whisenand; Administration Dept - Attn: Ken Hampian; and Council) RE: Planning Commission hearing on 20 Feb 2001. Project : "DeVaul Ranch South" residential development plan for 13.6 acre site at 11955 Los Osos Valley Road. Proposed Rezoning (from Conservation/Open Space zoning to Planned Development (PD) zoning , Tentative Tract Map subdivision to allow 77 apartments, 19 single family dwellings, 34 duplexes,, and the potential for 17 secondary dwelling units, and environmental review. The following comments pertain to the information and analyses in the Staff Report of the Planning Department of the City of San Luis Obispo for the City Council hearing on 20 Feb. 2001 for the above project. Abbreviations used: CEQA-California Environmental.Quality Act CEQA GL-CEQA Guidelines EIR-environmental impact report Neg Dec- Negative Declaration SLO- San Luis Obispo The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) requires full disclosure of information that reveals the analytical route used to ascertain potential environmental impacts and used to show how such impacts could and would be mitigated. Some items of information are missing or insufficient. I request that the City provide the items below to me and to the Council prior to the Council hearing on this matter scheduled for 7 p.m. on 20 Feb. 2001. 1. The Staff Report at p. 3-3 states that environmental.review is based on three previous EIRs, i.e. (a) 1994. Land Use Element Update Supplemental EIR; (b) Final EIR for DeVaul Ranch North project; (c) Final EIR for Eagle Hardware project. I have reviewed the above environmental documents, but it has been difficult to determine which specific pages in those documents pertain to the DeVaul Ranch South residential project which is currently being considered in the staff report for Council hearing of 20 Feb. 2001. 1 request that the City staff furnish me and the Council information on the specific page numbers within those documents where such information can be found. I request that the City staff furnish me and the Council information on the specific page numbers in the DeVaul Ranch North EIR showing a"schematic design fora similar development on this property." 2. The staff report recommends adoption of the mitigation measures and presumably also the mitigation monitoring program of the DeVaul Ranch North EIR(of 1998), yet the public and Council has no knowledge, based on the staff report, of what those specific measures and monitoring programs are. Staff report only gives a single blanket type of monitoring program for all of those various measures,without any discussion of the specific mitigation measures and monitoring programs for each measure. Such information should be included for the public and for Council. I request that the City provide the above information to me in writing prior to the Council hearing of 20 Feb 2001. 1 can pick up the information at City Hall on Tuesday 20 Feb. 2001 or earlier ff it is available. I have also requested this information (i(in item 1, above) in a telephone message to Ron Whisenand on 2/15/2001. Michael Sullivan LAFCO • Local Agency Formation Commission Serving the Area of San Luis Obispo County AFDC, V 4Peg ? E D coMMrssroxeRs April 18, 1997 Or Ca,�,,,, B13tOI�T.BRILEY.C�u.<..: 5patia7;Disina,Mem"bet:?»'{S! GENEGAYE5.3!,ea�aa Ms Judith Lautner, Associate Planner c�tyabe: Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo Ttemeer} _: :; ;:" 990 Palm Street WRLIAM ENGELS San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401-3249 ,i Sped$I:;Disiiict;7vlembti.`•' Re: Notice of Preparation of Draft EIR for the DeVaul Ranch auAr>E�rc�xco Annexation and Prezonin OW�iMCHA n`:`'` Dear Ms Lautner. ^mac Member iaiAII PiRYAN I am in receipt of the Notice of Preparation for the DeVaul Ranch bG1 Annexation and Prezoning. As you are aware, the Local Agency Formation AL[eannrFs Commission is the agency that will review the request for a sphere of PMDOUGAL influence and service change and annexation for the property. It is my ry M hope that the EIR for the project addresses these actions. In this regard, cAiioLrxMoArr;" the Draft EIR should discuss the impacts of the annexation as a project, : and also the associated sphere sPma1;�ria iib&:- p ere of influence and service revision. These revision are legally required before the annexation may be considered by uvsEricE LAY4xr.',::: LAFCO. i. :.kiCHARb'Ros> ris In the City of Livermore v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1st Dist. „Meo�ber 1986) 184 Cal. App.3d 531 a LAFCO was required to prepare an EIR prior A :: to revising existirg sphere of influence_guidelines. Therefore, the sphere of influence and service revision should be included as part of the project ' PAUL L.Hoonunder consideration in the Draft EIR. iEaoeanii2:Dieter::::.;::. i AT10 sovcHARD_ ' In addition, please be advised that LAFCO has adopted revised Standards z�g�coue� for the Evaluation of Proposals. Therefore, I would strongly recommend that these standards be addressed as part of the Draft EIR. The pertinent Ckck to iae cmm�,.. standards relating to affordable housing, infill and water availability are as follows: 13. In any proposal, the impacts on affordable housing must be considered. The Commission will consider the impact of the creation of new jobs on affordable housing stock, not only in the jurisdiction to which the annexation is proposed, but also in neighboring 1035 Palm Street, Room 370 • San Luis Obispo, California 93408 a (805) 781-5795 • '•�: ice. , r ISM 1 Judith Lautner April 18, 1997 Page Two jurisdictions.The agency to which the annexation is proposed should demonstrate to the Commission that the effects of the proposed project on affordable housing have been mitigated. 14. The Commission encourages development on vacant or under- utilized parcels already within the boundaries of a jurisdiction, prior to annexation of territory within that agency's sphere of influence and service.The agency should provide LAFCO with a build-out estimate or inventory and document how it was prepared. - - I In any sphere of influence and/or service revision or annexation proposal, the agency should demonstrate that it has the capacity to I serve the vacant or under-utilized parcels already within its boundaries, plus the sphere of influence and./or service revision or annexation area. If the proposed project is in phases, the agency I should demonstrate that adequate service capacity will be provided as needed for each phase. Alternative single or multiple sites for the proposed project that are already.within the agency's boundaries I should also be identified. 15. In any proposal requiring water service, the Commission requires I that the agency to which the annexation is proposed should demonstrate the ava'ilabil'ity of an adequate, reliable and sustainable I supply of water. In cases where a phased development is proposed, the agency should demonstrate that adequate service capacity will be provided as needed for each phase. In cases where a proposed I annexation will be served by an on-site water source, the proponent should dem=lstrate hs adequacy. If you have any questions concerning any of the above, please do not I hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, I PAUL L. HOOD I Executive Officer Local Agency'Formation Commission 2 & From Brian Christensen and Michael Sullivan to City of SLO(Council)for Council hearing of 20 Feb.2001 RE: DeVaul Ranch South development plan (tentative tractmap), rezoning,environmental review,etc. Issues and Concerns Page 1 of 16 2/20/2001 ISSUES AND CONCERNS - DeVaul Ranch South 1. The proposed Initial Study and mitigated Negative Declaration (staff report 2/20/01)for the development phase (tentative tract map), rezoning and environmental review of the DeVaul Ranch South project is inconsistent with CEQA. Substantial evidence in the record as a whole indicates there is a fair argument that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Substantial evidence in the record indicates that the mitigation measures and monitoring program are inadequate, and that potential significant impacts would remain. The initial study is supposed to document reasons to support a finding that the project under review will not have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA Guidelines 15071(d). The initial study of 08 Feb 2001 (staff report 2/20/01) fails to do this in various places, as explained below. There are certain"Class I" (unavoidable and unmitigable)significant impacts associated with this project, therefore, a mitigated Negative Declaration is inappropriate; the City must prepare an EIR. CEQA Guidelines 15073.5(d). Examples of he"Class In im ao cts are: 1. Aesthetics-There is uncertainty about the ultimate height of structures, due to presently unknown amount of graded fill height and requirements of 100-year flood protection;. so hillside views from LOVR could be impacted. Uncertainty about 100-year flood level (a 100-year flood hazard study has not yet been completed) and probable necessity for up to 7 feet of fill (see staff report 2120/01, p. 3-43) mean that effective height of buildings will likely be taller,so buildings are likely to block views of Irish Hills from Los Osos Valley Road. Aesthetics 1.a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? om The initial study states (p. 3-101, staff report) that "Although the visual characteristics of the area will further change with the development of this project, given the scale of this project and the fact that it is located between two developing properties, the project will not result in a significant impact to the visual quality of the area." This opinion is not a substantial fact. The large scale of the project creates the visual impact; it does not diminish the impact. The impact to be evaluated is the impact of the project, not of the two adjacent properties. The fact is that the project would indeed have a substantial visual impact. Increased fill (up to 7 feet) on the site will mean that the effective height of structures (their ability to block views of the hills) will be raised by up to 7 feet compared to the reference level of Los Osos Valley Road. (See staff report 2/20/01 at p. 3-43, bottom paragraph regarding grading levels.) Furthermore, up to 7 feet of fill material would be a significant amount of fill, and it remains uncertain where the fill would come from, and what the impacts of its transport would be (e.g. noise, dust, etc, over a certain length of time during construction). At p. 3-110 of staff report 2/20/01 the initial study states that after the 100-year flood zone is determined, the level of the housing units will be at least 1 foot above the 100-year flood zone level. . Since the 100-year flood zone level is not presently known for this project site and the information has not been presented to the public or council, one can only speculate as to the ultimate effective height of the buildings at the site; so one can only speculate about the true visual impacts (loss of views of hills as seen from Los Osos Valley Road). DeVaul Ranch South site has significant flooding potential adjacent to Los Osos Valley Road and in an area along the southern border of DeVaul Ranch South; runoff from DeVaul Ranch North also helps contribute to the flooding of DeVaul Ranch South. (See attachments - DeVaul Ranch South in Flood, 2/19/01, photographs.) The project requires an. EIR so that the true extent of the flood prone area can be determined, which in turn will influence the extent of buildable area and the impact on views of the hills from Los Osos Valley Road. The city's General Plan Land Use Element (8/99) policy 8.10.2(c) requires "Building heights, setbacks, and spacing to allow views of the Irish Hills from Los Osos Valley Road." The initial study (staff report 2/20/01 p. 3-102) says that "Maintaining a two-story height limit for the apartments will retain ridgeline views of the Irish Hills. Although the apartments will block lower elevation views of the From Brian Christensen and Michael Sullivan to City of SLO(Council)w, Council hearing of 20 Feb.2001 RE: DeVaul Ranch South development plan (tentative tract map), rezoning,environmental review, etc. Issues and Concerns Page 2 of 16 hills, maintaining the upper views helps preserve the imagery that a rural and urban interface exists." This opinion is debatable. It would appear that in order to satisfy the city's general plan policy 8.10.2(c), additional setbacks of buildings from Los Osos Valley Road would be necessary to provide the views of the Irish Hills. Aesthetics 1.c. - Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and, its surroundings? Commen : As mentioned above for Aesthetics 1.a., the project will have a significant impact on the visual character of the site and its surroundings. The main impacts will be (a) the views.from Los Osos Valley Road; (b) the views from surrounding properties .(DeVaul Ranch North, the residential neighborhood across Los Osos Valley Road, and the Froom Ranch commercial development). All of these would experience a significant visual impact because of the conversion of open space agricultural land to residential use. Apartment buildings adjacent to Los. Osos Valley Road will obstruct views of the Irish Hills as seen from Los Osos Valley Road and from the existing residential area across Los Osos Valley Road. Because ofthe arguments above, the impacts will not be less than significant even with the proposed mitigation. 2. Agricultural Resources- Prime ag lands will be converted to urban use; this will also contribute to the cumulative decrease of ag land within the City and within the County. 3. Air quality-The project will contribute to the cumulative impacts of air pollution due mainly to extra traffic. 4. Biological Resources- Inadequate mitigation measure(improper deferral of formulation of mitigation; uncertainty of availability of suitable off-site locations for re-planting)for protection of Congdon's tar plant means a significant. impact will be likely. 5. Cultural Resources-The proposed mitigation measures are inadequate. 6. Energy and mineral resources-There are no proposed mitigation measures. There is no reliable assurance that energy conservation will be implemented through architectural review. 7. Geology and Soils. - The risks due to expansion of soil or settlement of soil remain unknown, pending the completion of the soil engineering report. 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials-The analysis ignores the potential of the proposed gasoline station at Costco (adjacent to the project)to emit fumes and leak MTBE or other dangerous chemicals into the environment. 9. Hydrology and Water Quality-The analysis improperly defers the 100-year flood study to an uncertain future date. This information is needed now, at the time of'project approval,to make the conclusions of"less than significant impact"from flooding. 10. Land use and planning -The project conflicts with those sections of the city's general plan that require adequate services, e.g. LUE 1.13.4. There is substantial evidence that water supplies and wastewater collection and treatment could be inadequate. The project does not have the required water allotment for construction until 2005. The proposal for secondary units is inconsistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance which does not allow such units in the Planned Development(PD) zone. Secondary dwelling units are not allowed in the PD zone. City zoning ordinance 17.21.030(C). Secondary dwelling units mean attached dwelling units. City zoning ordinance 17.21.020 (F). Secondary dwelling units should not be considered or allowed for this project. The project is inconsistent with other policies of the City's General Plan, including but not limited to Land Use Elernent.Policy 1.13.2 (Annexation purposes and timing). (See Sullivan's letter, staff report 2/20/01 at p. 3-126). As.stated in staff report.2/20/01 at p. 3- 127(Sullivan's letter),the project is inconsistent with the County General Plan (General Goal 11 - Development density must be consistent with available services; Air Quality Goal 4- Provide adequate mitigation for air pollution.) The City and LAFCO also failed to produce a legally adequate Initial Study and environmental determination for the annexation of DeVaul Ranch South, and LAFCO (hearings of 9/21/00, 11/16/01) also refused to consider significant new information about the potential environmental impacts of the Costco commercial development at Froom Ranch, so the From Brian Christensen and Michael Sullivan to City of SLO(Council)for Council hearing of 20 Feb.2001 RE: DeVaul Ranch South development plan(tentative tract map),rezoning,environmental review,etc. Issues and Concerns Page 3 of 16 "annexation 62" (Froom Ranch/ DeVaul Ranch) had inadequate environmental review . 11. Noise-The allowable noise limits will be exceeded; mitigation measures will be ineffective to prevent this. Mitigation measure 31 requires a future noise analysis. This improperly defers formulation of mitigation. Also, the Noise section of the DeVaul Ranch North EIR states that the maximum allowable exterior noise level of 60 dB will be exceeded for apartments an houses on LOVR (p. K-5, K-6). Initial study claims that compliance with city's noise element will reduce any long term noise impacts to less than significant; there is no factual information to support that Gain, and no way to guarantee such compliance. 12. Population and housing- Initial study fails to address the issue of induced population growth,.concluding without any factual basis that the impact would be less than significant. In fact, the proposed large residential development will have an incremental and cumulative impact on population growth, both due to the direct effect(the addition of new people at the residential subdivision) and because of indirect effects (e.g. stimulation of local economy). . 13. Public Services- Impacts on public schools and parks will be significant. It is not known at this time if fees can offset impacts on schools. For example, the San Luis Coastal School District is currently experiencing severe financial constraints, and it is possible that some schools will need to close. (See attachment B, newspaper article, SLO Tribune 2/20/01). The city should include an analysis of potential impacts on schools given the current near-crisis financial situation of the local school district. Initial study says Laguna Lake park is available, yet it is about a mile away, with no easy or safe pedestrian or bicycle access via Madonna Road. 14. Recreation- Information in the Initial Study(staff report 2120/01, p. 3-113, Public Services) states that residents would use Laguna Lake park. With the.addition of the number of housing units at DeVaul Ranch South, it is likely there will be a significant cumulative effect(including DeVaul Ranch North)on the use of Laguna Lake park and other parks. These issues have not been addressed. 15. -Transportation/Traffic- Cumulative effects of the project create Level of Service"F" (use exceeds capacity)at certain key intersections (e.g. LOVR/Madonna Rd, US101/Madonna, US101/LOVR), as indicated in the DeVaul Ranch North Final EIR(e.g. p. J-14)which considered cumulative impacts of DeVaul Ranch North and DeVaul Ranch South. The Madonna Eagle Hardware EIR of 1998(p. V-64) states that it will be necessary to widen US101 to 6 lanes because of cumulative impacts of development at or near Froom Ranch, but this issue has not been addressed. Also, the traffic analysis of the DeVaul Ranch North EIR assumes that the Prado Road Interchange would be built and would help alleviate traffic on Los Osos Valley Road and Madonna Road. Recent action of the City Council(13 Feb 2001) denying the annexation of Dalidio project means the Prado Road interchange would not likely be built within the near future and could be delayed many years. Therefore, impacts of traffic on Madonna Road and Los Osos Valley Road could be more severe than anticipated. The new traffic study for Costco(attachment 6) indicates that the US101/LOVR interchange is operating near capacity and will likely exceed capacity when the Home Depot is constructed. (See page 5 of impacts analysis, attached with Costco application,'in Attachment 6). The cumulative effect of the DeVaul Ranch South project will only make this situation worse, creating a Class I impact,for which an EIR is mandatory. 16. Utilities and service systems- Initial study conclusions are.wrong. There has been no finding or other indication that wastewater plan meets requirements of Water Quality Control Board. New wastewater treatment facilities will be required, e.g. new lift stations. Existing entitlements of water are inadequate until 2005, and it remains uncertain whether project could"borrow"entitlements ahead of time(City Council will not decide this until 3/2001 or later). Future studies are needed to determine adequacy of water and wastewater facilities (See, for example, Condition 6 at p. 3-25, staff report 2120/01); water allocation needed for construction is unavailable until 2005; if water is allocated for this project early, other potential water users in other locations in the City will have a diminished supply; adequacy of wastewater collection and treatment is uncertain; city has not made finding required by Govt Code 66474.6 (i.e.that wastewater plan is approvable by Regional Water Quality Control Board) 17. -Mandatory findings of significance- (a) Mitigation for Congdon's tarplant is inadequate, so there is a potentially significant impact. (b) Project has cumulative impacts that are considerable and unmitigable, e.g.traffic impacts on certain intersections; loss of ag land. From Brian Christennd Michael Sullivan to City of SLO(Council)iu. ';ouncil hearing of 20 Feb.2001 RE: DeVaul Ranch South development plan(tentative tract map), rezoning,environmental review,etc. Issues and Concerns Page 4 of 16 18. - Earlier Analyses- Initial study fails to adequately reveal the information required in sections (b) and (c). Initial study fails to specifically identify earlier mitigation measures and monitoring from DeVaul Ranch North EIR which relate to impacts of this project. The staff report("Environmental Review"at p. 7)mentions the following environmental documents: (1) City's 1994 General Plan Land Use Element Update Supplemental EIR (2) City of SLO-Final EIR for DeVaul Ranch North project(Oct 1998) (3) County of SLO- Final supplemental EIR for Eagle Hardware project(Oct 1998) (4) City of SLO-Negative Declaration (unmitigated; incorrectly stated in staff report at bottom of p. 7 that it was a mitigated Neg. Dec.) for the annexation and prezoning of the site to Conservation/Open Space as interim zoning. None of the above documents has a detailed description or analysis of the 145-unit residential project proposed for DeVaul Ranch South. None of these earlier EIRs sufficientiyor completely or specifically addresses the actual impacts that can arise from the 145-unit housing project now known as DeVaul Ranch South. DeVaul,Ranch North and DeVaul Ranch South are two separate projects and the EIR for DeVaul Ranch North pertains only to the specific proposal known as DeVaul Ranch North. I (Michael Sullivan) have received a note(2116/01)from Ron Whisenand and Peggy Mandeville(City of SLO, Community Devel. Dept.) indicating that the following portions of the earlier EIRs apply: DeVaul Ranch North Rnal EIR of 1998-Contains information on traffic related to DeVaul Ranch North. See pages J-8 through J-27(traffielcirculation). Page J-9 specifically mentions planned projects in the vicinity(according to note from Peggy Mandeville to Michael Sullivan, 2/16/01). Commerrt The planned projects in the vicinity(of DeVaul Ranch North) include Laguna West(now known ad DeVaul Ranch South)residential development with 141 units, Eagle Hardware and Garden, a 128,000 sq ft home improvement center plus 100,000 square feet of freestanding retail located on the Froom Ranch property; and the Dalidio Shopping Center, a 500,000 sq ft retail center located at Madonna Road and Dalidio Drive. (DeVaul Ranch North Rnal EIR of 1998, at p.J-9). The 0100,000 sq It of freestanding retail located on the Froom Ranch" apparently includes the commercial uses proposed at Froom Ranch exclusive of Eagle Hardware(now Home Depot). It is currently proposed that the 4 lots at Froom Ranch would have the following commercial development: (1) Home Depot(approx. 150,000 sq ft., as already approved in County jurisdiction in Dec. 1998) (2) Costco (approx. 138,000 sq ft, according to Council action of 13 Feb 2001). (3) Additional commercial development on the other two lots of the proposed commercial subdivision at Froom Ranch (total area not certain at this time, but potentially about 50,000 sq ft for each lot, based on the lot size and zoning). The total commercial development at Froom Ranch is thus about 150,000 + 138,000 +50,000+ 50,000=238,000 sq ft. Thus,the estimate of 100,000 sq feet of freestanding commercial area at Froom Ranch (as used in the 10-year traffic assumptions of the DeVaul Ranch North EIR, p.J-9) is actually less than the total ultimate area by about 138,000 sq ft. In addition,the.Costco is proposed to have a gasoline station which will cause extra traffic volume. Therefore, the traffic assumptions are underestimated. A new EIR and new traffic information should be provided so that decision-makers can determine the true traffic impacts given the current situation and the forecast for buildout of Froom Ranch. An agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can. C EGA Guidelines. 15144. Eagle Hardware(Froom Ranch) EIR of 1998-contains information on traffic. Seepages V-42 through V-67. Rgure IV- 3 shows study area. Page V-61 mentions DeVaul. (according to note from Peggy Mandeville to Michael Sullivan, 2/16/2001) Comment Figure IV-3 shows the surrounding land uses for the Madonna Eagle Hardware project. The only reference to the DeVaul Ranch South project is a label 9 that says"Proposed DeVaul Property." There is no delineation of the DeVaul Ranch South project. Page V-61 mentions the cumulative traffic 10-year forecasts (cumulative effects from Eagle Hardware plus DeVaul Ranch)through year 2008. It mentions"another traffic analysis concurrently being prepared for the DeVaul Ranch project."(p. V-61). That traffic analysis is presumably the one that is in the DeVaul Ranch North Final EIR of 1998. As mentioned above,the traffic analysis for cumulative impacts (10 year)of DeVaul Ranch North did not include the other commercial development at Froom Ranch which is now forecast. From Brian Christensen and Michael Sullivan to City of SLO(Council)for Council hearing of 20 Feb.2001 RE: DeVaul Ranch South development plan(tentative tract map), rezoning,environmental review,etc. Issues and Concerns Page 5 of 16 The initial study of 08 Feb 2001 (staff report 2/20/01, p.3-117) notes that information on noise and traffic is provided by the City of San Luis Obispo 1994 Land Use Element Update EIR , the DeVaul Ranch.North Final EIR of 1998, and the Eagle Hardware(Froom Ranch) EIR of 1998, but the specific page numbers are not referenced. The initial study of 08 Feb 2001 uses the City of San Luis Obispo 1994 Land Use Element Update EIR (Reference 10) in relation to initial study item 2a (conversion of prime ag land) but the specific page numbers are not referenced. The DeVaul Ranch South residential project can and will have impacts(direct, indirect, and cumulative) not previously analyzed, such as growth-inducing impacts, impacts on city services (water, sewer, etc.), air pollution,traffic, etc. The City, and LAFCO, cannot argue that the earlier EIRs addressed those impacts when the project in question (DeVaul Ranch South residential development with 145 units of mixed housing type) was not even described in the earlier EIRs. And, even if the.City is claiming that these earlier El Rs satisfy the requQement for environmental review, a negative declaration for a subsequent phase of the project is not proper. The city must either use the earlier EIR, or must prepare a supplemental EIR or EIR addendum. If the uses an earlier EIR to aooly to a later project und atAhgftofCEQA Guidelines 15153 (b), the use of a Negative Declaration for the later project isnot appropriate. (See discussion of Remy. M. 1999. Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act. Solano Press, Point Arena, CA; alp- 905.) If the city is following CEQA Guidelines 15153(c) (Use of an EIR for an earlier project for a later initial study to document a finding that a later project will not have a significant effect)then the city may use a mitigated Neg Dec only If it can be clearly shown, based on substantial evidence,that the project mitigation measures would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur. CEQA 21080(d). However, if there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, and environmental impact report shall be prepared. CEQA 21080(d); CEQA Guidelines 15073.5(d); CEQA Guidelines 15064(f)(1) (Fair argument test). 19. -Source references- Reference to specific page numbers in earlier El Pis is not given, but should be. 20. Mitigation monitoring program - It uses"rubber stamp"or"boilerplate"type language for essentially every mitigation measure, e.g. "Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of plans submitted for the final map improvement plans and building permits." Often, mere "review of plans" is insufficient; a field inspection is needed to ascertain compliance. Also,there is no mitigation monitoring program given in the DeVaul Ranch North EIR, but reference is made to such a plan... Where is 0 Does it exist? 2. The various findings for approval (staff report 2/20/01) are inadequate, insufficient, or not supported by substantial evidence. (See discussion in attachments). The proposed tentative tract map must be denied. See discussion in Sullivan's letter, staff report 2120/01 at p. 3-126 through 3-3-128. The findings in the staff report for council hearing of 20 Feb 2001 are not valid because they are false, or not based on substantial evidence, or are refuted by contrary evidence in the record as a whole. Findings for approval of mitigated negative declaration and for zoning change (Council staff report 2120/01 at p. 3-12, Section 2) "1. The components of the PD rezoning are consistent with the General Plan which calls for a range of housing types,. with low density, medium density, and medium high density development each occupying about one third of the area." Comment The city should make a "housing balance finding" and a finding relating to future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. Govt. Code 66412.3, 66473.1 Although the proposed project might be consistent with the housing portion of the general plan, the project is inconsistent with other portions of the general plan. "2. Features of the design (i.e. traffic calming measures and design of streetscapes) achieve the intent of conventional standards as well as or better than the standards themselves." Comment: What are the"intent of conventional standards?" And is the additional"granny housing"consistent with the conventional standards? Why or why not? "3. Mitigation measures have been approved by the City Council in conjunction with the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration." From Brian Christens n and Michael Sullivan to City of SLO(Councigaouncil hearing of 20 Feb.2401 RE: DeVaul Ranch South development plan(tentative tract map), rezoning,environmental review,etc. Issues and Concerns Page 6 of 16 Comment: This finding does not tell the public that the mitigation measures and mitigation monitoring program would reduce any potential environmental consequences to a level of insignificance. In fact, such a statement cannot be made, given the various deficiencies of the environmental review and the mitigation plan. Findings for .approval of vesting tentative tract map (Council staff report 2/20/01, p. 3-21) "1. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the General Plan which designates this area as Medium Density Residential." Comment: This finding could be made only if finding 2, below,can also be made. However, the project is inconsistent with various other portions of the City's General Plan, as explained herein. Therefore the tentative tract map must be denied. "2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-1-PD, R-2-13D, and R-3-PD zones." Comment: This finding is likely to be false. At any rate it is uncertain at this time whether the physical density of development can be accommodated, given the uncertainties about water supply and wastewater collection and treatment as explained herein. Therefore the tentative tract map must be denied. "3. As conditioned,the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat." Comment: This finding is false. Because of the inadequate environmental review(for the annexation, as well as for the development phase, i.e.rezoning and tentative tract map) and inadequate mitigation measures and inadequate mitigation monitoring program, as explained herein, this finding cannot be reasonably made. Therefore the tentative tract.map must be denied. "4. The subdivision will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment with incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures into the project." Comment: This finding is false. Because of the inadequate environmental review (for the annexation, as well as for the development phase, i.e. rezoning and tentative tract map) and inadequate mitigation measures and inadequate mitigation monitoring program, as explained herein, this finding cannot be reasonably made. Thereforethetentative tract map must be denied. Other comments: (1) The city should make a "housing balance finding" and a finding relating to future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. Govt. Code 66412.3, 66473.1. (2) The city should make a finding that discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision would not violate existing requirements prescribed by a regional water quality control board. Govt. Code.66474.6 3. The water allocation for the project is insufficient until year 2005. (See staff report 2/20/01, p.3-140). Therefore, one cannot make the finding that existing entitlements suffice for water supply. (See staff report 2120/01, p. 3-115, Utilities and Service Systems 16(c).) If there is a readjustment of the allocation, it must be approved first by Council; this is tentatively scheduled for hearing in March 2001. This must be accomplished before this project can be considered for approval by council. The Council should also consider the secondary impacts of such a change in the allocation, i.e., other potential water users,in the city will be affected if the DeVaul Ranch project uses its allocation prematurely. 4. The mitigation measures and mitigation monitoring program are inadequate and ineffective. Significant potential impacts will remain. (See additional discussion in attachments; see paragraph 1, above.) The mitigation monitoring program uses a"rubber stamp"approach(City will review plans) for monitoring many mitigation measures, but merely reviewing plans is insufficient in those cases where compliance can only be assured by inspection or other on-site monitoring, for example,to check for landscaping installation (Measure 1), or to check for soil stabilization (Measure From Brian Christensen and Michael Sullivan to City of SLO(Council)for Council hearing of 20 Feb.2001 RE: DeVaul Ranch South development plan(tentative tract map), rezoning,environmental review,etc. Issues and Concerns Page 7 of 16 18), etc. Other monitoring programs are vague and/or unenforceable, for example Measures 3, 6, etc. Some mitigation measures illegally defer the formulation of specific mitigation plans or depend on future studies or analyses, so their chance of success is unknown, for example Measures 31 (requires future noise analysis), 28 (requires creation of a future mitigation plan for archaeology), 27(requires a future restoration plan for Congdon tar plant), 29 (requires future soil study to check for expansion and settling properties of soil), etc. In the Initial Study ER 87-00 of 30 Nov 2000,there was no adequate"mitigation monitoring program." A mitigation monitoring program is required by CEQA (see, for example, CEQA sec. 21081.6, CEQA Guidelines 15097). The mitigation measures to be monitored or the subject of reporting must be"fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures." CEQA 21081.6(b), CEQA Guidelines 15091(d). CEQA Guidelines 15097 gives guidance on methods that can be used for mitigation monitoring, mitigation reporting, or both. See also CEQA Guidelines 15074(d) (Mitigation monitoring program required for mitigated Negative Declaration). In the latest(08 Feb 2001) version of Initial Study ER 87-00,there are mitigation monitoring programs listed for the various proposed mitigation measures. However, a appears these are hastily thrown together and consist of little more that"boilerplate" or"rubber stamp"language stating that the City will check plans to ensure compliance. Mitigations for DeVaul Ranch North were for a separate project that did not include DeVaul Ranch South. It is not appropriate to use a blanket inclusion of mitigations from an earlier; separate project when that project is different from, and separate from,the DeVaul Ranch South project. The general public and the city's decision makers cannot know what those mitigations were. The details of those mitigations, and the details of monitoring programs for them, should be set forth in the staff report for the City Planning Commission and for Council. The current staff report 2/20/01 includes the Mitigation Measures from the earlier DeVaul Ranch North EIR as one of the mitigation measures in the updated Initial Study - See staff report 2/20/01 at p. 3-124, mitigation measure number 34: "The project shall comply with the mitigation measures established for the DeVaul Ranch North project as outlined in the DeVaul Ranch North Rnal EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program." The"Monitoring Program"for this measure is that"Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Public Works and Community Development staff through the review of plans for final map improvement plans and building plans." (Staff report 2/10/01, p. 3-124). The city must clearly explain what those earlier mitigation measures are, how they pertain to the environmental concerns of the current DeVaul Ranch South project, and what specific monitoring measures apply to which specific mitigation measures. Otherwise,the mitigation and the monitoring are inadequate and unlawful under CEQA. Some of the proposed mitigation monitoring methods are not enforceable. For example item 26 states that the plan for re-planting of Congdon's tar plant at an aftemative site"shall also include a monitoring program so that the success of the effort can be monitored yearly over a three to five year period." This merely requires a monitoring program,but does not say what the program is or haw it will be enforced. As another example, Item 27 does not include any enforcement or oversight of construction activity by a trained archaeologist. 5. Secondary dwelling units are not allowed in the PD zone. City zoning ordinance 17,21.030(C). Secondary dwelling units mean attached dwelling units. City zoning ordinance 17.21.020(F). Secondary dwelling units should not be considered or allowed for this project. 6. Since there have been significant revisions in the initial study dated 08 Feb 2001, the initial study must be recirculated. CEQA 15073.5 The significant changes include two new additional mitigation measures, and a new mitigation monitoring program. (Staff report 2/20/01, p. 3-98 through 3.125; compare to Initial Study of 30 Nov 2000 in Attachment 5.) Although CEQA requires recirculation of the initial study related to the proposed Neg Dec,this matter may be moot,since an EIR, rather than a Negative Declaration, is required. One should note that the environmental review process for this project has been highly irregular. There have been a total of three"Initial Studies"for the project. (1) The first initial study(called ER 87-00)was completed June 1, 2000, and was an"unmitigated negative declaration" Negative Declaration (approved by City Council 05 Sep 2000; Notice of Determination filed with County Clerk 14 Sep 2000). (See Attachment, Exhibit G, pages B-1/46 through B-1/61, LAFCO Rle 8-R-00 for LAFCO From Brian Christen to and Michael Sullivan to City of SLO(Council)i�. Jouncil hearing of 20 Feb.2001 RE: DeVaul Ranch South development plan(tentative tract map), rezoning,environmental review,etc. Issues and Concerns Page 8 of 16 hearing of 9/21/2000 for annexation 62(Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South annexation).) That environmental review stated that the"Entitlement Requested' was "annexation, prezoning, and tentative map approvals. No development is proposed at this time." (Exhibit G, City's ER 87-00 (initial study) of June 1, 2000, LAFCO file 8-R-00 for hearing of 9/21/00 on annexation 62(Froom Ranch / DeVaul Ranch South annexation)) That initial study was incorrect when it stated that"no development is proposed at this time" because in reality, the City of SLO had received an application for a residential development of DeVaul Ranch South in May 2000. That initial study of June 1, 2000 found there would be no environmental effects associated with the proposed project (the proposed DeVaul Ranch South residential project and the annexation of the DeVaul Ranch South land to the City of SLO), and an unmitigated Negative Declaration was approved by the City (for purposes of the annexation of DeVaul Ranch South.) In essence, the city and LAFCO treated the annexation of DeVaul Ranch South as nothing more than a ministerial action for the annexation approval, when in fact both the city and LAFCO knew that the project entailed a large residential project which would likely have some environmental consequences. (Michael Sullivan and Brian Christensen also presented such information to LAFCO in the hearing of 16 Nov 2000 for the Request for Reconsideration filed by Brian Christensen.) Thus, based on the first(01 Jun 2000) initial study(which resulted in the unmitigated Neg Dec), both the City and LAFCO failed to consider the project in relation to its real impacts as a physical change to the environment. (2) The second version of the initial study(again called ER 87-00)was the one dated Nov. 30, 2000 and seen as part of the staff report for the city's Planning Commission hearing of 10 Jan 2001. This evaluation was a"mitigated Negative Declaration"which addressed potential impacts for aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise,transportation/traffic, and utilities/service systems and found no significant impacts in other categories (agricultural resources, energy and mineral resources, geology/soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land use and planning, population and housing, public services, recreation, mandatory findings of significance. (See attachment, Initial Study of 30 Nov 2000, from staff report, Planning Commission hearing of 10 Jan 2001.) The initial study of 30 Nov 2000 was accompanied by a"Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Program"that listed 40 different mitigation measures. (Contained within City's staff report, Planning Commission hearing of 10 Jan 2001). For the Planning Commission hearing of 10 Jan 2001, Michael Sullivan had submitted a letter (seen within the Council staff report for hearing of 20 Feb 2001,pages 3-126-through 3-134) pointing to the fact that the mitigations were inadequate and that the required mitigation monitoring program was deficient(see, for example, pages 3-130 through 3-131 of staff report of 2120/01 -Sullivan's letter for Plan. Comm. hearing of 10 Jan 2001, discussing inadequate analysis of potential impacts and inadequate mitigation monitoring). (3) Apparently in response to Michael Sullivan's letter(Plan. Comm. 10 Jan 2001), City staff decided to revise the Initial Study again, and produced another version of ER 87-00(initial study) dated 08 Feb 2001 and contained in staff report 2120/01 at pages 3-100 through 3-125. In this most recent version of the initial study, it is apparent that city staff have at least made some effort to correct the deficiencies of the inadequate mitigation monitoring program, in that the new(08 Feb 2001)version now contains a"Monitoring program"for each of the mitigation measures, which now number 42 measures total. (See staff report 2/20/01, p. 3-119 through 3-125.) Unfortunately, many of the proposed mitigation measures are still ineffective and/or inadequate, and most of the so-called"Mitigation monitoring program" is little more than a quickly conceived "rubber stamp"approach that calls for review of plans by City staff. One should also note that in the staff report 2/20/01 at p. 3-3,staff states that the purpose of the revisions in the initial study was "for clarification purposes"but that is apparently false; the real reason staff made revisions in the initial study is the obvious insufficiency of the mitigation monitoring program which existed in the earlier(30 Nov 2000) version of the initial study. Because the Planning Commission has never evaluated this revised (08 Feb 2001) version of the Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring Program, the city should first have the Planning Commission again review this project proposal before final approval by Council. Also, according to CEOA Guidelines 15073.5(b)(2), the proposed mitigated Negative Declaration must be recirculated for public review and for review by responsible agencies and trustee agencies before Council deliberates on the approval of the Neg Dec. The second (30 Nov 2000) version of the Neg Dec was a.major revision compared to the first(01 Jun 2000) Neg Dec, in that the second Neg Dec had various mitigation measures while the first Neg Dec had none. The third(08 Feb 2001) Neg Dec is also a major revision compared to the Neg Dec of 30 Nov 2000, in that the third Neg Dec contains two additional mitigation measures (i.e. a total of 42 mitigation measures) not found in the earlier(30 Nov 2000) Neg Dec(which had 40 mitigation measures), and the third Neg Dec (08 Feb 2001)contains a new mitigation monitoring program (see staff report 2120/01 at p. 3- 119 through 3-125) not found in the earlier Neg Dec(30 Nov 2000)(See the initial study of 30 Nov 2000, pages 20- From Brian Christensen and Michael Sullivan to City of SLO(Council)for Council hearing of 20 Feb.2001 RE: DeVaul Ranch South development plan(tentative tract map),rezoning,environmental review,etc. Issues and Concerns Page 9 of 16 23. in the Planning Commission staff report for Plan. Comm. hearing of 10 Jan 2001.) If one could assume that a mitigated Negative Declaration is sufficient for the DeVaul Ranch South project, then the proposed mitigated Negative Declaration (based on the initial study ER 87-00 dated 08 Feb 2001) must be recirculated. However, the arguments elsewhere herein indicate that an EIR, rather than a mitigated Neg Dec, is required for the DeVaul Ranch South project (both for the annexation phase and the development phase of the project). Many of the assumptions and assertions in the environmental analysis of the City(Initial Study ER 87-00 dated 01 Jun 2000)for DeVaul Ranch South annexation are either false, misleading, or not based on substantial evidence. The City's conclusion for the annexation was that an unmitigated Negative Declaration was sufficient for the annexation of DeVaul Ranch South. This was based, presumably, on the City's characterization of the DeVaul Ranch South project as "Annexation and prezoning. No development is proposed at this time."(See LAFCO FILE 8-R-00, for hearings of 21 Sep 2000 on Annexation 62(Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South), at p. B-1/46, Exhibit G, City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study checklist, ER 87-00, paragraph 9, Entitlements Requested.)The unmitigated Neg Dec for the annexation of DeVaul Ranch South was approved by City Council on 05 Sep.2000 and filed with the County Clerk on 14 Sep 2000. The next (30 Nov 2000)"initial study"for the development phase of DeVaul Ranch South(again labeled as ER 87- 00, even though it is different from the earlier ER 87-00 for the annexation of DeVaul Ranch South) is contained in the staff report for the City of SLO Planning Commission hearing of 10 Jan.2001. A comparison of the earlier ER 87-00(as approved by City Council 05 Sep 2000)with the later(30 Nov 2000) initial study ER 87-00 (Planning Commission, 10 Jan 2001)shows that the earlier analysis listed no impacts of significance and no mitigation;the later ER 87-00 (30 Nov 2000) shows potential impacts in 13 different categories and includes mitigation measures! It is rather curious that the same identical project(residential development with 145 housing units) could have no possible impacts prior to annexation, but could have a total of 13 different possible impacts(each of these requiring mitigation)after . annexatibn. How is this possible? It is possible because the City has illegally characterized the annexation project as nothing more than an interim rezoning to Conservation/Open space. 7. Various procedures followed by city in the CEQA process have been inconsistent with requirements of CEQA. A. There has been inadequate public disclosure of it format ion.needed to ascertain potential environmental effects, for example: There is insufficient information about 100-year flood hazard zone, noise analysis, water availability, etc. CEQA Guidelines 15063 (f) states that an adequate format for an initial study would be the combined information contained in Appendices G and H of CEQA Guidelines. The City of SLO has presented.the information of Appendix G (Environmental Checklist Form) but has not presented the information of Appendix H (Environmental Information from applicant). Discussion of Attematives (City's analysis of Neg Deg for DeVaul Ranch South project was / is inadequate. The first Neg Dec (approved 05 Sep 2000 by City Council) for annexation of DeVaul Ranch South was an unmitigated Neg Dec and included no analysis of alternatives. The second Neg Dec (a proposed mitigated Neg Dec, given in SLO City Plan. Comm. staff report, 10 Jan 2001) for DeVaul Ranch South development phase also has inadequate discussion of alternatives. The third Neg Dec (a proposed mitigated Neg Dec, given in SLO City Council staff report, 20 Feb 2001) has no adequate discussion of alternatives. Note that based on the LAFCO letter of April 18, 1997 (page 2, paragraph 14) regarding DeVaul Ranch North, LAFCO requested the city to identify "alternative single or multiple sites for the proposed project that are already within the agency's boundaries" (i.e. sites for residential infill within the city of San Luis Obispo). (See attachment 3) Apparently LAFCO did not make a similar request for DeVaul Ranch South; or if it did, the request, along with the City's response, does not appear in rthe administrative record. The initial studies have failed to provide the information.required by part 18 c. of the initial study (staff report 2/20/01, p. 3-117) - Earlier Analyses - 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." The initial study fails to do this. For example, Mitigation Measure 34 (staff report 2/20/01 at p. 3- 124) states, 'The project shall comply with the mitigation measures established for the DeVaul Ranch From Brian Christen and Michael Sullivan to City of SLO(Council) w, .)ouncil hearing of 20 Feb.2001 RE: DeVaul Ranch South development plan(tentative tract map), rezoning,environmental review,etc. Issues and Concerns Page 10 of 16 North project as outlined in the DeVaul Ranch North Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program." This does not answer the questions, Which measures are these, specifically; what impacts do they pertain to; at which page numbers in the earlier EIR can the mitigations be found; what is the mitigation monitoring program for each of these mitigation measures. It should be noted that the Final DeVaul Ranch North EIR of 1998 does not contain any mitigation monitoring program for any of the proposed mitigations in any category, and the initial studies for DeVaul Ranch South have not identified where such information about mitigation monitoring might be found, if it exists at all, in the earlier environmental documents. B. City has failed to provide in staff report information about agencies consulted in initial study process, and their responses. The proposed mitigated Neg Dec for DeVaul Ranch South development phase (SLO City Plan. Comm. 10 Jan 2001) does not list the agencies consulted, nor does it include their responses or recommendations (for example, for possible mitigations).,, Once a lead agency determines that it must prepare an initial study, the lead agency must consult with all responsible agencies and trustee agencies responsible for resources affected by the project. CEQA 21083.3(a), CEQA Guidelines 15063(g). The lead agency must solicit these other agencies' recommendations as to whether an EIR or negative declaration would be proper. CEQA Guidelines 15063(g). In the initial study of 30 Nov 2000 (reviewed by Planning Commission on 10 Jan 2000) and in the initial study of 08 Feb 2001 (reviewed by Council on 20 Feb 2001) there is no disclosure of the agencies consulted and no disclosure of the responses of agencies. C. Reference to pertinent page numbers from earlier EIRs must be given. The earlier environmental analyses do not specifically describe or analyze the project (mown as DeVaul Ranch South (a 145-unit mixed-type residential development). None of the three earlier EIRs (DeVaul Ranch North Final EIR of 1998, Eagle Hardware EIR of 1998, General Plan Update EIR of 1994) gives a site plan or a detailed description of the numbers and types of housing units for DeVaul Ranch South. The initial studies (ER 87-00) (versions dated 01 June 2000, 30 Nov 2000, 08 Feb 2001) do not indicate the specific page numbers for information in support of conclusions. This information should be included, as required by CEQA. CEQA Guidelines 15063(d)(3); CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts, paragraph 6. If City uses mitigation measures from earlier documents, city must dearly explain explicitly which measures were used and how they pertain to concerns of the current project, and where this information can be found. City has failed to do this, for example, in its reference to mitigation measures in the earlier DeVaul Ranch North EIR of 1998. See,for example, condition 34, staff report 2120/01, p. 3-11, "The project shall comply with the mitigation measures established for the DeVaul Ranch North project as outlined'in the DeVaul Ranch North Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program." Which specific measures are adopted,for which concerns of the current project? What mitigation monitoring program exists?(None is specified in the earlier EIR.) The city has incorporated by reference several earlier environmental documents: (1) Land Use Element Update Supplemental EIR (dated 1994); (2) Final EIR for DeVaul Ranch North project (dated 1998); (3) Final EIR for Eagle Hardware project (dated 1998). (See staff report 2/20/01, p. 3-3, Environmental Review). Reference to page numbers is required (CEQA Guidelines 15063(d)(3) and CEQA Guidelines Appendix .G, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts, Item 6) but the page numbers have not been specified in any of the initial studies for the project. Michael Sullivan has requested the City to do so. (Sullivan's written request to City, dated 16 Feb 2001, seen as an attachment). The Council consideration of the project should be postponed until this requirement has been satisfied, otherwise the public disclosure of the analytical route used to determine environmental impacts is inadequate. From Brian Christensen and Michael Suilivan to City of SLO(Council)for Coural hearing of 20 Feb.2001 RE: DeVaul Ranch South development plan(tentative tract map),rezoning,environmental review, etc. Issues and Concerns Page 11 of 16 8. The proposed DeVaul Ranch South development plan is inconsistent with the City General Plan and County General,Plan (For example, see discussion in letter of Michael Sullivan, staff report 2/20/01, p. 3-126. 3-127). (1) Inconsistencies with City General Plan The "annexation 62"approved by LA FCO (21 Sep 2000, 16 Nov 2000)annexed two separate properties, the Froom Ranch (proposed for "big-box store"commercial use) and the DeVaul Ranch South (proposed 145-unit mixed-type residential use). The prezoning of the Froom Ranch portion of the annexation to commercial use was inconsistent with the following sections of the General Plan Land Use Element (Aug 1999): Land Use Element 1.13.2 - Annexation purposes and timing. (City of SLO Gen. Plan Land Use Element Aug 1999 at p. 20) "Areas within the urban reserve line which are to be developed with urban uses should be _ annexed before urban development occurs." Conflict: This provision was violated when the City allowed approval of the Annexation 62 (Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South) in a manner that allowed commercial development of Froom Ranch prior to annexation, whereas the City General Plan requires annexation first, followed by development. This is one of several reasons why the annexation of Froom/DeVaul Ranch was improper and illegal. .Land Use Element 1.13.4 - Development and Services (City of SLO Gen. Plan Land Use Element Aug 1999 at p. 21) "Actual development in an annexed area may be approved only when adequate City services can be provided.." C2nfliq: The LAFCO staff report (Annexation 62, 21 Sep 2000 and 16 Nov 2000).stated that the city's retrofitting program might be able to help provide sufficient water for the Froom/DeVaul Ranch south annexation, but gave no substantial evidence to prove that assertion. That staff report also stated that potential water sources from Salinas Reservoir and Nacfrniento Lake remain uncertain at this time, but those uncertainties are not addressed by the City or by LA FCO for the water supply for DeVaul Ranch South. Also, see City,of SLO Plan. Comm. staff report of 10 Jan 2001 for DeVaul Ranch South, at p. 14, paragraph 6, which states, "6. The owner's engineer shall submit water demand and wastewater generation calculations so that the City can make a determination as to the adequacy of the supporting infrastructure. If it is discovered that an offsite deficiency exists, the uviner will be required to mitigate the deficiency as part of The overall project. Currently,it is expected that a portion of the existing gravity sewer system will require improvement in order to accommodate the additional flows from this project.... " This same condition of approval is seen as a"Code Requirement" (see condition 6, staff report 2/20/01 at p. 3-25). Actually, this is not a"Code" matter. The sufficiency of wastewater treatment facilities is part of the required environmental review under CEQA (See CEQA, appendix G, Utilities and Service System)and one of the required determinations under the Subdivision Map Act(see Govt Code 66474.6) This.information shows that the City does not yet know if sewer and water capacity are adequate for the project. There is no substantial evidence to show that adequate sewer and water services can be provided. This deficiency also means that the project would be inconsistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Element(8/99)policy 1.13.4 which states, "Actual development in an annexed area may be approved only when adequate city services can be provided for that development, without reducing the level of services or increasing the cost of services for existing development and for build-out within the City limits as of July 1994, in accordance with the City's water management policies."etc. Also, the City has failed to provide the determination required by.Govt. Code sec. 66474.6 which states, "T he goveming body of any local agency shall determine whether the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system would resultin violation of existing requirements prescribed by a California regional water quality control board...° In the initial study of 08 Feb 2001,at pages 18 and 19 of the initial study (pages 3-115.to 3.116 of staff report 2120101)the city claims that there will be'less than significant"impacts for items below: a.-Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? From Brian Chnstent and Michael Sullivan to City of SLO (Cotmcil)Council hearing of 20 Feb.2001 RE: DeVaul Ranch South development plan(tentative tract map),rezoning,environmental review,etc. Issues acid Concerns Page 12 of 16 In the initial study of 08 Feb 2001,this is marked Less than Significant Impact. However,the City has not yet made the required finding of Govt.Code 66474.6, i.e.,wastewater discharge has not yet been approved by Regional Water Quality Control Board,or if it has,there is no evidence of that in the staff report 2120101. In the initial study of 08 Feb 2001 at p. 19(p. 3-116 of staff report 2120101),it is stated,"The city's wastewater collection system will be extended into the site as development occurs. Sertice extensions will be paid for by the development. A portion of the existing collection system may require upsizing in order to accommodate the additional flows from the development. Any needed augmentation of the existing system will bo the responsibility of the developer." This evidence shows that presently,it remains uncertain whother there is sufficient wastewater capacity for this project. Also,in the initial study of 08 Feb 2001 (p. 19 of initial study,p.3-116 of stalf report 2120101)it is stated that the Howard Johnson lift station(for wastewater)is"reaching the end of its service life"yet the initial study asserts that the Howard Johnson Lift Station"has capacity available to serve the proposed development." The initial study provides no facts to validate that assertion. The proposed project,if approved;could be built and ready for occupancy by 2002 or 2003,yet the Howard Johnson Lift Station is tentatively scheduled for replacement sometime between 2005 and 2009.(Initial study 218101 in staff report 2120!01 at p.3-116). Thus,there is evidence that the wastewater capacity will be insufficient for at least 2 to 7 years, pending cornpletion of the improved Howard Johnson Lift Station. b.-Would the project require or result in the construction or expansion of new water treatment,wiistewater treatment,or storm drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effocts? The initial study has marked this question Less than Significant Impact Y et the initial study gives evidence that new water treatment and wastewater treatment facilities Trill be required because of this project.(See initial study of 08 Feb 2001 at p.19, staff report of 2120101 p.3-116) The developer is required to pay for their share of the additional capacity at the Water Reclamation Facility,as well as the two lift stations(Laguna,Howard Johnson). The additional capacity of the city wastewater facilities enable additional growth of both residential and non-residential units in the city. This is a potential growth-inducing impact not yet assessed. c.-Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources,or are neer and expanded water resources needed? This item should have been marked "Potentially significant Issues"rather than"Less than Significant Impact." As pointed out in the staff report 2f20101,the DeVaul Ranch South project will need to borrow water from future water entitlements.(See condition of approval number 35,staff report 212401 at p.3.1(),which states,"U pon development,a water allocation will be required,due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies"etc.) The"Residential Growth Management Phasing Schedule"(staff report 2120101,p.3-140)shows that the Irish Hills South area(DeVaul Ranch South project)has,because of water shortage,no dwelling units permitted until 2005. Beginning in 2005, 50 dwelling units would be allowed in each of the periods 2005-2007,2008-2010, . 2011-2013. Thus,it is evident that the project does not have sufficient water from existing entitlernerts between 2001 and 2005. The DeVaul Ranch South project would be required to borrow entitlements from future years in order to have this project approved at present. This indicates there would be a signihcant environmental effect on the other areas of the city under this entitlement program,because there would necessarily be shor tages of water for those other areas to satisfy the amount borrowed by DeVaul Ranch South. The staff report 2120101 at p.3-4 statk�s that the City's annual consideration of the phasing schedule(for growth management)will not occur until March 2001 or later; this indicates that at present,there is still uncertainty whcthcr the water allotments will be sufficient to allow the DeVaul Ranch south project to go forward with approval at this time(20 Feb 2001). Under CEQA Appendix G,the potrTmtial insufficiency of water supplies could be classified as a"potentially significant impact" d.-Would the project 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 and addition to the provider's existing commitment? As stated in the initial study of 08 Feb 2001 (p. 19; p.3116 of staff report 2120101)the City of San Luis Obispo will be the provider of wastewater collection and treatment There has apparently been no approval so far of the wastewater plan by the Regional Water Quality Control Board,therefore the City has not satisfied Govt.Code 66474.6 The analysis in the initial study of 08 Feb 2001 (staff report 2120101,p.3116)asserts that the Howard Johnson Lift Station(for wastewater)has capacity available to serve the proposed development; however,there are no facts presented to validate that assertion; and that assertion is contradicted by the statement that the Howard Johnson lift station is at the end of its service life,and that assertion is contradicted by the requirement of the city that the developer pay costs to improve the wastewater system(see Initial Study,staff report 212010i, p. 3-116). . Land Use Element 6.1.4 Interim Open Space Designation- This section states that interim open space designation (zoning)is appropriate for places where'the city has not decided the best eventual use...:Such areas are designated Interum Open Space:..." It was improper for the City to prezone the DeVaul Ranch South parcel as Conservationfunterim open space for the annexation,when the city knew the true intended use ofthe site would be a major new residential development. By means of this deception,the end result was that LAFCO failed to provide the necessary review(environmental review,adequacy of services,traffic impacts,etc.)because the annexation was falsely portrayed ("No development is proposed at this time"- See City's initial study of 01 Jun 2000,in LAFCO file 8-R-00 for LAFCO hearing of 21 Sep 2000.) It also seems that Land Use Element 6.1.4 is at odds with Land U se Elernent 8.10 which requires prezoning to conrservationlintenrm open :.pace of lands in the Irish H ills From Brian Christensen and Michael Sullivan to City of SLO(Council for Council hearing of 20 Feb.2001 RE: DeVaul Ranch South development plan(tentative tract map),rezoning,environmental review, etc. Issues and Concerns Page 13 of 16 planning area(which includes DeVaul Ranch North, DeVaul Ranch South and Froom Ranch:t,regardless of whether the intended use is already known or riot. This is'an internal inconsistency of the City's General Plan. Land Use Element 8.10 - Irish Hills (City of SLO Gen. Plan Land Use Element Aug 1999 at p. 91-92) C. Sufficient setbacks for traffic noise mitigation. Conflict: The setbacks along Los Osos Valley Road and adjacent to Costco are minimal and will probably not meet the noise mitigation standard. Mitigation measure 31 (staff report 2/20/01, p. 3-125) illegally defers formulation of noise mitigation plans until after project approval. There are no specific performance standards articulated at the time of project approval (20 Feb 2001). D. Building heights, setbacks, and spacing to allow views of the Irish Hills from Los Osos Valley Road. Conflict: With the raised elevation of the building sites that will be required for the project, and with two-story buildings, there will be significant obstruction of views of the Irish Hills from Los Osos Valley Road. (2) Inconsistencies with County General Plan SLO County Framework for Planning (Inland) 07 Nov 1996: General Goal 11 - "Design and maintain a land use pattem and population capacity that is consistent with the capacities of existing public services and facilities, and their_ programmed expansion where funding has been identified." Conflict: Both the City and LAFCO have failed to show substantial evidence that the City can indeed meet the water demands of the DeVaul Ranch South project. The LAFCO staff report(21 Sep 2000, 16 Nov 2000) gives no firm evidence to show that retrofitting or other means can meet demand. This is especially critical in light of the fact that environmental review for Costoo (at Froom Ranch) was also improperly deferred. There has been insufficient review in a cumulative and city-wide or regional context of the water demands and potential supplies during the next decade. Air Quality Goal 4 - "Determine, and mitigate where feasible,the potential adverse air quality impacts of new development." o i : For the DeVaul Ranch South project (residential development for 145 housing units) there was no adequate environmental review by either the City or LA FCO because the project, for purposes of annexation, was only - considered as interim rezoning to Conservation Open/Space and therefore only an unmitif7ated Negative Declaration was prepared, although there was substantial evidence to show that the project could have significant environmental effects and that these effects should be addressed in a supplemental EIR. In essence, the true environmental effects of the project were disguised and the environmental review was improperly deferred until after annexation. Because of this deficiency, it was not possible to meet Air Quality Goal 4,to "determine, and mitigate where feasible, the potential adverse air quality impacts of new development.". 9. The"annexation 62"(Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South, LA FCO File 8-R-00)was and is inconsistent with CEQA (and other laws). Prezoning of DeVaul Ranch South to Conservation/Open Space was inconsistent with CEQA.(See Sullivan's letter, staff report 2120101, p. 3-132, 3=133). Failure of LA FCO to require an EIR for annexation 62 was inconsistent with CEQA. (See Sullivan's letter, staff report 2/20/01.; p. 3-126 through 3-137). Therefore the annexation must be voided by both LAFCO and the City of SLO, and a new annexation process must be conducted. New information about Costco, and chanced circumstances for Froom Ranch and DeVaul Ranch South- quire preparation of an EIR , or supplemental EIR, for Annexation 62_(Froe-m Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South Michael Sullivan and Brian Christensen presented information to LAFCO (hearing of 16 Nov 2000)that showed that the newly proposed Costco commercial project at Froom.Ranch could have significant environmental effects and should be included as part of the analysis for the annexation. Sullivan and Christensen also pointed out that the Froom Ranch project had significant differences from the earlier Eagle Hardware project in that the new project included subdivision for more intense development of the site and also included city services. LAFCO ignored this information, and that was an abuse of discretion. Also the city's deceitful characterization of the DeVaul Ranch South project as only a rezoning, rather than as a residential project, meant that LA FCO.did not analyze the DeV aril Ranch From Brian Christe*and Michael Sullivan to City of SLO(Council) Council hearing of 20 Feb.2001 RE: DeVaul Ranch South development plan(tentative tract map),rezoning,environmental review,etc. Issues and Concerns Page 14 of 16 project as only a rezoning, rather than as a residential project, meant that LA FCO did not analyze the DeVaul Ranch South project for its actual potential environmental consequences. For these reasons a supplemental EIR is needed for Annexation 62 and for the DeVaul Ranch South development phase. Substantial evidence shows the need for an EIR (or supplemental EIR) for Annexation 62 (Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South) and for the development phase of DeVaul Ranch South On 05 Sep 2000, the dry adopted an unmitigated Neg Dec for the annexation of DeVaul South. On 21 Sep 2000 and 16 Nov 2000, LAFCO approved the-annexation based on City's defective Neg Dec, in spite of protests from Michael Sullivan and Brian Christensen at the LAFCO hearing of 16 Nov 2000 at which Brian Christensen presented his Request for Reconsideration to LAFCO. There are two major problems with the Neg Dec that was considered by LA FCO (21 Sep 2000, 16 Nov 2000) L1 _$icificant_nPw iriformafion has become known, showing that there will be substantially more commercial development at Froom Ranch than what was originally assessed in the Eagle Hardware EIR of Oct 1998. The Eagle Hardware EIR assessed the impacts only of the Eagle Hardware store . That EIR considered one large"big box"store(Eagle Hardware)on a large let and two smaller commercial projects (potential future projects) on two additional smaller lots. The revised plan, which was not considered in the earlier EIR of Oct 1998, considers a total of 4 large lots, each of which could support large"big box"stores; a large Home Depot store is already approved by the County on one of those lots, in the same location where the earlier Eagle Hardware had been proposed. (The Horne Depot refred on the Eagle Hardware EIR of Oct 1998 for consideration of environmental impacts.) The higher intensity of development in the revised plan is made possible by the annexation, because annexation will provide city services (water, sewer, etc.). The impacts analyzed for the earlier proposal (Eagle Hardware) considered a development in County jurisdiction, without city services. In that earlier plan, the intensity of development was necessarily less than in the current plan, because septic systems would have been required and additional land for leach fields would have been needed, leaving less territory available for structures, parking lots, etc. On 13 Nov 2000, the City of San Luis Obispo received an application for a large (150,000 sq ft.)"Costco" commercial development ("big box"store), including a-"tire center"(a garage for sale and installation of tires) and a gasoline station with 12 fueling stations. On 14 Nov 2000, the public first became aware of this proposed project through a story in the SLO Tribune newspaper. This large commercial project will be roughly the same size as Home Depot, thus essentially doubling the impacts that were previously assessed in the Oct 1998 Eagle Hardware EIR. The impacts of this new proposal (direct and indirect impacts, cumulative impacts, growth-inducing impacts, and regional impacts) were not addressed by the earlier EIR of Oct 1998, nor in the environmental analysis of the City for the Neg Dec(approved by City Council 05 Jly 2000), nor in LA FCO'S environmental review for the proposed annexation.( LAFCO hearings of 21 Sep 2000, 16 Nov 2000). Michael Sullivan and Brian Christensen raised these issues before LAFCO (hearing of 16 Nov 2000)but LAFCO refused to alter its Neg Dec for the annexation. (2) Pre-zoning of DeVaul Ranch South to interim"conservation/open spanp"zoning i5 !was inconsistent with CEQA and-ing-m-sistant with the City's General Plan The City and LAFCO have both bypassed the CEQA requirements for adequate environmental review by disguising the annexation of DeVaul South as a conversion to Conservation/Open Space interim zoning. The City and LAFCO improperly deferred environmental analysis of the residential proposal. The City knew at least as early as May 2000 that residential use was proposed for the DeVaul Ranch South site, because in May 2000 the City received application for a residential development at the site. Both the City and LA FCO have allowed environmental analysis of the impacts of residential development to be delayed until after armexation. Therefore, LA FCO did not analyze the true impacts of the project(suds as cumulative and regional impacts, impacts on city services, etc.) As stated in LAFCO's staff report of 16 Nov 2000 for Annexation 62 (Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South), "The DeVaul Ranch South is designated for future residential development consistent with the City's General Plan. After annexation,the property owner will request approval of the development plans for the property which will include another rezoning to allow residential development at the same location."(LAFCO File 8-R-00. Annexation No. 62 to City of SLO. Staff Report of 21 Sep 2000/ 16 Nov 2000). Sircilarly,the City used the same deferral of environmental review. In the City's files for DeVaul South annexation, a `Notice of Environmental Determination" for project ER 87-00, Project-address 11955 Los Osos Valley Road, described the project as follows: 'The applicant is requesting prezoning and annexation of a 13.6 acre parcel lying within the City's urban reserve line. The area to be annexed contains vacant land designated for future residential development consistent with the city's general plan. This initial study addresses the annexation and prezoning of this property to interim open space. Subsequent environmental analysis will be required to address the rezoning, subdivision and proposed development plans for the property."(City of SLO, Planning Dept files for DeVaul From Brian Christensen and Michael Sullivan to City of SLO(Council)for Council hearing of 20 Fob.2001 RE: DeVaul Ranch South development plan(tentative tract map),rezoning,environmental review,etc. Issues and Concerns Page 15 of 103 rezoning, subdivision and proposed development plans for the property."(City of SLO, Planning Dept files for DeVaul South annexation; `Notice of Environmental Deterannation" (unmitigated Neg Dec) for publication in SLO Tribune for hearing date of 18 July 2000 for Planning Commission). This strategy of the city and of LAFCO to defer environmental analysis and to disguise the true ultimate use of a property to be annexed (by use of interim zoning as ronservation/open space)defeats the mandates of CEQA for environmental analysis as early as feasible. A case on point is City of Santa Clara v. LAFCO of Santa Clara County (1983) 139 Cal App 3d 923, 189 Cal Rptr 112: "Prezoning of a territory to a use tiwhich is different from the intended use directly violates the intent of the Knox-Nisbet Act(the older name of the 1985 Knox-Cortese Act,regulating LAFCO),the Bozung v.LAFCO(1975)decision,and LAFCO's procedures, since environmental consequences of the proposed project are not brought to light at the earliest possible point in the project approval process. Annexation of parcels without stated intentions of urban use is premature and encourages urban sprawl." City of Santa Clara v. LAFCO of Santa Clara County (1983) 139CalApp3d 923, 1011Cal Rptr 112. Itis interesting to note that Paul Hood,Executive Officer of LAFCO,had informed the City of SLO(Judith Lautner,Associate Planner)in a letter dated April 18, 1997,that,for the draft EIR for DeVaul Ranch North,the city should address standards for affordable housing;adequate service for other infill properties within the city;adequate service capacity far the proposed annexation area;utilization of city infill instead of annexation,if possible;alternative single or multiple sites for the proposed project(within the city);and a proof that r,,ater service will be available for tach phase of construction. Ironically,Mr:Hood(and LAFCO)did not have these same requirements for the DeVaul Ranch South residential development. At the LAFCO hearing of 16 Nov 2000, Brian Christensen and Michael Sullivan pointed.out that LAFCO has a duty to make these kinds of determinations (environmental impacts,water availability,etc.)for the DeVaul Ranch South project. One of the LAFCO commissioners at the hearing of 16 Nov 2000 asked,dont t we(LAFCO)have a duty to make such determinations before LAFCO's approval of an annexation(such as DeVaul Ranch South)? Mr.Hood's answer was that those issues had already been addressed by LAFCO; in fact;they had not. (See attachment,letter of April 18, 1.997 from Paul Hood (LAFCO executive officrr)to Judith Lautner (Planner),City of SCO regarding DeVaul Ranch North draft EIR; thin letter is also Lound in DeVaul Ranch North final EIR of 1998.) Land Use Element 6.1.4 - Interim Open Space Designation- This section states that interim open space designation(zoning)is appropriate for places where"the city has not decidod the best eventual use....Such areas are designated Interim Open Space...." It was improper for the City to prezone the DeVaul Ranch South parcel as Conservationlinterim open space for the annexation,when the city knew the true intended use of the site would be a major new residential development. By means ofthis deception,the end resultwas that LAFCO failed to provide the necessary review(environmental review,adequacy of services,traffic impacts,etc.)because the annexation was falsely portrayed ("N o development is proposed at this time"- See City's initial study of 01 Jun 2000,in LAFCO file 8-R-00 for LAFCO hearing of 21 Sep 20(M.) It also seerrrs that Land U se Element 6.1.4 is at odds with Land U se Element 8.10 which requir-:�s prezoning to conservation I interim open space of lands in the Irish H ills planning area(which includes DeVaul.Ranch North,DeVaul Ranch South and Froom Ranch),regardless of whether the intended use is already known or not. This is an internal inconsistency of the City's General Plan. The City has used this illegal tactic(prezoning to Conservation 1 Open Space for projects intended for some other more intensive use,such as residential or industrial,etc)not only for DeVaul Ranch South,but also for other recent annexations,such as for the Damon-Garcia sports complex property at Broad Street and Industrial Way. Tire city violated its General Plan Land Use Element 6.1.4 - Interim Open Space Designation- This section states that interim open space designation (zoning)is appropriate for places where"the city has_BW decided the best eventual use....Such areas are designated Interim Open Space...." (emphasis added) It-was improper for the City to prezone the DeVaul Ranch South parcel as Conservationlinterim open space for the annexation,when the city knew the true intended use of the site would be a major new residential development. By means of this deception,the end result was that LAFCO failed to provide tine necessary review (environmental review,adequacy of.services,traffic impacts,etc.)because the annexation was falsely portrayed(No development is proposed at this time"- See City's initial study of 01 Jun 2000,in LAFCO file 8-R-00 for LAFCO hearing of 21 Sep 2000.) It also seems that Land Use Element 6.1.4 is nt odds with Land Use Element 8.10 which requires prezoning to conservation(mterim open space of lands in the Irish Hills planning area(which includes DeVaul Ranch North, DeVaul Ranch South and Froom Ranch),regardless of whether the intended use is already known or not. This is an internal inconsistency of the City's General Plan. (3) Accordingto CEQA 21080(d), CEQA Guidelines 15070, CEQA Guidelines 15064(f), if there is any substantial evidence of a potential significant environmental impact,-an EIR must be prepared. If a lead agency is presented with a fair argument(based on substantial evidence)that a project may have a significant effect on the'environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect. CEQA Guidelines 15064(f)(1). There is abundant From Brian Christenand Michael Sullivan to City of SLO(Council) ouncil hearing of 20 Feb.2001 RE: DeVaul Ranch South development plan(tentative tract map),rezoning,environmental review,atc. Issues and Concerns Page 16 of 16 significant evidence to show there are potential significant impacts. For example, (a) the water and sewer capacities might be inadequate(See SLO City Plan. Comm. staff report 10 Jan 2001 at p. 8 - Planning Commission and Council have not yet reviewed the applicants request for an advance water allocation; See SLO City Plan. Comm. staff report 10 Jan 2001 at p. 14, condition 6, which shows that water and sewer demands have not yet been calcrilated.); (b) there has been no discussion of cumulative impacts (air quality, traffic, growth inducement, etc,.) of the project in relation to the Annexation 62 (Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South, approved by LAFCO 21 Sep 2000 and 16 Nov 2000); (c)there has been no determination whether discharge of wastewater and sewage can meet standards of Water Quality Control Board under Govt Code 66474.6; (d) There are various potential impacts not properly addressed in the Initial Study (ER 87-00, dated 30 Nov 2000 and contained in Plan. Comm. staff report of 10 Jan 2001); (e) There are potentially significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated, as.identified in the earlier DeVaul.Ranch North EIR of Oct. 1998; (f) There is new information available for the proposed Costco commercial development adjacent to DeVaul Ranch South, and the potential impacts of that project on DeVaul Ranch South have not been adequately addressed, nor have the cumulative impacts of Costco been addressed in relation to the Annexation 62 approved by LAFCO 21 Sep 2000/16 Nov 2000, even though LAFCO had been alerted to the new Costco development and its potential in-pacts. The remedy which the City should pursue is to bring this annexation proposal hack to the City's Planning Dept for analysis of the project (annexation of DeVaul Ranch South) as a residential development, rather than as a mere conversion to aeons ery ation/open space"use. The annexation proposal should be reconsidered by the Planning Commission and by the City Council,to determine if a Neg Dec is appropriate or if an EIR might be required for the annexation. Following that, LA FCO should be required to do the same(i.e. analyze the project as a residential development, rather than merely as a rezoning to Conservation/Open Space), and LA FCO should reconsider its decision of 21 Sep 2000 and 16 Nov 2000 approving annexation of Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South. It is dear that both the annexation phase of DeVaul Ranch South, as well as the development phase of DeVaul Ranch South, must have an Environmental Impact Report. rlL\��-✓ '!�i�'1.�Z2,?��:�✓L' � .�%O�/'�Z�Z"---�'="--rte; Brian Christensen Michael C. Sullivan From Brian Christensen and Michael Sullivan to City of SLO(Council)for Council hearing of 20 Feb.2001 RE: DeVaul Ranch South development plan(tentative tract map), rezoning,environmental review,etc. Issues and .Concerns Page 1 of 3 From: - Brian Christensen, 818 Pismo St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805-542-9385 - Michael C. Sullivan, 1127 Seaward St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 805-545-9614 To: City of San Luis Obispo (Planning Commission and Council) RE: City council hearing on 20 Feb 2001. Proie "DeVaul Ranch South" residential development plan (Vesting Tentative Tract Map), rezoning, environmental review etc 11955 Los Osos Valley Road. Proposed Rezoning (from Conservation/Open Space zoning to Planned Development (PD) zoning (R-1-PD, R-2-PD, R-3-PD) , Tentative Tract Map subdivision to allow 77 apartments, 19 single family dwellings, 34 duplexes, and the potential for 17 secondary dwelling units, and environmental review. Abbreviations used: CEQA=California Environmental Quality Act LOUR=Los Osos valley Road Staff report 220/01=Staff report of City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Dept-for Council hearing of 2202001 on DeVaul Ranch South development plan ntaUve tract map), rezoning,environmental review,etc. SLI =San Wis General Summary of Concerns 1. The proposed Initial Study and mitigated Negative Declaration(staff report 2/20/01)for the development phase (tentative tract map), rezoning and environmental review of the DeVaul Ranch South project is inconsistent with CEQA. Substantial evidence in the record as a whole indicates there is a fair argument that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Substantial evidence in the record indicates that the mitigation measures and monitoring program are inadequate, and that potential significant impacts would remain. There are certain"Class I" (unavoidable and unmitigable)significant impacts associated with this project, therefore, a mitigated Negative Declaration is inappropriate; the City must prepare an EIR: CEQA Guidelines 15073.5(d). Examptes of he'Class P impacts are: A. Traffic- Cumulative effects of the project create Level of Service°F" (use exceeds capacity)at certain key intersections (e.g. LOVR/Madonna Rd, US101/Madonna, US101/LOVR), as indicated in the DeVaul Ranch North Final EIR which considered cumulative impacts of DeVaul Ranch North and DeVaul Ranch South. The Eagle Hardware EIR (p. V-64)states that it will be necessary to widen US101 to 6 lanes because of cumulative impacts of development at or near Froom Ranch, but.this issue has not been addressed. B. Agricultural land- Prime ag land will be permanently lost;the loss contributes to the cumulative loss of ag land in the county. C. Noise -The allowable noise limits will be exceeded; mitigation measures will be ineffective to prevent this. D. Water/Wastewater-Adequacy of water supply is uncertain; future studies are needed to determine adequacy of water and wastewater facilities(See, for example, Condition 6 at p. 3-25, staff report W0/01); water allocation needed for construction is unavailable until 2005; if water is allocated for this project early, other potential water users inother locations in the City will have a diminished supply; adequacy of wastewater collection and treatment is incertain; city has not made finding required by Govt Code 66474.6(i.e.that wastewater plan is approvable by Regional Water Quality Control Board). E. Aesthetics- Uncertainty about 100-year flood level and probable necessity for up to 7 feet of fill mean that effective height of buildingws will likely be taller, so buildings are likely to block views of Irish Hills from Los Osos Valley Road. F. Biology- Inadequate mitigation measure(riproper deferral of formulation of mitigation; uncertainty of availability of suitable off-site locations for re-planting)for protection of Congdon's tar plant means a significant impact will be likely. 2. The various findings for aproval (staff report 2120/01) are inadequate, insufficient, or not supported by substantial evidence. (See discussion in attachments). The proposed tentative tract map must be denied. ,3. The water allocation for the project is insufficient until year 2005. (See staff report 2/20/01, p.3-140). Therefore, one cannot make the finding that existing entitlements suffice for water supply. (See staff report 2/20/01, p. 3-115, Utilities and Service Systems 16(c).) If there is a readjustment of the allocation, it must be approved first by Council; this is tentatively scheduled for hearing in March 2001. This must be accomplished before this project can be considered for approval by council. From Brian Christen,, o and Michael Sullivan to City of SLO(Council)br Council hearing of 20 Feb.2001 RE: DeVaul Ranch South development plan(tentative tract map), rezoning,environmental review,etc. Issues and Concerns Page 2 of 3 4. The mitigation measures and mitigation monitoring program are inadequate and ineffective. Significant potential impacts will remain. (See additional discussion in attachments; see paragraph 1, above.) The mitigation monitoring program uses a"rubber stamp"approach (City will review plans) for monitoring many mitigation measures, but merely reviewing plans is insufficient in those cases where compliance can only be assured by inspection or other on-site monitoring, for example,to check for landscaping installation (Measure 1), or to check for soil stabilization(Measure 18), etc. Other monitoring programs are vague and/or unenforceable, for example Measures 3, 6, etc. Some mitigation measures illegally defer the formulation of specific mitigation plans or depend on future studies or analyses, so their chance of success is unknown, for example Measures 31 (requires future noise analysis), 28 (requires creation of a future mitigation plan for archaeology), 27(requires a future restoration plan for Congdon tar plant), 29 (requires future soil study to check for expansion and settling properties of soil), etc. 5. Secondary dwelling units are not allowed in the PD zone. City zoning ordinance 17.21.030 (C). Secondary dwelling units mean attached dwelling units. City zoning ordinance 17.21.020 (F). Secondary dwelling units should not be considered or allowed for this project. 6. Since there have been significant revisions in the initial study dated 08 Feb 2001, the initial study must be recirculated. CEQA 15073.5 The significant changes include two new additional mitigation measures, and a new mitigation monitoring program. (Staff report 2/20/01, p. 3-98 through 3-125; compare to Initial Study of 30 Nov 2000 in Attachment 5.) Although CEQA requires recirculation of the initial study related to the proposed Neg Dec, this matter may be moot, since an EIR, rather than a Negative Declaration, is required. 7. Various procedures followed by city in the CEQA process have been inconsistent with requirements of CEQA. A. There has been inadequate public disclosure of information needed to ascertain potential environmental effects, for example: There is insufficient information about 100-year flood hazard zone, noise analysis, water availability, etc. B. City has failed to provide in staff report information about agencies consulted in initial study process, and theQ responses. C. Reference to pertinent page numbers from earlier EIRs must be given. D.. If City uses mitigation measures from earlier documents,city must clearly explain explicitly which measures were used and how they pertain to concerns of the current project, and where this information can be found. City has failed to do this, for example, in,its reference to mitigation measures in the earlier DeVaul Ranch North EIR of 1998. See, for example, condition 34, staff report 2/20/01, p. 3-11, "The project shall comply with the mitigation measures established for the DeVaul Ranch North project as outlined in the DeVaul Ranch North Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program." Which specific measures are adopted,for which concerns of the current project? What mitigation monitoring program exists?(None is specified in the earlier EIR.) 8. The proposed DeVaul Ranch South development plan is inconsistent with the City General Plan and County General Plan (For example, see discussion in letter of Michael Sullivan, staff report 2/20/01, p. 3-126. 3-127). 9. The"annexation 60 (Froorn Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South, LAFCO File 8-R-00) was and is inconsistent with CEQA (and other laws). Prezoning of DeVaul Ranch South to Conservation/Open Space was inconsistent with CEQA. (See Sullivan's letter, staff report 2/20/01, p. 3-132, 3-133). Failure of LAFCO to require an EIR for annexation 62 was inconsistent with CEQA. (See Sullivan's letter, staff report 2/20/01, p. 3-126 through 3-137). Therefore the annexation must be voided by both LAFCO and the City of SLO, and a new annexation process must be conducted. Conclusions . 1. The City has failed to meet the requirements of CEQA and other laws; the environmental analysis (initial study) for . DeVaul Ranch South project is inadequate; an EIR, rather than a mitigated Negative Declaration, is required for the development phase of DeVaul Ranch South. 2. The proposed tentative tract map and rezoning for DeVaul.Ranch South must be denied, because the supporting findings are false. -3. The"Annexation 62" (Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South) (as approved by LAFCO in its actions of 21 Sep 2000 and 16 Nov 2000) must be voided; Annexation 62 requires an EIR for the DeVaul Ranch portion of the annexation an EIR or s lemntal EIR f the Froom Roman.cchh portion /of the annexation. n�� Brian Gvistensen Michael C. Sullivan .L. C From Brian Christensen and Michael Sullivan to City of SLO(Council)for Council hearing of 20 Feb.2001 RE: DeVaul Ranch South development plan(tentative tract map), rezoning,environmental review,etc. Issues and Concerns . Page 3 of 3 List of Attachments 1. Letter of 2/20/2001 from Brian Christensen and Michael C. Sullivan- Issues and Concerns - DeVaul Ranch South residential project. 2. Letter(1 page) from Michael Sullivan to City of San Luis Obispo(Ron Whisenand, Planning Dept; Ken Hampian, Administration Dept; City Council), received 16 Feb 2001, requesting disclosure of page numbers from earlier EIRs, and of information regarding mitigation measures and monitorning programs in earlier EIRs. 3. Letter(2 pages) of 4/18/1997 from Paul Hood(LAFCO)to Judith Lautner (City of SLO) regarding LAFCO requirments for DeVaul Ranch North. (Source: DeVaul Ranch North Final EIR of 1998) 4. Copy of staff report(pages B-1/1 through B-1/61.)for LAFCO File 8-R-00, hearing of 21 Sep 2000, Annexation 62 to the City of San Luis Obispo(Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South) -Contains Initial Study ER 87-00 of June 1, 2000 at Exhibit G. 5. Copy of Initial Study ER 87-00 of 30 Nov 2000, excerpt from City's staff report for Planning Commission hearing of 10 Jan 2001 on DeVaul Ranch South development phase(tentative tract map, rezoning). 6. Copy of documents from City Community Development Dept files RE: Costco application (a commercial development at Froom Ranch) including (a) Planning Application signed by applicant 11/09/2000 and received by City 11/13/2000 (b) Project Description(10 pages) (c) Impacts analysis, including traffic analysis (13 pages including appendix) 7. Photographs (3) of DeVaul Ranch South in Flood on 2/19/2001. 8. Newspaper article (San Luis Obispo Tribune, Tuesday 2/20/2001 at pages A-1.and A-6, discussing the financial situation of San Luis Coastal School District. °Layoffs pretty much a given" i co QY YI m W O 1 V _Z 0 rL T O T (n 0000 O e Q1 Q m O i co } O U � = t0co i� m < 0 rn CO i m N > m r m n Q c co 3: co m _ ca _ m O r o Y RS 0 CO) _ mj *- m r N m co Go 03. o ® � V d' tDODCO m (1) IRT � mmm TN M ` m C w T o O m w m ® m N N cll Q H m N � r r- CO (a O > m m � n. aLL 0w LO 0 O O O O O e J O 0w0 Q � 0 O LLJ 0 0 0 0 O QN= (n e � m U) 0 0 z m,^ o0 V/ T co 0 Z J Fa: co � O 0 O Z ¢ O r N O LAN 1111 .4 Q } r Ill O ^ O Q O O J } n m m m r T J Q O e Qu� o� � � 0ri n io Go mmo 111 0 o CoCO rno= m � zCOcomp o U_ z z J '' w E CD Q 0 z a W 0 � W m O Ua O w co � z W c a: —Z wWw p LOocOo m � M m . J m � ¢ f i� 6o6o6d 2I=- o Z W U) (D z . . Q YY «v Q F- fq 0 mof Or ~ QQ y LU O ? zw 0 is i: com O- a. (L Ln to to to co F N CD 0 O O v O •- c I- o T uj 0000 0 0 � m0 c as } O U �. L " T O N J f� rvr0 m 2 coO QF- r' rAOto N L (n ... > m rT Nr � O _O Q cj O � p o m o O Oomm 0 0' Y 0 J N CO W m mLO VI m r T _ p ® r O CD , co O M (f) V LOO m O U O t � m T a U2 [h } W N o O O q' C\j J ... ... C J . LO tD r � tO ® CO cm NCl) ca NO am � � rr to n _ O O n m L mw p Loaau. 0 0000 0 fA m O Ow g 0000 0 Q _ � � co Coco 0 Q _ o > N Q = 0 0 0 0 O co m O cn Z m c U Z i N r� -cr N O 0 Q m N N N r T O ZF— Q CO O Z r N o¢ } r T 1 W 7t L7 Q ooh Q 0 0 0 0 0 o e ;a ;p J } } Q � m O qoi v o > p 0 z v e .n U) W = = w o = N m o co Lo m O O m'CO C) Z comp o z z z -1 T LL Q m W C7 Q O z a W U Cr U Q Ow O Z a m O w tri LL Z i- ww F- o coZ .J W wm 0 a 0 +�- 007 w = m N CO CC F H a tt) tD t[1 j 2 1- O W O Q Y Y w Z U rn z Q F- c � O Mv0r. 0 QQ O C ? Zw U C6 Lo da V � OCD � tt N co co 0 U 0 '- O — r uj 0000 0 41 a: o c cz w i U O co J CD O N N co e (n Q CO 0 W If) O r T iI� Y > T T T r CD C) CD VQ/ Cl) CMDo E co 0 _ m Y Co O 0r N co C O C/3m CA Q Co � 0 n ® r CD Q Go co co co D) � tm Q t0 tO S m N M U M } w a 0 0Lli O l0- J Cr) I000D C e CION. tOhCOr n u ® O co O O > � T r T r LO n c L x O w O tOLLn. LL m U) O O O O O u � J O Ow g C43 't co Q V LO V N CD c _ T V) M O o V) a: r V3 w Q r O N V N Q = fA N > �t N 0 (fl Jco CA IO LO co 0 Cn ( m N CDD 00 0 U CD Z 0 COt� NN K o T O Z Q r m co O O Z Q TLO Q T T wVO' ' m } n m m m O O J' Coco O c r r J Q F O m a o > 0 Z n m m n w � � co 00 J m r m m m O 2SO ` cnO m m 0 O Im Z LL U).W J r W E— a a w cn o Q w O 0 c) a U) OZ w LL JU w LLJw Q m D wwa: o .r0 CV) n 0 � o � � f- H I dz 4b J 2F- 0 z CC Z Q Y Y Q FCO � =O OLO 0lgr0 mv, r O Cf) ? Zw o r� r� com F- CL0- ¢ vmicMomco � °' o F N o cU O C H o T CD O o a-: m O i cuC\l } cj p W J 0 Cn - ] mNNNN O m _N Q � U) T 0 E_Y m rn m m v Cc$ cn rCl m . RS Cc 03 T o ® � T v vn � oco rn Lf) IRt ` , M LU O v qqr 0 'E .t0 J N m N co to o ® m ® N � Q � TNMN 0) f0 ca CD m r T T T v tC) U) ddlL W W 0 O O O O O e Cn m O 0 W 0 v p � cv7vm v e Q m rIRT 0 O U) co .. W Q tpmrN m u Q 2 m T to 0 C) N O = N m m CA N M J 7 M Cr) v CO O cnm Tm o () Z M 7 m r v e O Z Q T m T c O Q } p z O � Q r r W } \ C N J a ?iH o qoi Q ' o j < < co 0 c c ui iri W = = CAO _ yr m m N U 2 2 m U) m N Cp _ m m Q O z LL mCl) J a rr w oZ CL w U a: EL 0 ow O, a z ? ¢ (9 U) w 'r' LL z F- ww F o az wWw o in0Lno M z) aC M ZWF- vi6iricfi = H o Q I- C/) O mvoL ¢ a N 0 ? zw v vv �iici as �? � nm��eyriuw ® end Assoastes,Inc. Project Costco Wholesale, San Luis Obispo Subject Trip Generation for Discount Club/Supemnarket Designed by JW Date October 10,2000 Job No. Checked by Date Sheet No. 1 of 1 TRIP GENERATION MANUAL TECHNIQUES ITE Trip Generation Manual 6th Edition,Average Rate Equations Land Use Code-Free-Standing Discount Club(861) Independant Variable- 1000 Square Feet Gross Leasable Area(X) . Gross Leasable Area= 149,785 Square Feet X = 149.785 T =Average Vehicle Trip Ends Peak Hour of Adiacent Street Traffic,One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m.(Page 15741 Daily Weekday Directional Distribution: 51% ent. 49% exit T=0.65(X) T = 97 Average Vehicle Trip Ends T=0.65" 149.785 49 entering. 48 exiting 49 + 48 = 97 Peak Hour of Adiacent Street Traffic,One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m.(nage 1575+864 Daily Weekday Directional Distribution: 49% ent. 51% exit T=3.80(X) T = 569 Average Vehicle Trip Ends T=3.80' 149.785 279 entering 290 exiting 279 + 290 = 569 Weekday(page 15731 Daily Weekday Directional Distribution: 50°/a entering,500/6 exiting T=41.80(X) T = 6262 Average Vehicle Trip Ends T=41.80' 149.785 3131 entering 3131 exiting 3131 + 3131 = 6262 and dssodates,Inc. Project Costco Wholesale, San Luis Obispo Subject Trip Generation for Gas Station Designed by JW Date October 10,2000 Job No. Checked by Date Sheet No. 1 of 1 TRIP GENERATION MANUAL TECHNIQUES ITE Trio Generation Manual 6th Edition,Average Rate Equations Land Use Code-Gasoline Service Station(844) Independant Variable-Vehicle Fueling Positions(X) Vehicle Fueling Positions= 6 Positions s X _ 6 T =Average Vehicle Trip Ends Peak Hour of Adiacent Street Traffic,One Hour Between-7 ands a.m.,(Page 1458). Daily Weekday Directional Distribution: 51% ent. 49% exit. T= 12.27(X) T = 74 Average Vehicle Trip Ends T= 12.27' 6 38 entering 36 exiting 38 + 36 = 74 Peak Hour of Adiacent Street Traffic,One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m.(page 1459) Daily Weekday Directional Distribution: 51% ent. 49% exit T= 14.56(X) T = 87 Average Vehicle Trip Ends T= 14.56` 6.000 44 entering 43 exiting 44 + 43 = 87 Weekday(page 1457) Daily Weekday Directional Distribution: 50%entering,50%exiting T= 168.56(X) T = 1012 . Average Vehicle Trip Ends T= 168.56' 6.000 506 entering- 506 exiting 506 + 506 = 1012 Non-Pass-by Trip Volumes(page 1-21 and I-22,February 1995 Update to the 5th Edition) PM Peak Hour= 52% Pass By AM Peak Hour=58%Pass By IN Out Total AM Peak 16 15 31 PM Peak 21 21 42 Daily 228 322 549 at the warehouse include appliances, books, cds and dvds, clothing, computers and peripherals, electronics and cameras, floral delivery and holiday, fresh baked goods, groceries and meats and produce, delicatessen and gourmet foods and collectibles, hardware, outdoor living, health and beauty, home essentials, jewelry and accessories, office machines and supplies, off-sale only alcoholic beverages, optical, pharmacy,photo, sporting goods,tires, toys, and travel. The project additionally shall include a three-island gasoline facility that may be expanded to a fourth island. Each island is designed with two double-sided gasoline dispensers, for a total of twelve fueling positions,with possible expansion to four islands and sixteen fueling positions. The pumps are fully automated and self-serving for Costco members only. The gasoline facility is intended to be located in the southwest comer of the Costco Parcel(the proposed project), although Costco is including site plans for two alternatives that would locate the gasoline facility in the southeast corner of the Costco Parcel (project alternative 1) or the northeast corner (project alternative 2). The analysis in this description applies specifically to the proposed project, but most of it also would apply generally to the two project alternatives. Access to the Costco Parcel is from four points on Los Osos Valley Road by way of easements across frontage parcels. (Refer to the site plan in Exhibit SS-I). The main center driveway, sixty feet (60') in width, will be perpendicular to Los Osos Valley Road, extending from the common boundary between the Home Depot Parcel and the Costco Parcel to Los Osos Valley Road. A' secondary entrance to the Costco Parcel,also perpendicular to Los Osos Valley Road and twenty feet (20') in width, is intended to be located along the north boundary of the frontage parcel in front of Costco Parcel, extending from the Costco Parcel to Los Osos Valley Road and will be a right-in, 3 right-out only intersection. Additional right-in, right-out, thirty feet (30')wide access points from Los Osos Valley Road will be located where the Aflag pole@ portion of the Home Depot Parcel meets Los Osos Valley Road,and along the south boundary of the southern-most frontage parcel of the Center. A common drive aisle running parallel to Los Osos Valley Road along the east boundaries of the Costco Parcel and the Home Depot Parcel will connect the four drive aisles that provide access from Los Osos Valley Road, all of which shall be subject to reciprocal access easements. Vehicles coming to the Costco Parcel north-bound on Los Osos Valley Road will use the main center driveway. Vehicles coming to the Costco Parcel south-bound on Los Osos Valley Road may use any of the four driveways but primarily will use the northem-most driveway and the main center driveway. Vehicles departing from the Costco Parcel to Los Osos Valley Road north- bound will use the main center driveway, and vehicles departing to Los Osos Valley Road south- bound may use any of the four driveways. As shown in the site plan,the Costco building is sited along in the northwest comer of the Costco Parcel, and it faces into the site and towards Los Osos Valley Road. The main entrance is in the southeast comer of the building. The tire center will be located along the east side of the building, immediately adjacent to the main entrance and will provide articulation to this building elevation as viewed from Los Osos Valley Road. The shipping/receiving area is located on the southwest comer of the building facing Home Depot and the open space and farthest removed from the DuVaul Ranch housing developments. The shipping/receiving area is designed to accommodate four trucks at a time. The machinery for compacting and baling the cardboard refuse is located towards the northwest corner of the building, behind the shipping/receiving area. Parking is provided primarily 4 on the south and east sides of the building,closest to the main entrance and includes approximately 854 stalls, for a ratio of more than 5.7 stalls per 1,000 square feet of building area. The primary pedestrian access to the Costco warehouse building will be from the sidewalk on Los Osos Valley Road at the bus turnout immediately south of the main center driveway,then Along the main access drive to the Home Depot frontage,then due north to the Costco building entrance to the main entrance,(see exhibit SS-1). Given the nature of the gasoline facility operations,there will be no reason for anyone other than an occasional Costco employee to access it on foot,so no designated pedestrian access is provided to the gasoline facility. Also, no pedestrian crosswalks or routes will be marked within the parking fields. This is based on Costco's experience in operating over 300 comparable facilities and is consistent with the practices of major grocery stores and other Abig- box@ operators. To the extent that crosswalks are intended to congregate pedestrians into specific crossing points, they do not function in such facilities because the numbers of customers (pushing shopping carts) sometimes would exceed the capacity of specified crosswalks, the designation of limited crossing points might reduce the alertness of drivers elsewhere in the parking lot, and, perhaps most importantly, customers would ignore the crosswalks and follow the shortest distance between their cars and the warehouse main entrance in any event. For these reasons,the parkirig lots are designed so that the parking aisles point towards the warehouse entrance, and the aisles are over- wide in order to easily accommodate two-way vehicle traffic and pedestrians with shopping carts. Trees within the parking area will be broadleaf shade trees with initial minimum heights to 10 to 12 feet so that foliage does not interfere with sight lines. 5 C� The project will be drained as shown in the concept grading/drainage plan. Surface water currently flowing from the Irish Hills open space onto the property will be contained and channelized at the west property line, from which it will flow either to a detention pond behind the Home Depot Parcel or in a channel behind the Home Depot Parcel to the detention pond in front of the Froom Ranch. Water falling onto the Property will be directed through storm sewers to a central drainage easement under the main access drive between the parcels and from there into a storm drain along Los Osos Valley Road. With the diversion of the off-site surface water to a detention pond, the amount of water flowing from the project into the Los Osos Valley Road storm drain will not be greater than that which currently flows into that storm drain system from the project site. Costco will vacuum sweep the parking lots two to three times a week to remove heavy metal materials and sediments. The small quantities of gasoline and oil which may leak from vehicles will rarely flow as far as the drainage inlets, but Costco will install fossil filters or an approved equal product at these inlets to capture contaminants that otherwise might flow into the storm drain system. As shown in Exhibit L-1, the Conceptual Landscape Plan, the perimeter of the site will be landscaped with conifers at the north and west, interspersed with shade tress at parking islands. Throughout the parking lot broadleaf shade trees, accent trees and shrubs are found at the ends of each parking section. Exhibit L-2 depicts tree locations as they appear in section through the parking areas. The parking lot will be lighted with standard downward pointing lights, each containing two 1,000 watt halide bulbs affixed to a 35-foot light pole. The lighting fixtures are of a shoe-box style with 6 � J the bulbs recessed in the shoe box to minimize dispersion and glare. See preliminary site electrical plan. The building exterior will be of vertical metal panels and concrete masonry block, scored in places to break up the building facade. Canopies with standing seam metal roofing flank the entrance on either side, covering the food service and shopping cart storage areas. The main entrance to the building is depicted on the southeast elevation(exhibit SE-1). The building colors range from light to dark beige tones. The primary color of the building is a medium shade of beige with accents. The Costco signs on the southeast and northeast elevations will be externally-illuminated letters in red with accent stripes and WHOLESALE in blue. The mass of the building is broken up by varying the height of the parapet, trellises and changes in the planes of the facade to create relief and shadowing, and landscaping to-soften its lines. The gasoline service area will be covered with a canopy that will extend 88 feet across. Around the perimeter of the canopy will be a metal fascia panel painted to match the warehouse. The canopy is supported by block columns. Lights will be recessed in the canopy. 7 OPERATIONS DESCRIPTION The Costco facility in San Luis Obispo is expected to employ approximately 300 persons, totaling between 75 and 125 employees per shift. The Costco warehouse will be open Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m., Saturday 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Sunday 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The gasoline facility hours of operation typically extend from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. weekdays and from 7:00 am to 6:00 p.m. weekends. Costco anticipates an average of about 18 trucks delivering goods on a typical weekday. The trucks' range in size from.26 feet long for single-axle,trailers to 54 feet long for double axle trailers. Receiving time is from.4:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., averaging 2 to 3 trucks per hour and most of the deliveries will be completed before the 10:00 a.m. opening time. Deliveries to the warehouse are made primarily in Costco trucks from its freight consolidation facility in Tracy, California. Trucks will be routed from Highway 101 along Los Osos Valley Road to the main entrance to the center, then proceed along the east, north and west perimeters of the Costco Parcel to back into the loading docks. They will depart over the central drive aisle to Los Osos Valley Road and back to Highway 101.. Fuel truck deliveries are anticipated to occur daily during the hours of operation, usually between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. The fuel trucks will traverse the same route as the warehouse delivery trucks to the Costco Parcel and then continue along the central drive to the gasoline facility. The 8 C� J largest fuel trucks are approximately 70 feet long and carry 9,500 gallons. While delivering the fuel, the truck will be parked over the underground tanks located on the west side of the gasoline facility- The truck will not block access to any of the twelve fueling positions, but its presence may discourage customers from accessing the western-most bay. For this reason, Costco will make every effort to schedule deliveries at non-peak periods and usually before 10:00 a.m. The tire center typically will receive shipments of tires two times per week in single- or double- trailer trucks of up to 60 feet in length, and pick up of old tires usually will occur once per week in 28 foot long trucks. The typical routing for tire center trucks will be from Highway 101'via Los Osos Valley Road to the center=s central entrance to the Costco Parcel, then along the east border of the Costco Parcel to turn in at the point of the tire center; and they will return the same way or along the secondary access road on the north perimeter of the center. Deliveries to and pickups from the tire center will be scheduled for pre-opening hours, typically about 6:00 a.m. In an average week, a total of approximately 100.trucks will call upon the Costco warehouse, tire center and gasoline facility. In order to open and operate the gasoline facility, Costco will have to meet requirements of local, state and federal regulators and agencies, including the San Luis Obispo County Fire Protection District, the San Luis Obispo 'County. Environmental Health--Hazardous Materials Division (Hazardous Materials/Underground Tank Permit), the San Luis Obispo Certified Unified Program Agency, the San Luis Obispo Air Quality Management District,the California Accidental Release 9 • J Prevention Program (Risk Management Plan), the State Water Resources Control Board, the California Environmental Protection Agency, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. One of these requirements, for example, may be a Spill Prevention Countermeasure and Control Plan to prevent runoff of petroleum product spills. 10 Double Click to -•. , �� Insert ReportTitle and Associates,hie: !�- .^ . _ FRS r : ,� , _Cf� =✓r,•�, , c:C o G r 7y INTRODUCTION o� a R' ��' Costco Wholesale proposes to construct a new facility at 12395 Los Osos Valley Road in San Luis Obispo, CA. Current development projects (e.g. Home Depot and residential development on the Duval-property) near the Costco site are in the process of making improvements along Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) to relieve traffic congestion. However, the current congestion at the Highway 101 interchange will remain and is expected to be the "bottleneck that may limit future development. A project study report (PSR) for the interchange is being planned by the city and Caltrans but will not be ready until the end of year 2001. When completed, the PSR is expected to identify short and long term improvements that should be completed at the interchange to support future growth in the city. Kimley-Horn staff visited the site and collected traffic data on October 2 and October 3, 2000. During that time, meetings were held with planners and engineers-from the.City of San .Luis Obispo and the County of San Luis Obispo. The purpose of this report is to document the initial investigation of traffic conditions adjacent to the proposed site. This preliminary evaluation identifies current traffic conditions at the interchange and makes an assessment of whether sufficient capacity exists to accommodate Costco, or if minor improvements can be made to the interchange to support the Costco development until the PSR is completed. REVIEW OF EXISTING STUDIES Prior to the site visit in October, Kimley-Hom reviewed traffic related studies in the vicinity of the project site to obtain background information. The studies included: C Draft Environmental Impact Report— 1992 Land Use E_ lement/Circulation Element Updates, Volume 2 Appendices. January 1993. e Final Environmental Impact Report — Land Use Element/Circulation Element Updates. August 1994. G Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report — Madonna/Eagle Hardware and Garden. October 1998. According.to the January 1993 and the August 1994 reports, traffic conditions (at the time the reports were prepared) were level of service B or better along Los Osos Valley Road (between Madonna and Highway 101. The reports further noted that LOVR was planned to be widened to four lanes and could accommodate traffic through the year 2025 at a level of service B or better. In 1998, a supplemental EIR was prepared for the proposed Madonna/Eagle Hardware project. According to the supplemental report, traffic conditions (at the time the report was prepared) were still LOS B or better along Los Osos Valley Road but would deteriorate to LOS C with the hardware store, and further degrade to LOS F by the year 2008, unless the roadway was widened. If LOVR was widened to four lanes it would operate at LOS C or better in the year 2008. Unlike the 1993 and 1994 reports, the supplemental EIR noted that ultimately LOVR toosccN 1 June, 1997 ®®�Dnky4iom � Double Click to ® end Associates be Insert Report Title would need to be widened to six lanes to operate at an acceptable LOS in the long term. Following the preparation of the supplemental EIR, Eagle Hardware has decided to not locate on the site: Instead, a smaller Home Depot is planned and is expected to start construction in mid- October 2000. The smaller size of the Home Depot will likely generate fewer trips than Eagle Hardware. INTERVIEWS WITH CITY AND COUNT' STAFF Kimley-Horn met with city and county staff to understand the history of past transportation and land use decisions in the project vicinity. Persons meeting with Kimley-Horn included: • Tim Bochum—Deputy Public Works Director, City of San Luis Obispo C Jim Hanson—Associate Transportation Engineer,City of SanLuisObispo • Jerry Kenney—Supervising Civil Engineer, City of San.Luis Obispo • Glen Matteson—Senior Planner, City of San Luis Obispo • Alice Carter—Geographic Information Systems Manager, City of San Luis Obispo • Mark Hucheson—Senior Planner, County of San Luis Obispo The following summarizes the results of the meetings: The project site and surrounding parcels on the west side of LOVR are currently vacant. The area is in unincorporated county lands, but is within the city's urban reserve boundary. As such, it has been assumed that eventually it would become part of the city. In the past, the area has been zoned for agricultural uses by the county but anticipated for residential uses by the city when annexed. In the January 1993 and the August-1994 imd-use Element/Circulation Element Updates, the area was shown primarily for future residential development. More recently, the county has zoned the land to be used for commercial.uses-and the city has also changed their land use designation to commercial uses for the area. In the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Madonna/Eagle Hardware-project, the area was also evaluated for commercial uses. The current zoning and agreements:between the county and city require that_when the area is developed, the land will be annexed to the city. For example, as soon as construction begins on the Home Depot site, the site is annexed into the City of San Luis Obispo. As a condition of approval for the Home Depot, LOVR must be widened to four lanes in each direction between the Highway 101 interchange and Madonna Road. In addition, the access to the Home Depot will be relocated to provide joint. access to Home Depot and the proposed Costco site. The access is planned to have a double left turn lane into the project site with a traffic signal at the intersection. Home Depotwill also make frontage improvements which will locate their curbs and sidewalks at the ultimate six-lane width of LOVR. Another development project, near Madonna. Road, has also been conditioned with similar requirements for widening LOVR and frontage improvements. The development is referred to as icmtc04 2 June, 1997 Double Click to Insert Re ort Title khJ=®Klmley Hom and Associates,Inc. P the Duval Ranch for single and multi family housing. According to the city, Home Depot and the Duval Ranch development will be coordinating their activities for the design and construction of the LOVR improvements. Jurisdictional review and .approval of the LOVR widening and improvements will be completed by the city. Because the widening and improvements to LOVR will come ahead of the Costco project, most traffic congestion problems will be corrected in the project vicinity, with the exception of the Highway 101 interchange. The Highway 101 interchange at LOVR will remain as the "bottleneck" that may limit approval of the Costco project. The interchange currently experiences congestion during,the AM,..and PM peak hours and needs to be widened and 1 improved. Caltrans and the city are planning'aProject.Study Report-to determine short and long term improvements that should,be completed atthe interchange to support future growth in the city. The PSR is funded but will not be ready until the end of year,2001. Even then, Caltrans will need to fund the project,complete theengineering,.and make the improvements, all of-which could take several more years before changes are made It was the opinion of city and county staff that the Costco traffic report would need to accurately identify when the interchange will fail and offer interim mitigation until the PSR-is completed and the interchange can be upgraded. Even then, the approval by the city of the Costco will be highly political. At the meetings, it was recommended that Kimley-Horn obtain copies of the EMs-prepared for the Duval Ranch and Delidio Market Place projects. They are more recent than the Madonna/Eagle Hardware report and may have valuable information in preparing the-traffic report. It,was also recommended that Kimley-Holm review the contents of the county's General Plan Supplemental EIR. When asked whether the Costco project will require a new EIR or a supplemental EIR, there was not a consensus by any of the city or county staff. It was the opinion of the city and county that when more traffic information is available, they can make a determination. EXISTING TRAMC.CONDIT.IONS-AT EUGHWAY 101 AND LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD Kimley-Horn collected AM and PM traffic counts at the interchange, made observations related to vehicle queuing; and prepared a photo log of LOVR between the interchange and Madonna Road. Traffic counts are summarized in Figure 1. Complete traffic counts and the photo log are included in the Appendix of this report. Traffic counts and observations at the interchange verified peak hour congestion. In the AM, traffic on LOVR is congested in the eastbound direction towards Higuera Street. During that time, the intersection for the northbound ramps is unable to accommodate the traffic and queuing across the top of the overpass _occurs. In some cases the length of the queue blocks the intersection for the southbound ramps. This condition lasts about 15 minutes. IeostcO4 3 June, 1997 QU O Z 10(221 1 j Q tT(A4)�� J N Y Q O O CALLECo JOAQUIN O J NV` Q4 �O GP QJ N J O' 996(4161 n/ XXX (XXX) AM (PM) Not to Scale FIGURE 1 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES ®®®ica*Y-""0 ® and Amciates, Inc © . Kimley-Hom Double Click to ® 3 turd Associates,Inc. Insert Report Title_ During the PM peak, traffic congestion is greatest in the westbound direction toward Madonna Road. During that time, the intersection for the southbound ramps is unable to accommodate the traffic and queuing across the top of the overpass occurs. In some cases the length of the queue blocks the intersection for the northbound ramps. This condition also lasts about 15 minutes. The greatest cause of the vehicle congestion is a general lack of capacity. The interchange overpass is a single-lane in each direction, thus limiting the amount of traffic that can pass through the interchange. Other factors also influence the operation of the interchange, such as close signal spacing and interference from side-street traffic. It was also observed that part of the cause of the vehicle queuing was a result of the interchange signals not being coordinated. At the intersection of the southbound ramps, it was further observed that traffic destined for the southbound on-ramp frequently encroached on the opposing traffic lane of Calle Joaquin. As a result, the traffic signal frequently stopped through traffic on LOVR to provide time for,Calle Joaquin, even if there were no cars present. This "lost time" takes time away from moving traffic along LOVR. PRELEVIINARY SITE TRIP GENERATION Trip generation rates are set by the City of San Luis Obispo and are based on the rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication Trip Generation, 6` ,Edition. This manual is a standard reference used by jurisdictions throughout the country and is based on actual trip generation studies at numerous locations of various populations. According to the city, the Costco store is considered as a Discount Club/Supermarket with .a daily trip generation rate of 41.80 trips per 1000 square feet. The closest match to the gas station (in the city's trip rates) is for a Gas Station/Service Station that has a daily trip generation rate of 168.56 trips per fueling location. This is not necessarily a good rate because it doesn't account for the fact that patrons are club members and that many will buy gas at the same time as shopping. The city agreed to consider a justification for reducing the established rates. Based on the city rates, the Costco Wholesale will generate approximately 6,262 daily trips and the related gas station will generate another 1,012 daily trips. These trips represent the maximum number of trips likely to be generated by the site. It is assumed that reduction to these trips can be justified and will be included during the preparation of a full traffic impact report for the project site. Trip generation calculations are included in the Appendix. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND POTENTIAL MMITIGATION OPTIONS A preliminary traffic analysis was conducted using SYNCHRO software. SYNCHRO is based on the Highway Capacity Manual Methodology which is a standard used by professionals and jurisdictions throughout the country. The traffic analysis of the interchange shows that the Icostco4 4 June, 1997 _ Double Click to l rJ"'�''ft" �-" Insert Report Title ® ® and Assodates,Inc. _ i intersections are operating near capacity and will likely exceed capacity when the Home Depot is constructed. The analysis did show that some improvement to traffic operations are possible if the traffic signals are coordinated and other signal settings are adjusted. The analysis also verified that if the westbound approach at the intersection for the southbound ramps iswidened to add another through lane, the intersection operation significantly improves. Unfortunately, the intersection at the northbound ramps is more constrained and cannot be easily modified to add additional capacity. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The traffic results included in this report are preliminary and are .based on a limited amount of data and an However, the•results indicate,that:although the interchange is operating near capacity, improvements can be made to improve capacity and reduce.congestion and vehicle queuing. Potential improvements include: a Coordinate the traffic signals at the interchange a Adjust the traffic signal settings at the southbound ramp intersection to eliminate the side street"lost time" from delaying through traffic a Widen the westbound approach at the southbound ramp intersection to increase capacity a Consider access control for driveways and cross streets adjacent to the intersection It is recommended that a full traffic report be prepared for the proposed Costco Wholesale and that the reportt further evaluate the impacts of the Costco on the interchange and other nearby intersections as identified by the City of San Luis Obispo. All interchange improvements will need to be coordinated with Caltrans, as well as the city and county. Ico=04 5 June, 1997 ®® gmlayftam �1 Double Click to ®�and Assodatm,Inc Insert Report Title y` APPENDIX 1costcO4 6 June, 1997 Ci 1 r.' .. .l..... ��Illlill!!IIIIIIII � ������ �IIIIIIII►� �./ _ city of stuis OBISPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 INITIAL STUDY- ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 87-00 1. Project Title: DeVaul Ranch South Planned Development 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: Peggy Mandeville,781-7175 4. Project Location: 11955 Los Osos Valley Road 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Jet-Ski Land Development #3, LLC 484 Mobil Ave., Suite 19 Camarillo, CA 93010 6. General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential 7. Zoning: Conservation/Open Space (interim zoning) 8. Description of the Project: The proposed planned development rezoning from C/OS to R-1-PD, R-2-PD and R-3-PD, subdivision of the 13.6 acre site into 55 lots, and architectural review would allow the development of 77 apartment units, 19 single family dwellings, 34 duplexes and the potential for 17 secondary dwelling units. 9.- Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: To the general south is the Froom Ranch ranchland, farmhouse and outbuildings: County approvals allow the development of a home improvement store at this location. To the general north and west is agricultural land with City approvals for single and multi-family residential development. To the general east is existing single family residential development and a school. 10. Project Entitlements Requested: Vesting tentative map, planned development rezoning and architectural review. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): Airport Land Use Commission /O The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. V� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. 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 Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services Agricultural Resources Hazards& Hazardous Recreation Materials X X Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation &Traffic X X Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service Systems X X Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance -- gg Energy and Mineral Population and Housing k Resources 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 quafifies 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. 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 Piave a significant effect on the environment, there will X not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT'is re uired. 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. a CITY OF SAN Luis OBispo 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 November 30, 2000 Si ature Date Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager Community Development Dir. Printed Name For 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 SignificantImpact' is appropriate_if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross- referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California Administrators Code. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans,zoning ordinances). Reference.to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effectsfrom 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. �`� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISpo 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 t .. Issues and Supporting Informatic.C1rceS Sources Poten Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 87-00, Jet-Ski Planned Develo ment Issues with Impact p Mitigation 11955 Los Osos Valley Road Inco orated 1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse,effect on a scenic vista? 1 X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not X limited-to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic- .buildings whin a local or state scenic highway? c). Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality. 8,9 X - of the site and its_surroundings?: d)- Create -anew source of substantial light or glare which would 2 X adversely effect day of nighttime views in the area? Views This section of Los Osos Valley Road is identified in the City's Circulation Element as a "road with moderate to high scenic value". The scenic designation is based on the visual quality of the landscape through which the road travels. The high visual quality of the Los Osos Valley Road corridor is generally defined by two primary factors: the unobstructed views of the adjacent hillsides and the rural character of the valley floor. This high visual quality rating is moderated in areas where views of the hillsides are reduced or where the visual,integrity of the rural open space has been altered. The project site which is currently in use for crop production is visible from Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR). .No structures are located on the site other than perimeter wire fencing. Prominent visual features seen from Los Osos Valley Road include the site's pasture/agricultural lands in the foreground and the scenic backdrop of the Irish Hills. Introduction of the project features will eliminate the rural elements of the existing view and will create a definite urban appearance. The Land Use and Open Space Elements of the City's General Plan allow for urban development of this and adjoining sites. It is important however, that this development maintain views of the Irish Hills which will soften the impact of interjecting an urban development into a rural landscape. It also creates the sense that the project is cognizant of its environment and has taken steps to blend into its surroundings. Previous project approvals on either side of this property (DeVaul Ranch North and Froom Ranch) will alter the existing rural character of the area. Likewise, the widening Los Osos Valley Road (required by the Froom and DeVaul Ranch North projects) will also alter this rural image. Although the visual characteristics of the area will further change with the development of this project, given the scale .of this project and the fact that it is located between two developing properties, the project will not result in a significant impact to the visual quality of the area. Along Los Osos Valley Road, the visibility of the proposed apartments as well as the view of the Irish Hills will depend on the plant materials selected, the width of the landscape area and the final landscape design. A well planned and effective berm and landscape strip may not be possible given the limited space shown on project plans. This impact is potentially significant unless the width of the landscape strip is increased, or the applicant demonstrates that the proposed strip can effectively screen the project and improve the visual quality of the site and surrounding area. Additionally, coordination with the DeVaul Ranch North landscape plan and the inclusion of palm trees in the landscape plan will provide a continuation of the existing landscape pattern along LOVR and helps to integrate the project into the area. Generally, landscaping which is sufficiently dense and tall to screen completely the proposed apartments could also limit the ridgeline views of the hills. To mitigate this potential impact, the applicant should be required to submit a detailed landscaping plan for City review and approval. The plan should identify evergreen and deciduous plant materials, the horizontal and vertical limits of plantings, the materials used to screen the apartments and parking areas, but not hinder views of the hills. The project's southeasterly boundary will be in full view from LOVR since minimal screening is proposed along this boundary. Development of the adjacent parcel may eventually screen the site and reduce its exposure, however there is no guarantee adjacent screening will be adequate. Failure to screen this view could be considered a potentially significant impact. To mitigate this potential impact, the applicant should submit a detailed landscape plan for this area for City review and approval. Maintaining a two-story height limit for the apartments will retain ridgeline views of the Irish Hills. Although the ""+7 CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 C . . Issues and Supporting Informatiot' Farces Sources Potent'" Less Than Less Mian No Signif, Significant Significant Impact ER 87-00, Jet-Ski Planned Development Issues with Impact 11955 Los Osos Valley Road Mitigation Inco orated apartments will block lower elevation views of the hills, maintaining the upper views helps preserve the imagery that a rural and urban interface exists. Additionally, the applicant's proposal to locate public art at the project's Los Osos Valley Road frontage may help make the site more visually appealing and interesting. Light and Glare To ensure project lighting does not create any negative aesthetic impacts, proposed lighting should be reviewed and approved by the City for compliance with City standards. CONCLUSION: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measures: 1. Provide a landscape buffer along LOVR and along the south side of the property boundary abutting Froom Ranch. 2. Plant palm trees to mirror the existing palms across LOVR. 3. Coordinate landscape plans for the property with plans submitted for the adjacent DeVaul Ranch North and Froom Ranch. 4. Incorporate landscaping elements including decorative paving, walls, and fencing. 5. Install public art at the project's LOVR entry. 6. Create a"maintenance association"to facilitate long term care of landscaping. 7. Eliminate on-street parking on DeVaul Ranch Road between LOVR and Tonini Drive. 8. Design the detention basin to appear as a naturally occurring feature and revegetate the perimeter with native plants and trees to further reduce its engineered appearance. 9. Limit the height of the three apartment buildings closest to LOVR to 26 feet in height. These building heights shall'be considered maximum unless during the architectural review process the applicant can demonstrate through the site plan and architectural design that views of the upper portions of the Irish Hills will not be blocked. 10. Screen from view any necessary water pumps, valves, backflow preventers, and service cabinets. 11. Design the detention basin to appear as a naturally occurring feature. 12. Submit a detailed landscaping plan for the LOVR project frontage and the southern edge of the property abutting the Froom Ranch property for review and approval by the City. The plan shall identify evergreen and deciduous plant materials, retaining walls, earth mounding, the horizontal and vertical limits of plantings, and other materials used to effectively screen the parking areas and soften the views of the development, but not hinder views of the hills. 13. Exterior lighting shall be directed downward and not spill onto adjoining properties. The maximum height of lighting equipment and supporting structures, including fixtures, standard and base, shall not be higher than 20 feet above the finished grade. Lighting levels measured at finished grade directly beneath the fixture shall not exceed 10 footcandles. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Convert Prime farmland,.Unique-Farmland, or Farmland of 6,10 X Statewide Importance(Farmland) as shown on the maps _ - pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Califomia Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict,with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X Williamson Act contract?. c) Involve otherchapges in the existing environment which, due X to their location or..nature,could result in conversion of Farmland; to non=e ricUltural. use? The 13.6 acre site is identified as having prime agricultural soils based on the 1984 USDA Soils Conservation Service Survey. The soil is well suited for vegetable crops, dryland farming and pasture, however, crop production is greatly reduced during the winter unless surface and subsurface drainage systems are installed. For agricultural production, it has a capability of Class IIs-5 when irrigated. This means the soil has moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or requires moderate conservation practices. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBtSPo 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 b — Issues and Supporting Informatic urces Source Potei. Less Than Less Than No Signif,_a Significant Significant Impact ER 87-00, Jet-Ski Planned Development Issues with Impact p Mitigation 11955 Los Osos Valley Road Inco orated The City's General Plan and Zoning Regulations designate the site for residential development. Additionally, a 269- unit residential development has been approved on the property to the immediate northwest and a Home Depot home improvement store has been approved to the southeast leaving a limited area available for agricultural production and the potential for land use conflicts should the agricultural production continue at a location surrounded by urbanized development. Finally, it is generally recognized that there are agricultural benefits with locating residential suburbs within existing urban areas versus locating these uses further out in the rural areas with the accompanying set of problems for agriculture. CONCLUSION: Less than significant Because the intent of the City's General Plan is to eventually convert the property to residential uses, this project is not considered a significant impact In addition, the City Council, in adopting the Land Use Element EIR, recognized the loss of agricultural land on this property and adopted a statement of overriding considerations. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to 4,8 X an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 4 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 4,8 X criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? The project's impact to air quality will be from several different sources. Construction related emissions such as dust from grading will contribute to short term air quality impacts. Vehicular or mobile source emissions will incrementally degrade regional air quality as a result of trips to and from the project site. Emissions from various household sources will also incrementally degrade regional air quality over a long period of time. Short-term Impacts During project construction of future development, there will be increased levels of fugitive dust associated with construction and grading activities, as well as construction emissions associated with heavy-duty construction equipment. Compliance with the dust management practices contained in Municipal Code Section 15.04.040 X. (Sec. 3307.2)will adequately mitigate short-term impacts. Long-Term Impacts San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State ozone and PM10 (fine particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter) air quality standards. State law requires that emissions of non-attainment pollutants and their precursors be reduced by at least 5% per year until the standards are attained. The 1995 Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County was developed and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) to meet that requirement. The CAP is a comprehensive planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor vehicle use. Land Use Element Policy 1.18.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan. Motor vehicles account for about 40% of the precursor emissions responsible for ozone formation, and are also a significant source of PM10. Thus, a major requirement in the CAP is the implementation of transportation control measures designed to reduce motor vehicle trips and miles traveled by local residents. The APCD recommends that site development include mitigation measures to encourage transportation altematives to the single occupant vehicle and make the project attractive to bicyclists and pedestrians. CONCLUSION: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 6r CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 IL Issues and Supporting Informatiot urces Sources Potent Las Than Lss Than No SigniA , Significant Significant impact ER 87-00, Jet-Ski Planned Development Issues with Impact Mitigation 11955 Los Osos Valley Road Int orated Mitigation Measures: 14. All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered with non-potable water to prevent excessive amounts of dust. During the time period in which grading will occur, watering shall occur at least twice daily including weekends with complete coverage, preferably in the late morning and after work is finished for the day. 15. All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavating activities shall cease during periods of high winds (greater than 15 mph averaged over one hour)to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 16. If soil materials are transported on or off-site, they shall either be sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 17. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with fast germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation becomes established. 18. All disturbed areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by APCD. 19. On-site vehicle speed during construction shall be limited to 15 mph for any unpaved surface. 20. All unpaved areas with vehicle traffic shall be watered at least twice per day including weekends, using non- potable water. 21. Wheel washers shall be installed where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads and streets, or provisions. shall be made to wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. 22. Prior to issuing occupancy permits for each single family residence, shade trees shall be planted at a rate of not less than 1 Vee/4000 s.f. of land. The trees shall be planted to provide shading of the residence in the summer so as to reduce air conditioning requirements and fossil fuel use. . 23. Residences shall be equipped with solar-assisted water heaters or similar energy conserving. feature consistent with City policies and programs at the time of construction. 24. Bicycle lockers shall be included in the design of the apartment project. 25. Parking for theapartment project shall accommodate electric vehicles. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly 1 X or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or 12,8, X other sensitive natural community identified in local or 9 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 1 X biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance(e.g. Heritage Trees)? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native 9 X resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat X Conservation 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? CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 Issues and Supporting Informatic,.� lirces sources Potel. Less Than Less Than No Signifc i[ Significant Significant Impact ER 87-00, Jet-Ski Planned Development Issues with Impact Mitigation 11955 Los Osos Valley Road Incorpora[ed Animals No federal or state-listed wildlife species have been located or are expected to occur on the project site. Typical wildlife expected to utilize the site include common birds and mammals adapted to human disturbance. Wildlife observed on the site include the red-winged blackbird, red-tailed hawk, mourning dove, turkey vulture,jackrabbit, and California ground squirrel. Plants The site is presently is use for agricultural,production. In 1997, Dr. VL Holland observed at least one live Congdon's tarplant and scattered dry individuals of Congdon's tarplant in the site's fallow agricultural fields. In surveys conducted in 1998, 1999 and 2000, the Congdon's tarplant was common along the fenceline and dirt roads of the agricultural fields.. While most of the 13.6 acre site is in row crops, the occurrence of Congdon's tarplant along the fencelines and roadsides indicate that the site and surrounding area are historical and potential habitat for this species. In 1998, the City Council amended the City's Open Space Element to allow for on-site and off-site protection of plant species on the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) List 1B and 2 when no practical alternative exists (see Attachment 5, Definition of practicable alternative). The Congdon's tarplant is one of the plants identified on the CNPS's list (see Attachment 6, Tarplant location map). In this particular case, no practical alternative exists on-site and therefore off-site mitigation is recommended. This approach would protect the plant through an off-site mitigation program and maintain the General Plan's capacity for housing. CONCLUSION: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measures: 26 At the applicant's expense, a restoration and transplanting plan shall be prepared by a qualified plant restoration ecologist. The plan shall identify the location of a suitable site or sites in an open space area off-site (possibly at the City's wastewater treatment plant) where a colony of Congdon's tarplant (Hemizonia parryi ssp. Congdonii) can be established. The restoration plan shall identify the number of plants to be replanted and the methods which will be used to preserve this species in this location. The plan shall also include a monitoring program so that the success of the effort can be monitored yearly over a three-to five-year period.. The restoration effort shall be coordinated with the California Department of Fish and Game, the US Wildlife Service, the California Native Plant Society, and the City of San Luis Obispo. Any federal, state or local permits required to commence such a program will be acquired and implemented by the applicant. The mitigation plan shall include the provision for replacement of habitat to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager and the City Council should the initial mitigation Program be unsuccessful within five years. S. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a - X historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 0) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 11 X archeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological - 8,9 X resource or site or unique geologic feature? A Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside 8,9 X of formal cemeteries? An archival search identified several archaeological sites in the vicinity, but not on the subject property. Likewise, a surface survey did not find any signs of prehistoric cultural materials. Based on the surface survey and records search, the property is not likely to have a significant adverse impact on prehistoric cultural resources. CONCLUSION: Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures: 27. If any previously undiscovered prehistoric cultural material or buried concentrations of historic cultural materials l� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 r ► Issues and Supporting Informatio- urces Sources Potent Less Than Less Than No Signit, Significant Significant Impact Issues With Impact ER 87-00, Jet-Ski Planned Development Mitigation 11955 Los Osos Valley Road Incorporated are discovered during any construction activities, all activities that may disrupt those materials shall cease and the Community Development Director shall be notified immediately of the discovery of archaeological materials. Under most circumstances, the applicant will be directed to retain a qualified archaeologist to immediately visti the site, evaluate the materials recovered, and consult with the Director to determine the appropriate course of action. Under the direction of the archaeologist, a mitigation plan shall be developed and approved by the City pursuant to the City's Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 1 X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient 1 X manner? c) Resuft in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource 1 X that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? The Energy Element states that, "New development will be encouraged to minimize the use of conventional energy for space heating and cooling, water heating, and illumination by means of proper design and orientation, including the provision and protection of solar exposure." The City implements energy conservation goals through enforcement of the California Energy Code which establishes energy conservation standards for residential and nonresidential construction. Any development of the site must meet those standards. The City also implements energy conservation goals through architectural review. Project designers are asked to show how a project makes maximum use of passive solar energy by means of reducing conventional energy demand, as opposed to relying on mechanical systems to maintain comfort. CONCLUSION: No impact, as any development must comply with City established energy conservation standards and all applicable state requirements. 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 7 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? 7 X III. Seismic related ground-failure, including liquefaction? 7 X IV. Landslides or mudflows? 7 X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 7 X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that 7 X would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidance, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1871=B of 13 X the Uniform Building Code(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? �a� CITY OF SAN Luis Osispo 9 INITIAL STuOY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 Issues and Supporting InformatiL Jrces Sources Potel Less Than Less Than No �-� Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues With Impact ER 87-00, Jet-Ski Planned Development Mitigation 11955 Los Osos Valley Road Incorporated Faulting The closest mapped active fault is the Los Osos Fault zone, which extends to within about 0.75 mile and is northwest of the site. Other active faults in the region include the San Simeon-Hosgri fault zone, located approximately 12 miles to the west, the San Andreas fault zone about 30 miles to the northeast, and the Nacimiento fault approximately 12 miles to the northeast. A fault investigation was performed on the DeVaul Ranch North property in June, 1998. The investigation revealed a trace fault within the Los Osos fault zone in the designated open space area. The investigation concluded that the property contained no mapped faults, nor was evidence of active faulting found, within 50 feet of any proposed residential lots. An Engineering Geology Investigation was completed and a subsurface fault investigation conducted by the applicants consultants for the DeVaul South property. A 510-foot long trench was excavated approximately 15 feet deep and no evidence of faulting was discovered within the trench. Routine development conditions, engineering, and construction procedures are measures which will mitigate any potential seismic impacts to a less than significant level. Soils Results from the subsurface investigation show that soils are generally expansive, of low plasticity, relatively dense, moist to very moist with a moisture content greater than 40 percent, and have a high cohesion. Site soils are generally lean clays with groundwater at approximately 25 feet below ground surface. Assuming the recommendations of the soil engineering report are implemented, the potential for seismically induced settlement and differential settlement is considered to be low. The potential for grading and erosion impacts, while always present, is not likely to be disproportionately large or unique at this location. Cumulative grading and erosion impacts can be mitigated through continued project review and the application of City required erosion control measures. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the prroi t: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 1 X though the routine use, transport or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 1 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 5 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 1 X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation �r CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 110 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 Issues and Supporting Informatio. �irces Sourccs Potem Less Than Less Than No Signifi Significant Significant Impact ER 87-00, Jet-Ski Planned Development Issues with Impact P Mitigation 11955 Los Osos Valley Road Incorporated plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose, 1 X injury, or death, involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? The site does not contain any known hazardous substances and is not located in an area of high risk. The site is within Airport Land Use Zone 6, Other Land in Planning Area. Residential development is a "compatible" use within Area 6. Because the site is within an area where airplanes are known to fly, safety and noise can be issues. The Airport Land Use Commission reviewed the applicant's request to annex this property for residential development and recommended approval of the residential development with conditions called out in the Airport Plan as well as notification of potential residents of the site's proximity to the airport and possible flight overpath impacts. See the Transportation section of this initial study for airport related mitigation measures. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(eg.The production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the 14 X capacity of existing or planned storm-water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage patter of the site or 14 X area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage patter of the site or 14 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 14 X mapped on 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 14 X would impede or redirect flood flows? h Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1 X The City's plans and ordinances for minimizing flood damage are based on anticipated flooding from a 100-year storm. All new construction must be designed so that the lowest floor of all residences is at least one foot above the 100-year flood elevation. Furthermore, all improvements must be designed in a way that accommodates drainage and does not contribute to flooding in downstream areas. In conjunction with City-wide programs to maintain drainage channels and minimize flood hazards, these measures reduce the cumulative potential for flooding impacts. Potential increases in storm runoff from new development along this section of Los Osos Valley Road are avoided on a project-by-project basis through the design and'construction of detention basins and other drainage improvements in individual developments. With the proposed improvements, estimated discharges are less than pre-development conditions which demonstrate that the design can maintain peak flows at or below their current levels and not contribute to downstream flooding or impede the design of other drainage improvements in future developments. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. Increases in surface runoff represent a potentially significant impact, but �� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISAo 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 Issues and Supporting Informatiorr�, ,.ices • sources Potent: Less Than Less Than No `r Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 87-00, Jet-Ski Planned Development Issues with Impact 11955 Los Osos Valley Road MitigationInco orated improvements required of any development in the City will mitigate this im act.to a less than significant level. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING- Would theproject: a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of 1 X an agency with jurisdiction over the projectadopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b) Physically divide an established community? 1 X C) Conflict. with any applicable habitat conservation plan or:. 1 X natural ommun' conservationplans?" The City's General Plan applies a designation of Medium Density Residential (12 du/ac) to the site. The proposed DeVaul Ranch South project proposes 130 dwelling units on a 13.6 acre site resulting in a density of 9.5 du/ac. complying with the densities called for in the General Plan. The project also complies with the following General Plan policies: LU 1.13.4: Development and Services Actual development in an annexed area may be approved only when adequate City services can be provided for that development, without reducing the level of services or increasing the cost of services for existing development and for build-out within the City limits as of July 1994, in accordance with the City's water management policies. water for development in an annexed area may be made available by any one or any combination of the following: A) City water supply,including reclaimed water; B) Reducing usage of City water in existing development so that there will be no net increase in long-term water usage; C) Private well water, but only as an interim source, pending availability of an approved addition to City water sources, and when it is demonstrated that use of the well water will not diminish the City's municipal groundwater supply.. The City currently has adequate water treatment capacity for build-out of the DeVaul Ranch project and has planned capacity upgrades to meet the needs of full build-out under the General Plan. Development impact fees reimburse the City's water fund for capital expenses required to ensure that new development funds its fair share of the cost of developing additional water supplies. Until the City obtains a supplemental source of supply, new development must retrofit to offset twice its expected water use before construction can begin. Phased development of the DeVaul Ranch will proceed with a combination of water offsets, reclaimed water, and on-site well water. Compliance with the provisions of the Water Allocation Regulations and the payment of water impact foes will adequately mitigate the effects of increased water.demand. LU 2.1.5: Neighborhood Connections All areas should have a street and sidewalk pattern that promotes neighborhood and community cohesiveness. There should be continuous sidewalks or paths of adequate width, connecting neighborhoods with each other and with public and commercial services to provide continuous pedestrian paths throughout the City. The DeVaul Ranch project has been designed with pedestrian and vehicular connections to adjacent properties thereby complying with this policy. LU 2.2.2: Separation and Buffering Residential areas should be separated or screened from incompatible, nonresidential activities, including most commercial and manufacturing businesses, traffic arteries, the freeway, and the railroad. Residential areas should be protected from encroachment by detrimental commercial and industrial activities. Screening and buffering of the neighboring commercial development on Froom Ranch will be addressed through the architectural review process. LU 2.2.12: Residential Project Objectives Q� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBIsPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 r Issues and Supporting Informatio urees Sources Poten' Less Than Less Than No Signii., , Significant Significant Impact Issues T With Impact ER 87-00,Jet-Ski Planned Development Mitigation 11955 Los Osos Valley Road Incorporated Residential projects should provide: a. Privacy, for occupants and neighbors of the project; b. Adequate usable outdoor area, sheltered from noise and prevailing winds, and oriented to receive light and sunshine; c. Use of natural ventilation, sunlight, and shade to make indoor and outdoor spaces comfortable with minimum mechanical support; d. Pleasant views from and toward the project; e. Security and safety; f. Separate paths for vehicles and for people, and bike paths along collector streets, g. Adequate parking and storage space; h. Noise and visual separation from adjacent roads and commercial uses. (Barrier walls, isolating a project, are not desirable. Noise mitigation walls may be used only when there is no practicable alternative. Where walls are used, they should help create an attractive pedestrian, residential setting through features such as setbacks, changes in alignment, detail and texture, places for people to walk through them at regular intervals, and planting). i. Design elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction, such as front porches, front yards along streets, and entryways facing public walkways. j. Buffers from hazardous materials transport routes, as recommended by the City Fire Department. As part of the architectural review process,the project will be evaluated for compliance with the policy. LU 8.10.1: Medium Density Residential Development About 38 acres northerly from the vicinity of the Garcia Drive intersection is designated Medium Density Residential. This area may accommodate about 500 dwellings. There should be a range of housing types, with low-density, medium density, and medium-high density development each occupying about one third of the area.- The DeVaul Ranch project complies with this policy by providing a range of housing types and a total of 130 dwelling units. Together with the previously approved DeVaul Ranch North project, the area will provide approximately 400 dwelling units. CONCLUSION: No impact because the project is in compliance with the City's General Plan. 11.NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable" noise 1.,8,9 I 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 8 X ambient noise_levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive 8 X groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? d) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or within5 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? The most"significant short term noise source is noise related to the construction activity. Because the construction Will occur over several years, it is a potentially significant impact, however mitigation measures are available to reduce the potential impact to a less than significant level. The most significant long-term noise source in the vicinity is traffic related noise along LOVR. Increases in traffic will incrementally increase noise along LOVR. The City's Noise Element includes a land use compatibility table to identify acceptable levels of noise exposure for different types of land uses. For residential development, the maximum allowable noise exposure for transportation-related noise sources is 60 dB Ldn for outdoor activity areas and 45 dB l a CITY OF SAN LUIS OetsPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 Issues and Supporting Informatior.1--,Urees Sources Potent.--,' Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 87-00, Jet-Ski Planned Development Issues with Impact Mitigation 11955 Los Osos Valley Road Inco orated Ldn for interior spaces. Based on the noise analysis prepared for the DeVaul Ranch North property, interior noise levels for this project are expected to be well below the noise impact threshold. Noise levels for outdoor activity areas are also expected to be below the threshold for determining a significant impact. Compliance with the City's Noise Element will reduce any long term noise impacts to a less than significant level. Airplane noise is also identified as a transportation noise source which could impact the site. The Airport Land Use Commission reviewed the applicant's request to annex this property for residential development and recommended approval with conditions called out in the Airport Plan as well as notification of potential residents of the site's proximity to the airport and possible flight overpath impacts. CONCLUSION: Less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. Mitigation Measures: 28. All project related construction activity shall occur-between 7 am and 7pm Monday through Saturday, with no activities occurring on Sunday or holidays. 29. City noise regulations related to construction activities shall be posted on site and made available to all contractors and sub-contractors. 30. The developer and/or property manager shall disclose to all perspective and actual Leasee/Renters that the subject property is in an airport flight traffic zone and possible noise impacts may occur. This disclosure shall be art of an sales or rental agreements which are signed by the owner or renter. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth. in ;an area,- either 1 X 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 1 X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The project proposes to build 19 single family units, 34 duplex units,the potential for 17 secondary dwelling units, and 77 aoartment units. City policy requires payment of in lieu fees or the provision of 5% of these units to be affordable to persons with low incomes and 10% of these units to be affordable to persons with moderate incomes as defined by the City's Housing Element. The applicant proposes to provide these units on-site, therefore complying with the General Plan policy. Housing Element Policy H 4.2.1 requires affordable housing to be intermixed within the project itself rather than segregated into separate enclaves. Through the tentative map and architectural review process, the project will be evaluated for compliance with this policy. CONCLUSION: Less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. Mitigation Measures: 31. To maintain consistency with policy H 4.2.1 of the Housing Element, the amount of and the specific location of inclusionary housing units should be identified with the consideration of the tentative tract map and approved only if found to be consistent with the City's requirements which includes intermixing the units within the project. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision, or need, of new or physically altered govemment 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? 1 X �� CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPo 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 Issues and Supporting Informatior Irces Sources PotentLess Than Less Than No Sigoif. Significant Significant Impact ER 87-00, Jet-Ski Planned Development Issues J wits Impact Mitigation 11955 Los Osos Valley Road Incorporated b) Police protection? 1 X c) Schools? 1 X d) Parks? 1 X e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? 1 X Other public facilities? 1 X Police and fire protection services are available to serve the site. The City expects that service demands will increase in proportion to the amount of new development, and that the increase will be at a gradual pace over several years. The school districts in the state are separate governing bodies with authority to collect fees to finance school construction and parcel acquisition. Section 65995 of the Government Code prohibits the City from denying a subdivision or collecting any fees beyond those required by the school district itself, to mitigate effects of inadequate school facilities. Any effect that this project will have on school facilities will be mitigated in whole or in part by the district's per-square-footage fees, charged at the time of building permit issuance of each dwelling unit. A neighborhood park to serve the development will be provided on the adjoining DeVaul Ranch site via a 3-acre park. The park will be constructed prior to the occupancy of the DeVaul Ranch North property which has approvals for 269 dwelling units. The existing 435-acre Laguna Lake Community Paris will also be available to residents of this project. Additionally, the project applicants are required to provide parkland or pay park in lieu fees as a condition of any development approvals. As a condition of any development approvals, the applicants are required to widen and improve Los Osos Valley Road between Madonna Road and Calle Joaquin and pay their fair share of numerous off-site roadway improvements. CONCLUSION: Less than significant 14. RECREATION. Would theproject: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks 1 X or 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 1 X expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse Phvsical effect on the environment? See discussion above under Public Services section. CONCLUSION: Less than significant 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to 1,8,9 X the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service 8 X standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways? c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features (e.g. 1 X sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1 X e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? 2 X f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative 1 X transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land 5 X Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards, noise, or a change in air trafficpatterns? The EIRs for the DeVaul Ranch North and Froom Ranch projects included traffic studies that considered the iii CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 Issues and Supporting InformatiL urces Sources Potet. Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 87-00, Jet-Ski Planned Development Issues with Impact p Mitigation 11955 Los Osos Valley Road Incorporated development of this property in the traffic analysis. Twelve intersections were studied and projections for project impacts at 10-year and buildout were formulated and mitigation measures developed. Specifically, prior to the occupancy of any development, the developers are required to dedicate and improve sufficient right of way along the project's Los Osos Valley Rd. frontage to accommodate the City and County adopted street section to include six (ultimate) travel lanes, median island, bike lanes, sidewalk, bus tumout, landscaped parkway and parking (adjacent to the developed properties, southeasterly of Auto Park Way), generally as depicted on improvement plans prepared by Central Coast Engineering. The dedication varies from 63 ft. wide along the northeasterly 800 feet (+/-) of the annexation area, tapering to the southeast to meet the existing right of way line near the intersection of Calle Joaquin. Offsite dedication to the southeast may be required to provide project specific mitigation of four lanes of traffic between Madonna Rd. and Calle Joaquin, consistent with the County-approved Eagle Hardware/Madonna project - D970143D. The traffic signal shall be relocated to the intersection of the proposed new onsite street, per the tentative minor subdivision map. (M.S. SLO 00-041). Additionally, the developers are required to pay their fair share of the following improvements: • Madonna/U.S. 101 intersection improvements • LOVR/U.S. 101 intersection improvements • LOVR/Calle Joaquin intersection signalization • LOVR widening between South Higuera Street and U.S. 101 Details of these improvements can be found in the Traffic and Circulation sections of the County approved Eagle Hardware EIR and City approved DeVaul Ranch Planned Development EIR. The Airport Land Use Commission reviewed the applicant's request to annex this property for residential development and recommended approval of residential development at this location with conditions called out in the Airport Plan as well as notification of potential residents of the site's proximity to the airport and possible flight overpath impacts(see additional mitigation measures called out in Section 11). CONCLUSION: Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures: 32. The project shall comply with the mitigation measures established for the DeVaul Ranch North project as outlined in the DeVaul Ranch North Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program. 33. Soundproofing shall be added to reduce indoor noise from airport operations, where required by the City's Noise Element and the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan. 34. Grant an avigation easement for the protection of the San Luis Obispo County Airport, the City of San Luis Obispo, and the County of San Luis Obispo. . 35. All project occupants and land uses shall comply with the compatible land use matrix of the San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan. 36. All exterior lighting shall be shielded down-lights that do not shine skyward or interfere with aircraft flights or aircraft operations. Search-lights and strobe lights shall be prohibited. 37. The applicant shall dedicate 63 feet of right of way or as otherwise required by the City and make ultimate improvements to LOVR along the project's proposed frontage. 38. To mitigate potentially significant impacts of excessive speed on the project's residential streets, traffic calming measures shall be included as a condition of the subdivision plans. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 1 15 X IND20 CITY OF SAN Luis ClaISPo 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 Issues and Supporting Informatioi Jrces Sources Potent " Less Than Less Than No Signift Significant Significant Impact ER 87-00, Jet-Ski Planned Development Issues with Impact p Mitigation 11955 Los Osos Valley Road Incorporated Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new 1,15 X water treatment,wasterwater treatment, or storm drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project 15 X from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and expanded water resources needed? d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment 15 X provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand and addition to the provider's existing commitment? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 3 X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations 3 X related to solid waste? See the Land Use and Planning section above for information regarding the City's water supplies. Wastewater The City will provide wastewater collection and treatment services for the project The increased capacity resulting from the development will be provided for by adding planned modules at the existing Water Reclamation Facility, funded through development impact fees. The City's wastewater collection system will be extended into site as development occurs. Service extensions will be paid for by the development. A porton of the existing collection system may require up-sizing in order to accommodate the additional flows from the development. Any needed augmentation of the existing system will be the responsibility of the developer. Wastewater from the site will ultimately flow to the Howard Johnson and Laguna Lift Stations, which are at or very near capacity. The needed capacity expansions however are in the planning stages or in progress. A consultant to the City is designing the replacement of the Laguna Lift Station, which could be constructed as early as the Winter of 2000. The Howard Johnson Lift Station will also require replacement within the next several years. The City s draft Wastewater Facilities Master Plan addresses the needed capacities for these lift stations that will ultimately be necessary for build-out. The final Wastewater Facilities Master Plan will identify the appropriate distribution of these costs. Building permits will not be issued unless adequate capacities are in place. Solid Waste Solid waste from the site will be delivered to Cold Canyon landfill, which currently has a capacity to accept solid waste for approximately 18.5 years, based on the current rate of disposal and ongoing trends showing a reduction in per capita waste generation. To help reduce the waste stream associated with the project construction, a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials should be prepared. To help reduce the waste stream created by the new residents, the project should include facilities for interior and exterior recycling. CONCLUSION: Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures: 39. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall receive approval of a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded building materials such as concrete, sheetrock, wood and metals from the construction site. 40. Building plans shall show the location of convenient facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling for each residential unit. it CITY of SAN Luis OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 10 Issues and Supporting Informatic, urcessources Potei. less Than Less Than No Signifit-art Significant Significant impact ER 87-00, Jet-Ski Planned Develo ment issues With Impact p Mitigation 11955 Los Osos Valley Road Incorporated 17. 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 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? Without mitigation, the project could have the potential to have adverse impacts on all of the issue areas checked in the table on Page 2. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but 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) The impacts identified in this initial study are specific to this project and would not.be categorized as cumulatively significant. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indir With the incorporation of mitt ation measures, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts on humans. 18. EARUER 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. The DeVaul Ranch and Froom Ranch EIR's as well as the City of San Luis Obispo 1994 Land Use Element Update EIR supplement can be reviewed at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. • 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 mitt ation measures based on the earlier analysis. This initial study relies on data found in the final DeVaul Ranch and Froom Ranch EIR's and the final supplemental EIR for the City's 1994 Land Use Element Update. Information regarding noise, traffic. 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. Mitigation measures contained within this document address site specific conditions of this project. The EIR's for the neighboring Froom Ranch and DeVaul Ranch were reviewed and considered when the mitigation measures were developed for this project. 19. SOURCE REFERENCES 1. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan: Land Use, Circulation, Noise, Energy, Open Space, Safety, Water and Wastewater Management Elements 2. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations, February 18, 2000 3. City of San Luis Obispo Source Reduction and Recycling Element 4. 1995 Clean Air Plan CAP for San Luis Obispo County tI`i CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 5. SLO County Airport Land Use Plan 6. City of San Luis Obispo Informational Map Atlas 7. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990 8. Final EIR for the DeVaul Ranch North development certified by the San Luis Obispo City Council on December 15, 1998 9. Final Supplemental EIR for the Madonna/Eagle.Hardware and Garden certified by the County Board of Supervisors on November 2, 1999 10. CiN of San Luis Obispo 1994 Land Use/Circulation Element Update and EIR supplement 11. City of San Luis Obispo ArchaeologIical Resource Pteservation Guidelines, Octobef 1995 12. Con don's tarplant survey prepared by Dr. V.L. Holland, October 10, 2000 13. Site Soils Engineering Report prepared by GeoSolutions, March 3, 2000 14. City of San Luis Obispo Flood Damage Prevention Guidelines, 1979 15. City of San Luis Obis-o Urban Water Management Plan,1994 A " CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 20. MITIGATION MEASURESIMONITORING PROGRAM 1. Provide a landscape buffer along LOVR and along the south side of the property boundary abutting Froom Ranch. 2. Plant palm trees to minor the existing palms across LOVR., 3. Coordinate landscape plans for the property with plans submitted for the adjacent DeVaul Ranch North and Froom Ranch. 4. Incorporate landscaping elements including decorative paving, walls, and fencing. 5. Install public art at the project's LOVR entry. 6. Create a"maintenance association" to facilitate long term care of landscaping. 7. Eliminate on-street parking on DeVaul Ranch Road between LOVR and Tonini Drive. 8. Design the detention basin to appear as a naturally occurring feature and revegetate the perimeter with native plants and trees to further reduce its engineered appearance. 9. Limit the height of the three apartment buildings closest to LOVR to 26 feet in height. These building heights shall be considered maximum unless during the architectural review process the applicant.can demonstrate through the site plan and architectural design that views of the upper portions of the Irish Hills will not be blocked. 10. Screen from view any necessary water pumps, valves, backflow preventers, and service cabinets. 11. Design the detention basin to appear as a naturally occurring feature. 12. Submit a detailed landscaping plan for the LOVR project frontage and the southern edge of the property abutting the Froom Ranch property for review and approval by the City. The plan shall identify evergreen and deciduous plant materials, retaining walls, earth mounding,.the horizontal and vertical limits of plantings, and other materials used to effectively screen the parking areas and soften the views of the development, but not hinder views of the hills. 13. Exterior lighting shall be directed downward and not spill onto adjoining properties. The maximum height of lighting equipment and supporting structures, including fixtures, standard and base, shall not be higher than 20 feet above the finished grade. Lighting levels measured at finished grade directly beneath the fixture shall not exceed 10 footcandles. E V! CrrY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 e5 14. All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered with non-potable water to prevent excessive amounts of dust. During the time period in which grading will occur, watering shall occur at least twice daily including weekends with complete coverage, preferably in the late morning and after work is finished for the day. 15. All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavating activities shall cease during periods of high winds (greater than 15 mph averaged over one hour)to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 16. If soil materials are transported on or off-site, they shall either be sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 17. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with fast germinating native grass seed_ and watered until vegetation becomes established. 18. All disturbed areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders,jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by APCD. 19. On-site vehicle speed during construction shall be limited to 15 mph for any unpaved surface. 20. All unpaved areas with vehicle traffic shall be watered at least twice per day including weekends, using non-potable water. 21. Wheel washers shall be installed where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads and streets, or provisions shall be made to wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. 22. Prior to issuing occupancy permits for each single family residence, shade trees shall be planted at a rate of not less than 1 tree/4000 s.f. of land. The trees shall be planted to provide shading of the residence in the summer so as to reduce air conditioning.requirements and fossil fuel use. 23. Residences shall be equipped with solar-assisted water heaters or similar energy conserving feature consistent with City policies and programs at the time of construction. 24. Bicycle lockers shall be included in the design of the apartment project. 25. Parking for the apartment project shall accommodate electric vehicles. 26.,At the applicant's expense, a restoration plan shall be prepared by a qualified plant restoration ecologist. The plan shall identify the location of a suitable site ors sites in an open space area off-site (possibly at the City's wastewater treatment plant) where a colony of Congdon's tarplant (Hemizonia parryi ssp. Congdonii) can be established. The restoration plan shall identify the number of plants to be replanted and the methods which will be used to preserve this species in this location. The plan shall also include a monitoring program so that the success of the effort can be monitored yearly over a three- to five-year period. The restoration effort shall be coordinated with the California Department of Fish and Game, the US Wildlife Service, the CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 21 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 California Native Plant Society, and the City of San Luis Obispo. Any federal, state or local permits required to commence such a program will be acquired and implemented by the applicant. The mitigation plan shall include the provision for replacement of habitat to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager and the City Council should the initial mitigation program be unsuccessful within five years. 27. If any previously undiscovered prehistoric cultural material or buried concentrations of historic cultural materials are discovered during any construction activities, all activities that may disrupt those materials shall cease and the Community Development Director shall be notified immediately of the discovery of archaeological materials. Under most circumstances, the applicant will be directed to retain a qualified archaeologist to immediately visti the site, evaluate the materials recovered, and consult with the Director to determine the appropriate course of action. Under the direction of the archaeologist, a mitigation plan shall .be developed and approved by the City pursuant to the City's Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines. 28. All project related construction activity shall occur between 7 am and 7pm Monday through Saturday, with no activities occurring on Sunday or holidays. 29. City noise regulations related to construction activities shall be posted on site and made available to all contractors and sub-contractors. 30. The developer and/or property manager shall disclose to all perspective and actual Leasee/Renters that the subject property is in an airport flight traffic zone and possible noise impacts may occur. This disclosure shall be part of any sales or rental agreements which are signed by the owner or renter. 31. To maintain consistency with policy H 4.2.1 of the Housing Element, the amount of and the specific location of inclusionary housing units should be identified with the consideration of the tentative tract map and approved only if found to be consistent with the City's requirements which includes intermixing the units within the project. 32.1he project shall comply with the mitigation measures established for the DeVaul Ranch North project as outlined in the DeVaul Ranch North Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program. 33. Soundproofing shall be added to reduce indoor noise from airport operations, where required by the City's Noise Element and the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan. 34. Grant an avigation easement for the protection of the San Luis Obispo County Airport, the City of San Luis Obispo, and the County of San Luis Obispo. 35. All project occupants and land uses shall comply with the compatible land use matrix of the San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan. 36. All exterior lighting shall be shielded down-lights that do not shine skyward or interfere with aircraft flights or aircraft operations. Search-lights and strobe lights shall be prohibited. a CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 22 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 A, 37. The applicant shall dedicate 63 feet of right of way or as otherwise required by the City and make ultimate improvements to LOVR along the project's proposed frontage. 38.To mitigate potentially significant impacts of excessive speed on the project's residential streets, traffic calming measures shall be included as a condition of the subdivision plans. 39.Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall receive approval of a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded building materials such as concrete, sheetrock, wood and metals from the construction site. 40. Building plans shall show the location of convenient facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling for each residential unit. l�®w CITY OF SAN LUIS OBI8P0 23 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 N X / N N O co coO � � O Nr- o m O N O r N r a7 N LN It N ' Ch O L t�6 r r _n O C;) O d r o j N N N O O O O O O O m N ' p m O N rn c O O O O JO O O O O O G1 W @ O r 3. N > -6 Z O N O r 0 0 0 0 O v nJan) c E N _ v N E c o .cli. Co CDCY) O O O O Y09 O [1 ch n E cmO m `4 `� N r ' r r N C X C p E N C o U 1 � > t r N O v t C N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O rc a m o U m amchoo0 uDor vo aDoyc :2M ET-r r N N co r (D 30 Z N O m m 41 5 W w ac, y ca 75 C) S ES -b :3 to y pNo00000o Or � LdE < "' r O N N co = Orn v �_ N T.: 3 > i Nob a) O :3 �E X p E N v � rn m o m W _ 0000000 0o (rDrM - E N Z ti M N O O O M O. O w �,� o N m O ' r r r N co r N c0 •`.o f L.. ZL6 N m N0000000 00 E � � NEE O ch N . 00 0> N 00 C 8 N x co c = N r c v 2 w O U ca O c O O ? O N _ N r CO O O S O O N OP- C) 3 E � o v X O N r r U-) r v t C N N CML v d > v c a o c c rn y f0 � a.o CCM c0 ,+0+ = C c co S a r 3 O 'a) d N LL N fD rn . U O O O OU) N c .� (nc a3 O .� Z U) x C 0 m m r _ o IL co = U Les � ` o02 : Om � L) coav o E 3 - Ntlm S oa C O O f C 'O m a O w E « cc _ o m cn m O N CD 'a m 'a 'a a) H "n •c vi O Q O a) d a) O N N m m — c N E E E ca 3 L L) U 3 caa U) O O O O O N > S W Q v tv _ _ coat/ m m io eo ea is eo as ca f� r► �n. rir •a� v a w �i►:""r' ��.` f7l, (b. U Uf �I,, 'rI ,O •� r�, ii' i� �.. .r.. owes* is MRS Ma �1 ——Vw.v.-..tea——�e�,•— —oe.,.—_.:.,. 1� �► ,r - . ! ri ss R �i ;� w Vi► 41 fly r Ci ggL_•D Qo N 1 1 ARC 1 � M i' N Q == v 1— O a y� =B OO U '^ c a I 'VI JOE J $ CL o rN I ;LLu i Z J i i Z - Q 1 r � ��.� H I': • :f c a.I r + � ,:': Any I 111111111.1!; _ ,_I �I (- • ��� ��" �s��� � III (J!it �-. • ` FE all 'LL, rqs � .I■ i ��� i N IIIIIIIIVIiI DIN lIi1 NO Wal 0 one ����--�•� -- ��.—_ - � 'r ` �b� 1 III V IIIIIIC� _ �&�111111�•� - "1 y t1:1 ��, �t > CV) N — i 6o Qo � � Q � Q� CD u � . N u > NISM9 S VV ror a is sraserZk 1 I I 0 I. i 1pp I U-0-111 � I , ' I --i 1 � � l > a �. _MI M. Q O U W J t C L !i J s m J p 0. _ 09 r m = o m = 0C NZCX Za — mh a I U Y V1- ,call L" IZ5 U 0 1 D JJ%J ren /21 PLA [ ®® I N G A P P LtAT 10 N F, Community Development Department o 990 Palm Street e San Luis Obispo, California 93401 • (805)781-7172 Project Address and Assessors Parcel Number(s): Portion of ME 067-243 -nig What do you want to do? What is your final goal? Build a cort-t-n tholes algi-War F-h usp with gan Station Applicant(Who Is proposing the project?)- Rarj--nk ' Day PhonetAZII422--255-53- Appficanfs Address-999 Lnkp, nriVe, lesaquah WA' 91027 Representative (d any): McClellanHunter/Ken McKently Day Phone4 626 )397-2700 Representative's Address- 120 West Bellevue, Pasadena CA 91105 Property Owner(if other than appkent): Alex Madonna - Day Phon 805) 543-0300 Owner's Address P.O. Box 3910, San Luis Obip2g., CA 93406 PWM send an cormsEndenoe to .01the apLficant ®the reeresentative C3 the property owner. Property OwwrAuthdftatidn Applicard/Represiantathme Certtfidation BY swft Oft appomkm I M*vlar I hm wwm ra amw4w By kwwing aris splicadw(ca*M dm kftm&W pravlod is dcmgMe. I appkagon and ft 222fto Mftw WA I cwmm to no 04 1 agree to A" wwiastuw tm 0tv malt m*r&m%to rm ap*tv raw,or might set an cmffu*o"WOMMI DeWOMA?a oprequ and craftLft PIM tD OWIMM Ct approval, I nM 10 I*W HM C*WMff*0eVQIdMJCa romsm person as K"Mm"is WMMY for 2M prowsift of Me Depftant w dwheaw and&ttb*plans to Inw"Od MWM U k appfiasm. (Idermir%=is nammly for ft prozasti 0 ct fie appamian. 6�2 spa Data Permission to Access Property Interior Inspecdon Cbritact Information This soon Is 10 be WROMW by UM prWo t OWM W$dw*=PW WM *Wawa*.cwwfuft DMOMM avaunm am may IMW Now CX**0eaaa b aM S=Q d"quMe/ mom OrKem am olp the writa W6MW bebw to mmVje an vpp*MMa hm to PK fiMM to to aftim of ft Mal PMPft in order OD ade*M*mqkw No yeMn CM M; pmj—=L youi ztMVzj vew*cenMuftyouamtogkr,ecWi woomacepwica Name: sae from a e-m.b 5 pm„Mtard�(Neagh rvlaart�part a!!he laird reirhaa of Vis Omft apliomn. Address: Day Phone:. GFMCK R9VMW AerucArtou No. FM PAW Notin to Me; U ReM*qPl) (3 use PMM 0 ARC ftvle* oy0 Env.Review ISO C3 &6� o Annexmw Apglaafion fee paid by. 0 11M IpprCant a the representative a the WOM4 MM. Reo*M by. Data; PROJECT DESCRIPTION SITE LOCATION AND PHYSICAL SETTING The 14.87 acre project site(the ACostco Parcel@) is set back from the west side of Los Osos Valley Road. (For purposes of this description, directions are stated in a project orientation in which Los Osos Valley Road runs project north-south.) The Costco Parcel is approximately midway between Madonna Road and Highway 101, in the portion of San Luis Obispo County that is pending annexation to the City of San Luis Obispo. (Refer to Exhibit SS-1 for location of the project site.) The Costco Parcel is currently vacant. It is generally flat, dropping gradually from northwest to southeast. Most of the site is covered with low dense grasses and shrubs, and it is devoid of trees. The Costco Parcel'is to be created from a portion of APN 067-241-019. The project is one parcel of a planned multi-parcel center. The parcel immediately to the south of the Costco Parcel is being developed as the Home Depot store and is a flag lot with a drive aisle extending to Los Osos Valley Road (the AHome Depot Parcel@). Three.smaller parcels will be located on the Los Osos Valley Road frontage,two flanking the Home Depot Parcel driveway and one in front of the Costco Parcel. The project on the Home Depot Parcel, including its drive aisle, has been approved by the County of San Luis Obispo and is an existing project for purposes of this application. The frontage parcels may be the subject of subsequent applications but are not part of this application except with respect to the drive aisles crossing them to provide access to the Costco Parcel. This application is limited to the development of the Costco Parcel and the access roads leading to it from Los Osos Valley Road. Land uses in the project vicinity are a mix of open space, commercial-and single and multi-family housing. Adjacent land uses include the pending DuVaul housing developments to the north, open space to the west,and the,pending.Home Depot development to the south. The site is within the City of San Luis Obispo Urban Reserve Line, is designated for General Retail uses under the City's General Plan, and is pre-zoned General Retail under its pending annexation to the City pursuant to LAFCO File 8-R-00: Annexation No. 62 to the City of San Luis Obispo (Froom Ranch/DuVaul Ranch South). PROJECT DETAILS The project application submitted by Costco Wholesale Corporation/Alex Madonna is for a subdivision of its parcel and use permits to allow for the construction of an approximately 150,000 square foot commercial bulk retail/wholesale Costco facility including a tire center. Costco Wholesale is membership warehouse club, dedicated to bringing its members the best possible priceson quality brand-name merchandise. Operating over 300 locations worldwide, Costco provides a relatively limited number of stock keeping units in a large number of product categories, plus the convenience of specialty departments and exclusive member services. Products categories 2 0 LAFCO FILE 8-R-00: Annexation No. 62 to the City of San Luis Obispo (Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South). SUMMARY OF.RECOIVIMENDATIONS: - Recommended-�Action An_the Environmental'beterminatrons for the,Sphere -of Service.: :It.is reeorrrmended the the 'Commission datemuns that :the Negative Declarations prepared by the Ciity of San Luis Obispo as Lead Agency are adequate dor purposes.of the sphere of service ariiendment. Recommended-Action of tt Sphere of 5ervrce: Approval. Recommended Actioii on the Environmental Determmatioris for the Annexation:. It is recommended .that#tis:-Commission determine that-the,-:Negative_.Declarations- prepared by the City of San.Luis Ob4spo aslead Agency are adequate for purposes of the annexation._ Recommended Aetion on the :Annexation•-:Conditional: Approval; with 7 revised boundaries and waiver of-the.unincorporated island restrictions. Proponent: City of San Luis Obispo, by Resolution of Application. Property Ownership: The proposed annexation is separated into two parcels under separate ownership. The Froom Ranch is owned by Alex Madonna, et al. The DeVaul Ranch South is owned by Margaret DeVaul. The Madonna property will be split into four parcels for the 2000-01 assessment roll. Certificate of Filing: Issued on September 6, 2000. Purpose: The reason for the annexation (as stated in the application), is that annexation will enable the provision of all municipal services by the City of San Luis Obispo in accordance with the adopted general plans of the City and the County. Annexation will also enable local control of design and development. Background: By way of background, on November 2, 1999, the Board of Supervisors denied an appeal of the Development Plan for the Froom Ranch project. The plan had previously been approved by the County Planning Commission. At the appeal hearing,the Board encouraged the City to file an annexation request and indicated that the County would not oppose the request or the transfer of sales tax if the application was completed before the end of December 2000. Sales tax alone is estimated as more than $400,000 per year. The Board's action was based on the project's need for urban-type municipal services (e.g. water and sewer)and the need for the City to deal with impacts associated with the "big box" development (e.g. traffic and circulation). The DeVaul property was included in the application simply to"round out"the boundaries to the north and to include an area that was excluded from the original larger DeVaul annexation approved by LAFCO O(� and annexed to the City in 1999. 0\\ � \ _ \\ I� FORMATION COMMISSIONS September 21, 2000 Page 2 Acreage and Location: The annexation area is comprised of approximately 68.44 acres. The Froom Ranch is comprised of 54.17 acres and the DeVaul Ranch South is comprised of 14.27 acres. The properties are located on the southwest side of Los Osos Valley Road between Madonna Road and Highway 101 (Exhibit A). Sphere-of Influence and Service: The Cortese/Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1986, Government Code Section 56076, establishes that a "sphere of influence" means a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by the Commission. The Commission established a sphere of influence and service for the City of San Luis Obispo.in June 1984 (Exhibit B). The area is within the City's adopted sphere of influence, but outside its sphere of service. It will,therefore, be necessary for the Commission to amend the City of San Luis Obispo's sphere of service prior to approving the annexation. City Prezonina: The Froom Ranch has been prezoned C-R (Commercial Retail). The DeVaul Ranch property has been prezoned C/OS (Conservation Open Space), which would allow one dwelling per five or more acres. The act of prezoning places the City in the lead agency role for purposed of the California Environmental Quality Act. The City has prepared two Negative Declarations, one for the Froom Ranch and one for the DeVaul properties. Property Tax Exchange: The Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution agreeing to an exchange of property tax revenue for the proposed annexation on September 5, 2000. The San Luis Obispo City Council also adopted a resolution agreeing the same amount of exchange on September 5, 2000. The amount of property tax base to be transferred between the County of San Luis Obispo and the City of San Luis Obispo shall be zero. The amount of annual tax increment to be transferred will be zero for the Froom Ranch property and 12.54287 for the DeVaul property, before the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) calculation. Development_Plans: The Froom Ranch is proposed to be developed with a 220,000 square foot home improvement store. The project will also include a subdivision of the property into four parcels ranging in size from 10 to 16.5 acres. The DeVaul Ranch South is designated for future residential development consistent with the City's General Plan. After annexation, the property owner will request approval of development plans for the property which will include another rezoning to allow residential development at this location. Assessed Valuation: The assessed value of,the Froom Ranch property is $1,121,821 for land and $16,221 for improvements. The assessed value of the DeVaul Ranch South is $342,756 for land, with no improvement value. The total assessed valuation for the entire annexation is $1,480,798. C1 o FORMATION COMMISSIONS September 21, 2000 Page 3 Inhabited or Uninhabited: The area proposed for annexation has less than 12 registered voters making it legally uninhabited. Topography: The 68.44 acre site is mostly level, with about six acres of gentle to moderate slopes at the base of the Irish Hills along the southwest edge of the property. The proposed annexation site is bounded on the northeast by Los Osos Valley Road and on the southwest by the base of the Irish Hills. The San Luis Obispo city limits border the site on the northwest and on the northeast for about two-thirds of its frontage along Los Osos Valley Road. There are no natural boundaries along the southeast side of the site. The site appears to drain to the southeast.towards Los Osos Valley Road and then San Luis Obispo Creek. Population of.Area and Adjacent Areas: As the site contains no residences, it is uninhabited territory. The site is located within the San Luis Obispo planning area of the Land Use Element (LUE ) of the County General Plan and .is within the San Luis Obispo urban area (Exhibit C). The year 2000 population estimates prepared by the California Department of Finance (DOF), and the population projections prepared in July, 1999 by the county Department of Planning and Building, estimate the current population for the following areas to be: AREA POPULATION CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 43,050 (2000 estimate) SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING AREA 45,420 (2000 projection) The following table summarizes the growth rates experienced from 1980 to 1990 by these areas ("annual %" is the annual population increase that occurred yearly between 1980 and 1990): AREA 1980 1990 INCREASE ANNUAL CITY OF SLO 32,457 40,478 8,021 2.5 SLO PLANNING AREA 34,774 43,478 8,704 0.0 Using the DOF estimates for 2000 and the 1999 county projections,the recent population changes in the two areas that has occurred since 1990 is summarized in the following table: FORMATION COMMISSIONS September 21, 2000 Page 4 AREA 1990 2000 INCREASE ANNUAL °do CITY OF SLO 40,478 43,050 2,572 0.6 SLO PLANNING AREA 43,478 45,420 1,942 0.5 The following table summarizes the projected population increases for the two areas for the next 10 years, using the latest DOF and county estimates: AREA 2000 2010 INCREASE ANNUAL CITY OF SLO 43,050 46,145 3,095 0.7 SLO PLANNING AREA 45,420 50,093 4,673 1.0 The site is located within the San Luis Obispo urban area. The northern 14.27 acres, the DeVaul Ranch South property,is designated Residential Multi-Family(RMF)in the County Land Use Element. The southern 54.17 acres, the Froom Ranch property, is designated Commercial Retail (CR) by the County. The entire site is within the Airport Review Area (ARA) combining designation. Surrounding Land Uses: Northwest: Vacant land within the city limits approved for development with single and multi-family residences. This property is known as the DeVaul Ranch (North) and it was the subject of Annexation No. 54 approved in 1999. Northeast: Across Los Osos Valley Road along the northern two-thirds of the site frontage is land within the city limits developed with a fire station, single and multi-family residences and Pacific Beach High School. Across Los Osos Valley Road along the southern one-third of the site frontage is unincorporated land designated Agriculture(AG)and planted in irrigated row crops. Southeast: Unincorporated land designated Commercial Retail (CR) and AG which includes farm houses, a surface mine and grazing; this property is part of the larger Froom Ranch holding. Further to the southeast across Los Osos Valley Road is land within the city limits developed with several automobil dealerships. �1 Southwest: Unincorporated land outside the county URL which consists of (, steep hillsides designated AG. `� o 0 FORMATION COMMISSIONS September 21, 2000 Page 5 The Froom Ranch portion of this annexation site has been approved for development by the County with a "big box" retail store, but construction has not yet begun. Activity in the greater area includes commercial,office, public facility and residential development within the city to the northwest, northeast and southeast across Los Osos Valley Road. County Land Use Element: The site contains no structures and consists of two parcels, the 54.17 acre Froom Ranch property and the 14.27 acre DeVaul Ranch South property. The DeVaul Ranch south property is currently planted in irrigated row crops and the Froom Ranch property is being used for cattle grazing. On November 2, 1999, the Froom Ranch property received county land use permit approval for development of a "big box" retail store of approximately 222,000 square feet on the 52.97 acre site that has been created through a lot line adjustment with the larger 374 acre ranch holding. Construction permits for that project have been applied for, but have not yet been issued. Actual construction is anticipated by the project applicants to begin before the end of 2000. No county entitlements-have been requested for the DeVaul Ranch South property as development of that portion of the site is expected to occur under city jurisdiction after completion of this annexation. The entire site proposed for annexation is within the county-designated Urban Reserve and Service Lines (URL& USL)for the City of San Luis Obispo(Exhibit C). County URL's are intended to be analogous to LAFCO's spheres of influence because they indicate the area for additional urban and suburban growth within a 20 year time frame. The LUE contains public service policies for maintaining a distinction between rural and urban development by directing the extension of urban services to areas within urban and village reserve lines and restricting such services from being provided outside those lines. The purposes of these policies for maintaining a clear distinction between rural and urban development are to enhance the pattern of identifiable communities and to discourage premature intensive development in areas without all needed services being available. Related to these policies is a general goal in Framework for encouraging the phasing of urban development in a compact manner, first using vacant or underutilized "infill" parcels and lands next to existing development. San Luis Obispo Area Plan: The updated San Luis Obispo.Area Plan of the County LUE reflects the goal of accommodating developments which will produce goods and services needed in the planning area, while providing stable employment at pay scales that will enable the employees to afford housing within the planning area. The area plan also reflects the goal of balancing jobs and housing to narrow the gap between the availabili ,( of jobs and housing in the San Luis Obispo urban area and not allow it to expand. Th 1 area plan contains a land use program calling for the County to work with the City of San Luis Obispo to facilitate annexation of areas within the URL to the City. o FORMATION COMMISSIONS September 21, 2000 Page 6 Resource Management System Information• The 1999 Annual Resource Summary Report for the Resource Management System (RMS) of the county Land Use Element indicates the status of key resources and service capacities in unincorporated areas. For the greater area containing the site, the 1999 report identifies recommended levels of severity of Level III for Tank Farm Road between South Higuera Street and Highway 227; Level II for San Luis Obispo's middle schools and level III for the high school; and Level II for the groundwater basin. A Level of Severity II has been certified by the Board of Supervisors for countywide air quality. County Agriculture & Open Space Element Policies: Because the site is designated as "Urban Lands," in recognition of its location within the county's urban reserve line for San Luis Obispo, this element's policies on agricultural and open space land protection and conversion criteria do not apply. County Planning Department Comments: Annexation of the site is proposed so that community services can be provided by the City of San Luis Obispo to the Froom Ranch and DeVaul Ranch South properties. In general, annexation of the site is consistent with County General Plan policies on public services and area plan programs calling for areas within the urban reserve to eventually come under city jurisdiction.The recently approved amendments to the County Planning Area Standards do allow the Froom Ranch property to be developed with commercial uses prior to annexation. However,the existing standard that limits allowable uses prior to annexation to only those allowed in the Agriculture category still applies to the remaining unincorporated land within the urban reserve area, including the DeVaul Ranch South property. If construction permits have been issued for the "big box" retail development approved for the Froom Ranch property and sufficient construction activity occurs before annexation is completed,the project will have a vested right to be completed through the county permit and inspection process even if the property has been annexed before it is finished. Also, because the site is within the County Urban Reserve Line and directly adjacent to the existing city limits on two sides, annexation would be generally consistent with county policies on promoting phasing of compact development by first using vacant or underutilized in-fill parcels and lands next to existing development. However, it should be noted that annexation of the Froom Ranch and DeVaul Ranch South properties will result in creation of an island of unincorporated land located northeast of Los Osos Valley Road and northwest of Highway 101. That area includes the Dalidio, McBride and Madonna "Gap properties. Although those properties are designated Agriculture in the county I ` general plan, they are located within the URL and programmed for eventual annexation I into the city along with the rest of the Urban Reserve Area. While it would be preferable to avoid creation of this island, it does not appear that it can be annexed concurrently with: /� the Froom Ranch and DeVaul Ranch properties. Consequently, this could be viewed as an interim situation which will be resolved when and if the island is annexed in the future. r FORMATION COMMISSIONS September 21, 2000 Page 7 It should be noted that there are no County General Plan policies directly discouraging the creation of unincorporated islands. Despite the island, the Froom Ranch and DeVaul Ranch South properties would form a contiguous extension of the city along the south side of Los Osos Valley Road between the Madonna Road area and the automobile dealerships surrounding Auto Park Way. Therefore,this annexation could be seen as being consistent with County General Plan policies promoting orderly development and phasing of compact development because lands would be used next to existing development where urban services are available. The County Planning Department recommends that this annexation be approved because it is consistent with adopted County General Plan policies and because the City is in the best position to provide the needed level of services for the planned development of the entire site. County Engineering. Comments: County Engineering comments that all of Los Osos Valley Road adjacent to the properties should be included in the annexati_on boundaries (Exhibit D). Agricultural Commissioner Comments: The County Agricultural Commissioner's comments on the proposed annexation are included as Exhibit E. City Plan for Providing Services: The City of San Luis Obispo has submitted a Plan For Providing Services, asrequired by Government Code Section 56653. The City's plan is attached as Exhibit F. Other Services to the Area: Currently the County of San Luis Obispo provides a.minimal level of service to the site. LAFCO Standards: The Commission's Standards for the Evaluation of Proposals concerning In-fill,Affordable Housing,and Water Availabilityhave also been addressed by the City in (Exhibit F). Unincorporated Island Prohibition Statute: The Cortese=Knox Local Government Reorganization Act prohibits the creation of unincorporated.islands. Over the years, the hundreds of unincorporated islands around the State have created public service nightmares. Unincorporated islands result in the inefficient provision of services by County. government to areas that could best be served by the surrounding City. For years, the State Legislature has been encouraging the elimination of existing islands by facilitating annexations, without elections,and discouraging the creation of new islands. Government Code Section 56109 Section reads as follows: V "Unless otherwise determined by the Commission pursuant to subdivision(o) of Section 56375, territory shall not be incorporated into,or annexed to, a city O FORMATION COMMISSIONS September 21, 2000 Page 8 pursuant to this division if, as a result of the incorporation or annexation, unincorporated territory is completely surrounded by that city or.by territory of that city on one or more sides and the Pacific Ocean on the remaining sides." The waiver provision;included in Government Code Section 56375 (o), states that among the powers and duties of'the Commission is the power "To waive the restrictions of Section 56109 if it finds that the application of the restrictions wouldbe detrimental to the orderly development of the community and that the area that would be enclosed by the annexation or incorporation is so located that it cannot reasonably be annexed to another city of incorporated as a new city." Since the boundaries as submitted do not include the portion of Los Osos Valley Road immediately fronting the property to be annexed, it could be argued that the Dalidio, McBride and Gap properties would not be"completely"surrounded by the City if the Froom and DeVaul properties are approved for annexation. However, LAFCO policies direct that the road fronting an annexation areas should also be annexed and maintained by the annexing city. County Engineering is also recommending that the portion of Los Osos Valley Road fronting the properties should be included in the annexation. Once this happens,the Dalidio, McBride and Gap properties would be completely surrounded by the City of San Luis Obispo thereby creating an unincorporated island. Analysis of the Proposed Annexation: Annexation No.62 to the City of San Luis Obispo (Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South) is within the sphere of influence, but outside the sphere of service of the City of San Luis Obispo. The entire area is within the City's Urban Reserve Line as designated in the County General Plan. Development of a portion of the Froom Ranch property with a "big box" home improvement store, has already been approved by the County, even though the area has long been within the City's sphere of influence. An EIR has been prepared, land use permits have been issued; and building permits have been applied for, but not yet issued. If the project continues in the County, it would be served by a well and septic tank system. In its Plan for Providing Services, the City has indicated that it has adequate capacity to serve the area. Regarding water availability, on September 7, 2000, the City presented its Water Resources Management Report at a LAFCO Study Session. The Study Session included review of the Water and Wastewater Management Element of the City's General Plan. The City's current policy of allocating water to projects as building permits are issued, not at the time of annexation. This is because the City limits growth to one percent per year. Therefore annexed land may not be developed until it fits under the growth cap. In addition, until the City obtains a supplemental source of supply, new development must" offset its expected water use through retrofitting existing users before construction begins. The City is pursuing three supplemental water sources: reclaimed water, Salinas River Expansion, and the Nacimiento Pipeline Project. The City moved ahead with its plans to use reclaimed water in September 5, 2000. Actual utilization of this source of supply may C, O FORMATION COMMISSIONS September 21, 2000 Page 9 take up to two more years. In summary, the City has demonstrated that it has the ability to serve this area with municipal services, including water. LAFCO staff has long supported the Froom Ranch annexation at the appropriate time, as a logical and reasonable extension of the City limits. While construction of the project in the unincorporated County area immediately adjacent to the City limits has been viewed by some as an example of the "fiscalization of land use," this situation was caused more by politics and personalities than by the County seeking to gain revenues from unincorporated area development. Ho ver,'it is hard to ignore the more than $400,000 per year irM les fax raven m th \Froom Ranch project: In terms FCO guid lines, the most problematic issue facing the Commission is timing. Approving the annexation at this time would create an unincorporated island consisting of the Dalidio, McBride and Alex Madonna's "Gap" properties. Although these areas are designated for Agriculture in the County,they are located within the City's Urban Reserve Line and sphere of influence and are, therefore, programed for annexation. In fact, an application to annex the Dalidio property was filed with LAFCO in 1993, but was never completed at the request of the property owner. More recently, representatives of the property owner have been working with the City and LAFCO staff to reinitiate the application. However,on August 31,2000,at the request of the developer,the City agreed to delay its consideration of the project until after the November 7, 2000 election. The issue revolves around the proposed construction of a 515,000 shopping center on the Dalidio farm site and the concern expressed by various City council candidates about the magnitude of the project. In order to comply with State policies concerning the creation of unincorporated islands, annexation of the Dalidio, McBride and Gap properties should occur before annexation of the Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South properties. However, at this particular point in time, there is no guarantee that the Dalidio and adjacent properties will be annexed to the City in the foreseeable future, especially if City Council support for the project changes as i a result of the forthcoming election. Because of this, the Commission is placed in the difficult position of either approving the annexation and creating an undesirable unincorporated island or denying the annexation and forcing development to occur in the unincorporated County. There are, however, a range of other options that the Commission may wish to consider for this proposal. Some of these options could act as an incentive to proceed with annexation of the island properties, especially in light of the potential sales tax revenue from both areas. The options are not intended to be all inclusive and some may be combined. 1 FORMATION COMMISSIONS September 21, 2000 Page 10 Option #1): Approval, as submitted. Comments: This option would not include the addition of the portion of Los Osos Valley Road fronting the annexation and therefore would not "completely" surround the Dalidio, McBride and Gap properties. It could then be argued that no island is created because the road would remain in the County and no waiver of the island prohibition restriction is required. This option would, however, "substantially" surround the Dalidio, McBride and Gap properties. This option could also include one or both of the conditions in Option#2. Option#2): Conditional Approval,with Revised Boundaries to include all of Los Osos Valley Road adjacent to the site, with the following conditions: A. That building permits for the home, improvement store be issued and the inspection process started by the County of San Luis-Obispo prior to the effective date of the annexation, and B. That a complete annexation application for the Dalidio, McBride and Gap properties be filed with LAFCO before the Froom Ranch/DeVaul Annexation becomes effective. In addition, it is recommended that the Commission waive the restrictions of Government Code Section 56109 by approving the following finding: "That not approving the annexation and creation of an unincorporated island would be detrimental to the orderly development of the community and that the area enclosed by the annexation is so located that it cannot reasonably be.annexed to another city." Comments: This approach would allow the project to be vested by building permits being issued and work started in the County, and bring the Dalidio, McBride and Gap annexations to the Commission for an annexation.hearing. The Froom/DeVaul annexation would not be completed until both of the conditions are satisfied. Option #3): Denial, without prejudice. Comments: This would comply with the Commission's directive not to create unincorporated islands and would encourage annexation of the Dalidio, McBride and Gap properties before the Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South could be resubmitted. Denial "without prejudice" means that a new application could be resubmitted at any time. This option would give the City and the property owners time to phase the annexations.. However, the Froom project would in all likelihood proceed in the County if this option selected. FORMATION COMMISSIONS September 21, 2000 Page 11 Option #4): Denial Comments: This means that the application cannot be resubmitted for one year (Government Code Section 56855). The provisions may be waived if the Commission finds the requirement to be detrimental to the public interest. Similar to Optioh #3, this option would give the City and the property owners additional time to phase the annexations. However, the Froom project would in all likelihood proceed in the County if this option is selected. Option#5): Continuance Comments: Government Code Section 56840 allows the Commission to continue the hearing from time to time but not to exceed 70-days from the date specified in the original notice. Selection of this option would extend consideration of the annexation proposal until after the November 7, 2000, election. The additional time may be beneficial to all concerned. Based on the above, staff recommends Option#2: Conditional Approval,with revised boundaries and waiver of the unincorporated island restrictions. Recommended Action on the Environmental Determinations for the Sphere of Service Amendment: It is recommended that the Commission determine that the Negative Declarations prepared by the City of San Luis Obispo as Lead Agency are adequate for purposes of the sphere of service amendment (Exhibit G). Recommended Action on the Sphere of Service Amendment: Itis recommended that the Commission, by resolution,adopt a revised sphere of service that includes the territory in the proposed annexation area, as shown in Exhibit B. It is further recommended that the Commission adopt the following as its written statement of determinations: Statement of Determinations: 1. The present and planned land uses in the area including Agricultural and open ssoace lands: The Froom Ranch property, is presently designated Commercial Retail(CR)in the County. The Froom Ranch has been prezoned C-R(Commercial Retail) which would allow a "big box" retail establishment to be constructed on a portion of the site. In the County, the DeVaul Ranch South property is designated Residential Multi-Family (RMF). The DeVaul Ranch property has been prezoned C/OS (Conservation Open Space),which would allow one dwelling per five or more acres. i o FORMATION COMMISSIONS September 21, 2000 Page 12 2. The present and orobable need for public facilities and services in the area: Presently there is a minimal need for urban services to the area. Since the territory. is proposed to be developed with commercial and residential uses, in the future there will be a greater need for public facilities and services. 3. The Present capability of public facilities and the adequacy of public services which the agency provides or is authorized to provide: The services presently provided to the area by the County are minimal and adequate.. In its Plan for Providing Services, the City has demonstrated its ability to provide services to the area after annexation and development. 4. , The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission determines that they are relevant to the ageric: Since the area is adjacent to the City limits, the social and economic communities of interest reside with the City of San Luis Obispo. Recommended Action on the Environmental Determination for the Annexation: Itis recommended that the Commission determine that the Negative Declaration prepared by the City of San Luis Obispo as Lead Agency are adequate for purposes of the annexation (Exhibit G). Recommended Action on the Annexation Proposal: It is respectfully recommended that the Commission, by resolution, Approve Annexation No. 62 to the City of San Luis Obispo (Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South), with the revised boundaries as set forth in Exhibit A with the following conditions: A. That building permits for the home improvement store be issued and the .inspection process started by the. County of San Luis Obispo prior to the effective date of the annexation, and B. That a complete annexation application for the Dalidio, McBride and Gap properties be filed with LAFCO before the Froom Ranch/DeVaul Annexation becomes effective. In addition, itis recommended that the Commission waive the restrictions of Government Code Section 56109 by approving the following finding: "That not approving the annexation and creation of an unincorporated island would _C be detrimental to the orderly development of the community and that the area enclosed by the annexation is so located that it cannot reasonably be annexed to another city." `v 3 .� FORMATION COMMISSIONS September 21, 2000 Page 13 Lastly, since there is 100 percent property owner consent to this annexation and since the City of San Luis Obispo has agreed in writing to a waiver of conducting authority proceedings, no further hearing is required to complete these proceedings. Respectfully submitted, By: PAUL L. HOOD Executive Officer Local Agency Formation Commission. e i V. < Al c4•�c`. .. L.{ y.i• ..t'\�.•'• `\\i���\' t .rw.000m+ `' T L ♦\'S V` ^ \` y\r 0°000°0 _ X\ >� s � G1 \�'` l ' �;v �c '\ '\.} .. fit.• C\ fir' �.• �• a it, \ �.` ` .-\-' weoeeoe••w0oewo�oo oo•oaao•° °eo°000OOeO / \,� .�;�;,'•��� -'..% ;�'" �4��>`�C�}�.,;'';w'��!;i.� eeee°oow� °oo°owwoeee °e°eoo //'.'• / • ,. .'• ..•. .. �. ,::\'..:'..`l \ �.`�:•\.... .�, n.n..m°°°•..eeoeeeeoem°°°°o.e�.�°Oe R7liriin °e°°°me°°w°n^°oe°e°°°m°°O000°°° �I \ . � w00000 o w 000000000. a � ppppp rj Ma .ate 000��00°0000 N DeVaul South •»•»•••• °.....�°°. �V aeooee v\y;Sn LOUR A\• y�� ..A•� A Fr mm Ranch .•A.,.\ r �z }L ZO \�aA��y�\�NA �..\•cA\+\v \•` .\Y•\•`A4•�.\`\\•. \\• SLS h �!_- • / .��•.• \\vA\•.-.t .A•.1-.�.v A {.�y�'tii�ivw�.}moi:/' •�_ .•. •��•� L :lra}}r?q{moi. \\ •l.Y VY1 Proposed Annexation"2 crcy limn: tins 1 City of San LUIS OBISPO 300 0 300 =set Property Currently Outside City Limits, September 2000 �� 'x':!. �� -�y� .as x.- � Jud""�✓�� �'� LI r ♦- uA MAN • yP �.-♦ � � ♦ ri�,�F'�1�-. J to a � �� 1�/�V• y���?r" •'� �t .j am 6�iry '\iv,a��-i. . �j �i�n.•rn n�•I-�- �1AW. ,'d"' ��- 1' ,II�.� �F�'� �� `IIIA .nom�YL_� ��_ �- �F�` • 100, I i �fy`'� ��.��1' N�r/ \.\ l /� `moi+'�r, l\ ,• J --SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY1 ARTMENT OP PLANNING 6 BUILOI \ \ a b6 9 - . / I six/ 4H6, di f 0 _ n �' w t ` L ` I e IL 4sitRPOIWT- 0 e PROJECT EXHIBIT TION NO.62 TO THE CITY OF SAN LAFCo FILE#8-R-00 L'IS OBISPO(FROOM/DeVAUL RANCH SOUTH COUNTY URBAN LAND USE CATEGORY SRH- LUIS OBIS " v COUNTY ENGINEL EP RTMENT COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER ROOM 207 • SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93408 TIMOTHY a NANSON PHONE (805) 781-5252 FAX(805) 781-1229 COUM ENWIUER GLEN L PRIDDY DEPUff GGDNn'ENG7NFER ENGWERMG sEmeEs NOEL KING ADRDDSIRAnON .... --.:_. SOLID WARE " FRANCHISE ADNIMISTIMON WATER RESOURCES August 8, 2000 COUNTY SURVEYDR SPECIAL DISTRICIS MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Hood, Executive Officer, LAFCO FROM: Dave Flynn, Transportation Engineer SUBJECT: Annexation No. 62 to the City of San Luis Obispo (Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South) Our department has reviewed the proposed annexation and feel that the boundary should be revised to take all of Los Osos Valley Road into the city limits from the existing city limit line near Madonna Road to a point approximately 300 feet westerly of Auto Park Way. The proposed developments will be constructing significant improvements along the portion fronting their parcels. The roadways will be expanded to serve the developments and the ultimate design guidelines of the City. Therefore,we believe now is the time for the city to take control of the road within the aforementioned limits. Please let me know if you need additional information regarding our request. You can reach me at x4463. cc: Glen Priddy, Deputy County Engineer- Engineering Services Cliff Howe, Road Maintenance Superintendent Richard Marshall, Development Services Engineer File: Road No. 2088 (LOVR) L:\Trans\Aug000o4mnne:anemo.doa.LND.DF t'�IiJNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1850 Department of Agriculture/Measurement Standards 2156 SIERRA WAY, SUITE A • SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401-4556 RICHARD D. GREEK (805) 781-5910 AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER/SEALER FAX (805) 781-1035 AgCommSLO@co.slo.ca.us September 5,2000 TO: Paul L. Hood,Executive Officer,LAFCO FROM: Robert Hopkins, Deputy Agricultural Commissioner SUBJECT: City of San Luis,Obispo County Annexation 62 (Froom Ranch and DePaul Ranch South) Introduction This abbreviated report responds to your request for comments on the proposed Froom Ranch parcel and DeVaul Ranch South Parcel annexations into the City of San Luis Obispo. The comments and recommendations in our report are based on current departmental policy to conserve agriculture resources and to provide for public health, safety and welfare while mitigating negative_impacts of development to agriculture. Project Description and Agricultural Setting The project entails the annexation of 67 acres comprising two parcels of 54 acres(Froom) and 13 Acres (DeVaul)respectively. The site exists within the San Luis Obispo Urban Reserve Line and within the Commercial.Retail land use category. Historically the Froom property and surrounding land have been used for livestock grazing. The Devaul property has been used periodically for field crops. The development plan site consists of a class I (irrigated),III (nonirrigated)soil and class II (irrigated),III nonirrigated soil. These soils are considered prime under irrigated conditions. Paul L. Hood,Executive Officer,LAFCO September 5,2000 Page 2 Agricultural Resource Issues Summary The evaluation of the annexation raised three agricultural resource issues which are;the conversion of prime agricultural soils, increased conversion pressure on surrounding agricultural lands and the potential to generate an incompatible land use pattern with adjacent agricultural uses. Typically these potential impacts to agriculture would be considered fairly substantial. However. in conte-t the agricultural impacts are not.ccnsidered significant. These properties changed out of the Agriculture land use category during the San Luis Obispo Area Plan update,with the subsequent approval of retail hardware use on the Froom property. There is full recognition that these properties were slated for annexation into the city of San Luis.Obispo for commercial type development by previous land use decisions. Additionally,it is generally recognized there ate agricultural benefits with locating commercial retail uses within urban.areas versus locating these uses fiuther out in the rural areas with the accompanying set of problems for agriculture. If we can be of further assistance please call. H UUM.MGPAISLO City Alm=62 From DevaW.wpd r� I Mbit 5"T" DEVAULNROOM ANNEXATI TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS'OSISPO July 2000 PLAN FOR SERVICES T aw Fnfnrram-n4 2. Fire Protection 3. Paramedic&Ambulance 4. Recreation 5. Parks 6. Streets&Paths 7. Transit 8. Solid Waste& Recycling 9. P1an:i:Q_ De el.o-nr. ,t Ra.,✓iow& C.da. E .f. ,.„o._.,..a_,. t - 10. General Government 11. Water a. Potable.Water b. Reclaimed Water c. Well Water 12. Sewer 13. Storm Drainage 14. Affordable Housing 15. In-fill Development 1. Law.Enforcement Police services will be provided by the City of San Luis Obispo, based at the station at Highway 101 and Santa Rosa Street. The level of service in the annexed territory will be the same as in the rest of the city. Emergency response, patrols, and outreach services such as neighborhood watch will be extended into the territory as streets are installed and development occurs. The City expects that service demands and revenues both will increase approximately in proportion to the amount of new development in the area, and that the increase will be at a gradual pace over several years. 2. Fire Protection The City provides fire prevention and suppression, hazardous materials mitigation, and disaster planning services. Emergency response and inspections will be extended into the territory upon annexation and as development occurs. Initial emergency response will be from the station at Madonna Road and Los Osos Valley Road. The general level of service in the annexed territory will be the same as in the rest of the city. The City expects that service demands and revenues both will increase approximately in proportion to the amount of new development in the area, and that the increase will be at a gradual pace over several years. 3. Paramedic & Ambulance Paramedic services are provided by the City Fire Department. A private ambulance company provides emergency medical services and emergency medical transportation. DeVaul/Froom Ranch Annexaf.� Plan for Services SB 99 Page 2 1, 4. Recreation The City provides a wide range of recreational services for all ages. The level of service in the annexed territory will be the same as in the rest of the, city. No recreational activities are programmed exclusively for the territory to be annexed. Neighborhood parks to serve the territory will be provided on neighboring land to the northwest, via the DeVaul Ranch North approved 3-acre park. This park is will be constructed prior to the occupancy of the DeVaul Ranch North property which have approvals for 269 dwelling units. Pedestrian easements will connect the annexation territory with the DeVaul Ranch North property. The existing 435-acre Laguna Lake Community Park will also be available to.residents and tenants of the territory to be annexed. Additionally, developers of the DeVaul Ranch South Nuruuu ui urc auucaauuu arca wui oc rrquireu iu provide parivand or pay park in iieu lees as a condition of any development approvals. 6. Streets and Paths The EIRs for the DeVaul Ranch North development plan and Froom Ranch/Eagle Hardware project included a traffic and circulation section. 'Twelve intersections were studied and projections for project impacts at 10-year and buildout were formulated and mitigation measures developed Specifically, prior to the occupancy of any development,the developers are required to dedicate and improve sufficient right of way along the project's Los Osos Valley Rd. frontage to accommodate the City and County adopted street section to include six (ultimate)travel lanes, median island, bike lanes, sidewalk bus turnout, landscaped parkway and parking (adjacent to the developed properties, southeasterly of Auto Park Way), generally as depicted on improvement plans prepared by Central Coast Engineering. The dedication varies from 63 fL wide along the northeasterly 800 feet (+/-) of the annexation area, tapering to the southeast to meet the existing right of way line near the intersection of Calle Joaquin. Offsite dedication to the southeast may be required to provide project specific mitigation of four lanes of traffic between Madonna Rd. and Calle Joaquin, consistent with the County-approved Eagle Hardware/Madonna project - D970143D. The traffic signal shall be relocated to.the intersection of the proposed new onsite street, per the tentative minor subdivision map. (M S. SLO 00-041). Additionally, the developers are required to pay their fair share of the following improvements: • Madonna/U.S. 101 intersection improvements O LOVR/U.S. 101 intersectionimprovements i LOVR/Calle Joaquin intersection signalintion e LOVR widening between South Higuera Street and U.S. 101 Details of these improvements can be found in the Traffic and Circulation sections of the County approved Eagle Hardware EIR and City approved DeVaul Ranch Planned Development EIR. _DeVaul/Froom Ranch AnnexaPlan for Sevices _ Page 3 7. Transit The City plans to continue providing citywide bus service, through a contract operator. The City intends that bus service be available to the territory to be annexed. ' A bus stop/tumout is currently planned on .the south' side of LOVR east of Madonna Road. Future service improvements are expected to include changes to present bus routes to improve service in the 8. Solid Waste & Recycling The City intends that solid waste collection will continue to be provided by a private operator under a City franchise, with further activity in the territory as new streets and developments are completed. Disposal is expected to continue at the Cold Canyon Landfill until at least the year 2018..The City also intends that curbside collection of materials for composting or recycling will continue tv be provided by a private operator under a Ciry franchise, wiw furuuer activity in me territory as streets and development are completed. The City expects that additional recycling opportunities for beverage containers will continue to be provided by private firms, including retail outlets (such as Laguna Village shopping center) convenient to the territory. Also, a regional agency is expected to continue sponsoring drop-off opportunities for household hazardous wastes in the San Luis Obispo area. 9. Planning,Development Review& Code Enforcement The City will provide planning for land use and local transportation, development review, and enforcement of City zoning and building codes within the territory. The level of service in the annexed territory will be the same as in the rest of the city. These services are based at City Hall in downtown San Luis Obispo. 10. General Government The.City provides services involving public notices; elections, and utility billing, based at City Hall. The level of service in the annexed territory will be the same,as in the rest of the city. No special provisions are anticipated to meet the service demands resulting from development of the territory. lla. Potable Water The City provides treated, potable water for domestic use. In most areas of the City, potable water is used and will continue to be used in addition for non-potable uses and fire suppression. The City currently has adequate water treatment capacity for build-out of the Froom and DeVaul Ranch projects and has planned capacity upgrades to meet the needs of full build-out under the General Plan. -Development impact fees reimburse the City's water fiord for capital expenses required.to ensure that new development funds its fair share of the cost of developing additional water supplies. i1 _DeVaul/Froom Ranch Anuexati: Dian for Services Page 4 ` 66 !9 The City is currently pursuing three supplemental water supply projects; the ater ease Project, the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project, and the Nacimiento Pipeline Project These new water sources would support build-out of the land uses allowed by the General Plan. The City's water supply model assumes that 100% of the City has been retrofitted with low flow fixtures. Until the City obtains a supplemental source of supply, new development must retrofit to offset twice its expected water use before construction can begin. Typically. this is accomplished throughthe retrofit program. Phased development in the Froom and DeVaul Ranch areas will proceed with a combination of water offsets, reclaimed water, and on-site supplies (see "Well Water"below). As described in a previous report to the Local Agency Formation Commission,the City provides a high level of water service to its customers. Development can occur only if adequate services are available. The level of service in the annexed territory will be the same as in the rest of the . City. Under current laity policies, however, an area may be annexed before there is adequate water supply to provide for full build-out of the urban area identified in the General Plan. The City allocates water to projects as they obtain building permits, not at the time of annexation. Currently, the City has excess water supply available for allocation to development occurring in annexation areas. The City's total water supply is determined through the conjunctive use of two surface water supply reservoirs, with a small contribution from municipal groundwater wells. The total demand of the system is determined by taking the current population of the City and multiplying that number by the Council adopted planning figure of 145 gallons per person per day (gpcd). Based on the difference between supply and demand, the City currently has 552 acre-feet of water available to allocate to new"development. Half of this amount is available to annexation areas, while the other half is designated for intensification and infill projects within the existing City limits,in accordance with City policies. Each year, when the City receives new population information from the State, new demand figures can be calculated. The difference between the City's total supply and the calculated demand is the amount available for allocation. It is important to note that commercial projects do not have a direct effect on the City's population. Non-residential water consumption, however,is accounted for in the per capita water use factors used to calculate total water demand. Though-commercial projects receive a water allocation at the time building permits are issued, the allocation does not directly affect the available excess supply. This assumes that the overall mix of residential and non-residential uses remains fairly constant in the City. This method of determining the amount of water available for allocation is acceptable as long as the actual demand for water is less than the calculated demand. Actual per capita use is determined by dividing the total volume of water produced at the City's Water Treatment Plant by the current population. To date, actual water consumption has been consistently less than the planning figure of 145 gpcd. Currently,the actual rate of potable water consumption in the City is around 130 gpcd. This validates the City's approach to determining the amount of water available for allocation to new development /1 2� DeVaul/F Page 5 room Ranch Armexs� 'Plan for Services ( -.,,-.xh!bn 66 F" The City's potable water distribution system will be extended into the Froom and DeVaul Ranch areas during.construction of their first phases. The initial extension will be from the existing 1211 water main in Los Osos Valley Road. Water pressures in this area are 80-90 pounds per square inch(psi),and flows are considered to be more than adequate for fire protection. '-I b. Reclaimed Water The City's Water Reclamation Facility (sewage treatment plant) produces effluent of a quality that can be used for many nonpotable uses. The City plans to make available reclaimed wastewater for a wide range of such uses. The City proposes to extend a reclaimed water distribution system into the territory, and other parts of the city. Reclaimed water can be used for landscape irrigation of parks, institutional, commercial, and industrial uses, and the common arenas of multifamily dwellings. Reclaimed water also can be used for toilet flushing in ..oIlLt1Ielclal and :rdust ial facilities u at -vv-.'All have =mfess;cna'. -:s.interance. Sub;z it ti cr the :vice of reclaimed water for nonpotable uses will have the affect of making more potable water available. State approval of the water reuse program is pending- 1 Ic. ending.1Ic. Well Water Private well water may continue to be used for existing development, subject to County Health Department requirements. Private well water may be used for new development, subject to City policies. The City does not anticipate adding existing or new wells in the territory to its public water system. 12. Sewer The City provides wastewater collection and treatment. As the annexation area and other areas of the City develop, sewage treatment (water reclamation)..capacity will be increased. The increased capacity will be provided for by adding planned modules at�the existing Water Reclamation Facility, funded through development impact fees.. The City's wastewater collection system will be extended into the Froom and DeVaul Ranch areas as development occurs. Service extensions will bepaid for by .those who benefit A portion of the existing collection system may require up-sizing in order to accommodate the additional flows from the Froom and DeVaul Ranch developments. Any needed augmentation of the existing system will be the responsibility of the developer. Wastewater from the Froom and DeVaul Ranch areas will ultimately flow to the Howard Johnson and Laguna Lift Stations, which are at or very near capacity. The needed capacity expansions however are in the planning stages or in .progress. A consultant to the City is designing the replacement of the Laguna Lift Station, which could be constructed as early as the Fall of 2000. The Howard Johnson Lift Station will also require replacement within the next several years. The City's draft Wastewater Facilities Master Plan addresses the needed capacities for these lift stations that will ultimately be necessary for build-out. The EIR for the Froom Ranch/Eagle Hardware project recommended that the project.pay its fair share for the cost required to upgrade the lift stations. The final Wastewater Facilities Master Plan will identify the ` DeVauUFroom Ranch Annexati 1 ,Ian for Services Exhibit i " Page 6 appropriate distribution.of these costs. Building permits will not be issued unless adequate capacities are in place. 13. Storm Drainage Storm water drainage from new development sites will be handled by rubric street autters. natural channels, and limited use of new culverts and pipes. New developments will be responsible for detaining their peak flows and providing adequate waterway capacity to avoid flooding for themselves and existing, neighboring and downstream properties. New developments will provide the needed on-site drainage facilities and help pay,for any needed areawide facilities.Public drainage facilities will be maintained by the City. 14. Affordable Housing The City of San Luis Obispo requires that new development projects include affordable housing units (5% low and 10% moderate income dwelling units for the residential portion of the annexation) with guarantees that they remain affordable as required by City affordable housing standards, or pay an in-lieu fee(equal to 2% of the building valuation for the commercial portion of the annexation) to assist in the development of affordable housing citywide. No development Plans are being process with this annexation request.. When the property owners submit plans for development of the territory, they will be required to submit their proposal for providing affordable housing. 15. In-fill Development There are no vacant or underdeveloped sites (that don't have recent development approvals) in the City limits of 14 acres in size or larger available for residential development and 53 acres or larger available for commercial development. pmandeviU,afco plan for services doc �i� ��I�I�Illl�llllll� hlllllQlllExhibit city of -sAn 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 INITIAL STUDY EIVviRONMEN I AL CHECKUS T FORM ER 51-00 1 . Project . Title: Froom Ranch Annexation, Prezone, and Subdivision (ANNX/R/ER 51-00) 2. Lead Agency. Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 3. Contact Person and, Phone Number: Associate Planner Peggy .Mandeville,. 781-7175 4. Project Location:.12395 Los Osos Valley Road 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Alex Madonna, Madonna Construction Co., P-.O. Box 3910, San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-3910 6. General Plan Designation: General Retail and within the urban reserve line. 7. Current County Zoning: Commercial Retail 8. Description of the Project: The applicant is requesting prezoning and annexation of a 53-acre ,parcel lying within the City's Urban Reserve Line. The area to be annexed contains a County approved and permitted home improvement store and vacant land for future development consistent with the City's land use and development regulations. The project will also include a subdivision of the 53-acre annexation area into four parcels ranging in size from 10 to 16.5 acres and a remainder. Future development of the vacant parcels may require subsequent environmental analysis once development plans are known. 9. Entitlements Requested: Annexation, Prezoning, and Tentative Map approvals. No development is proposed at this time. 10. Surrounding Land Uses: Just outside the proposed annexation area to the south is the Froom Ranch farmhouse and outbuildings. To the southeast is agricultural land, used for grazing. Running roughly parallel. with Los Osos Valley Road are the Irish Hills, which provide a visual backdrop to the site. To the north of the project site is the DeVaul Ranch property, which is /© The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. V Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. — J�n � C:ihibi# currently farmed but approved for residential development. Across .Los Osos Valley Road are houses, farmland, and auto dealerships. 11 . Other public agencies whose-approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). Local Agency Formation Commission Airport Land Use Commission I 2 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. Land Use and Planning Biological Resources X Aesthetics Population and Housing X Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources Resources Geological Problems Hazards Recreation Water X Noise X Mandatory Findings of Significance X Air Quality Public Services �� p X Transportation and X Utilities and Service - = Circulation Systems F9There 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. F-1 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. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and 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 the mitigation measures described on an X attached sheets have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project May have a significant effect on the environment, and a ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at.leas one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable lega standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis a described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or is "Potential) Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must i—I3 -1 i ExhlbIt 98G99 analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed 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 all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided o mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. May 10, 2000 Signature / Date Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager Arnold Jonas; Community Development Dir. Printed Name For . 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. "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 CEGA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)• 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). Referenceto a previously prepared or outside document ,should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. �j 4 Issues and Supporting Informc) Sources Sources you i han o Sigw,�ais ER 51-00; Madonna Construction Co. Annexation issues unless Imp= • mitigation inwtpormed 1. -LAND USE AND,PLANNING Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 1,2,3 x 4 b) Conflict with. applicable environmental plans or policies. 6,9 x adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? 10 c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? 1,2 x d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g;. impac 1,7 x to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible lane 11 uses? 12 e) Disrupt or divide -the -physical arrangement of ar x established community (including a low-income o n [,1o,I,y cUirniiwiiiyi? Pre-Zoning The City's general plan applies a designation of General Retail to this site. To be consistent with this Ian use designation the site must be pre-zoned Retail Commercial (C-R) as part of the annexation request. Th approved home improvement store proposed for one of the parcels is an allowed use in the C-R zoning district. Any future development of the remaining parcels will have to be consistent the property's C-R zoning. CONCLUSION: Not significant. Consistency with general plan polices and zoning regulations is best achieved by prezoning the subject property C-R, Retail Commercial. Agricultural Compatibilitv The project site has historically been used for cattle grazing. The project will ultimately remove 53 acres o the Froom Ranch out of this historic agricultural use. According to the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service maps, the two dominate soil types of the site (Cropley clay 127, and Salinas silty clay loam, 197). The soil is suited to vegetable crops, dryland farming and pasture, however, crop production may be greatly reduce during the winter unless surface and subsurface drainage systems are installed. For agricultural production the soils within the subject property have crop production capability classifications of Class I and Class I soils when irrigated and Class III when not irrigated. Class I and II soils are the equivalent to prime soil beneficial for use in agriculture practices. Normally, the conversion of prime agricultural land is considered a significant impact. These impacts were previously evaluated and mitigated as part of the City's LUE EIR, 1994 and the County Supplemental EIR for the Madonna/Eagle Hardware development, 1998. More specifically, adoption of the City's LUE EI included a statement of overriding consideration for conversion of prime agricultural land to urban use (Resolution 8332). CONCLUSION: Not significant due to previous evaluation and Council action. Airport Compatibility The site is included within the boundaries of the County's Airport Land Use Plan and is more specifically located in Land Use Area 6. Retail commercial development is considered a "compatible use" within this planning area. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. Annexation will not impact airport operations. Approved and future i O issues and Supporting Informat Sources SotucaPotenti p I 1, I 1 I b S` act �npa ER 51-00; Madonna Construction Co. Annexation use of the site is considered compatible with airport operations. Future development may require the dedication of an avigation easement in accordance with the Airport Land Use Plan policies and procedures. Land Use Element Policies This site is envisioned by both the City and County land use plans to be annexed to the City. The property i located within the City's Sphere of Service, Sphere of Influence, and Urban Reserve Line. The City's General Plan designates this site for General Commercial development. Governing Policies: e 1.13 Annexation and Services O1-13.i :9i:"ar S?:.vx .Ciarwi^a 7*np. "i-v 5zha11 not n;rn/ir''.c nn. na_rmit HaVwary n4 .^.iai wator nr QMWar services to the following areas. However, the City will serve those parties having valid previous connections or contracts with the City. A. Outside the City limits; B. Outside the urban reserve line; C. Above elevations reliably served by gravity-flow in the City water system; D. Below elevations reliably served by gravity-flow or pumps in the City sewer system. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. Annexation into the City will ensure compliance with this policy. In addition, the property is located inside the City's urban reserve line. See also the water supply discussio under Utilities and.Service Systems. • 1.13.2 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 lin which are to be developed with urban uses should be annexed before urban development occurs. Th City may annex an area long before such development is to occur, and the City may annex areas whic 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_ wil reflect topography, needed capital facilities and funding, open. space objectives, and existing an proposed land uses and roads. Annexation of this site is consistent with this policy. Topography poses no issue since the site is essential) flat. Needed capital facilities and funding are outlined in the attached letter from the Communit Development Director to the applicant. CONCLUSION: Not significant. Urban development and annexation of this site ere envisioned in both City and County land use plans. ♦ 1.13.3 Required Plans Land in any of the following annexation areas may developed only after the City has adopted a plan for land uses, roads, utilities, the overall pattern of subdivision, and financing o public facilities for the area. The plan shall provide for open space protection consistent with.polic 1.13.5. D. For any other annexations, the required plan may be a specific plan, development plan under "PD zoning, or similar development plan covering the entire area. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. The applicant's request is for annexation of land approved for development. A portion of the property will remain undeveloped. It is being annexed at this time t y 3 ` .Issues and Supporting Informal,. Sources Sources Pour. Potentially Less Than No Signifi o ' $act ER 51-00; Madonna Construction Co. Annexation I�`uE. s II6m i�� i s I Ino rated facilitate a logical extension of the city limits boundary southeast from the DeVaul Ranch. Consistent with the above policy, the property will be zoned to Retail Commercial. • 1.13.4 Development and Services" Actual development in an annexed area may be approved only when adequate City services can be provided for that development, without reducing the level of services o 1994, in accordance with the City's water management policies. The water "management policies may allow part of the water retrofit credit that would'be needed for build-out within the 1994 city limits to be used for annexation projects. Water for development in an annexed area may be made available b any one or any combination of the following: A. City water supply, including reclaimed water; B. Reducing usage of City water in existing development so that there will be no net increase in long-term water usage; C. Private well water, but only as an interim source, pending availability of an approved addition to City water sources, and when it is demonstrated that use of the well water will not diminish the City's municipal groundwater supply. The applicant plans to connect to City services. The applicant will have to develop a water allocation before connecting. Currently, this requires that the applicant retrofit existing plumbing fixtures throughout the CitV to save twice the amount of water that site development is anticipated to use. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. Connection to City water and future site development under the jurisdiction of the City will be subject to the City's water allocation regulations. Preliminary analysis o existing and future site development indicates the project is unlikely to use more than10 acre-feet of water per year. See also the water supply discussion under Utilities and Service Systems. ♦ 1.13.5 Open Space • Each annexation shall help secure permanent protection for areas designated Open Space, and for tit habitat types and wildlife corridors within the annexation area that are identified in policy 6.1.1. Policies concerning prime agricultural land shall apply when appropriate. The following standards shall apply t the indicated areas: A. Irish Hills Area properties shall dedicate land or easements covering an area in the hills at least equal to the area to be developed. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. The applicant intends to annex 53 acres of developable property. Th applicant, as part of his County land use approval, will dedicate an open space easement over the visible hillside above the development site that is well over 53 acres. • 1.14 Costs of Growth The costs of public facilities and services needed for new development shall be borne by the new development, unless the community chooses to help pay the costs for a certain development to obtai community-wide benefits. The City will adopt a development-fee program and other appropriate financing measures, so that new development pays its share of the costs of new services and facilities needed to serve it. CONCLUSION: Not significant. Anticipated infrastructure needs for future development are outlined in comments from the City's Public Works Department. Project specific infrastructure needs will be addressed at the time of hook-up and for the undeveloped portion of the site, through conditions of future site �v lssueS and Supporting Informal` Sources Sources Potenr Potentially Less Than No Signit Si iftcant Impact ER 51-00; Madonna Construction Co. Annexation U sa ' Impact' ro 1 development. ♦ 1.15 Solid Waste Capacity In addition to other requirements for adequate resources and services prior todevelopment, the Ci must determine that adequate solid waste disposal capacity will be available before granting an discretionary land use approval which would increase solid waste generation. CONCLUSION: See discussion under Utilities and Services (Section 12) 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local populatioi 1 x projections? b) Induce substantial -growth-in an area .either directly o x indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area vi mi',)vi ii iii uau u,.w,G: c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable x housing? The Land Use Element (LUE) growth management provisions (section 1.0 of the LUE) call for limitations o the number of residences that may be built every year, to maintain an average growth rate of one percen per year during the 1990s. CONCLUSION: Not significant. Annexation by itself will not impact population. Any expansion in jobs is not anticipated to be significant and such jobs are likely to be filled by local residents. 3, GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would.the proposal result in or expose people topotential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? 11 X b) Seismic ground shaking? 1, 11 x c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? . 1, 11 x d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? I x e) Landslides or mudflows? 1, 11 x f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil 1, 11 x conditions from excavation,grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land.? 11 x h) Expansive soils? 11 x i) Unique geologic or physical features? 11 x An EIR prepared for the County of San Luis Obispo by the Morro Group in 1998 for the Madonna/Eagl Hardware & Garden development notes that the project is located within, or in close proximity to the Lo Osos fault zone. The potential for fault rupture and general geologic hazards were investigated. Risk o fault rupture, slope instability, earthquake shaking, liquefaction, and subsidence were found to b insignificant. Construction in accordance with local building codes will mitigate any impacts to a level o insignificance. Project specific recommendations of the Earth Systems analysis (1997, incorporated into the project EIR) will be implemented at the time of building permit approvals. CONCLUSION: Potentially significant unless mitigated. Mitigation Measure: Future development shall be located away from active faults per State Law and the Safety Element. 4. WATER. Would the proposal result 1n: a) Changes in absorption rates,: drainage patterns, or the 1,13 x rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards x such as flooding? 8 1 Issues and Supporting Informal ources sources Po =F�a: y ess an o ues�Ge/ � Pact ER 51-00; Madonna Construction Co. Annexation IncotporaDed c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of x surface water quality (e.g..temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water x body? e) Changes in currents;or the course or direction;of water x movements? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, eitherthrougt x direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater.recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? x iii impacts co groundwacer quaiiiyr x i) Substantial reduction in the amount of.groundwater x otherwise available for..public water supplies?. The approved and future development will increase runoff from the site as a result of site improvements The applicant intends to mitigate these impacts through the use of a drainage detention basin. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. Improvements to the site will include the development of a drainage detention basin in order to ensure no increase in discharge of surface water from the site from presen conditions. Any future development will be required to demonstrate similar compliance and construcl appropriately sized drainage facilities to ensure no added run-off. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an 7, 11 x existing or projected air quality violation(Compliance with ARCD Environmental Guidelines)? b► Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants x c) Alter air movement, moisture,.or temperature, or cause x any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? x Air quality impacts of the home improvement store were previously evaluated and mitigated as part of th project EIR. The annexation itself will not create any additional air quality impacts. The potential impacts o future development will be addressed in more detail once plans for commercial buildings come forward. This initial study addresses generic development of the remaining annexation area. Short-term Impacts During project construction of future development, there will be increased levels of fugitive dust associate with construction and grading activities, as well as construction emissions associated with heavy-duty construction equipment. Compliance with the dust management practices contained in Municipal Cod Section 15.04.040 X. (Sec. 3307.2) will adequately mitigate short-term impacts. No further mitigation is necessary. Long-Term Impacts San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State ozone and PM10 (fine particulate matter 1 9 Issues and Supporting Informati, Sources Sources Po - Less I Man Si i& e, � Skfif9 act ER 51-00; Madonna Construction Co. Annexation Is es am � Incorporated microns or less in diameter) air quality standards. State law requires that emissions of non-attainment pollutants and their precursors be reduced by at least 5% per year until the standards are attained. Th 1995 Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County was developed and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) to meet that requirement. The CAP is a comprehensive planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor vehicle use. Land Use Element Policy 1.18.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the Clear? Air Plan. Motor vehicles account for about 40% of the precursor emissions responsible for ozone formation, and are also a significant source of PM,o. Thus, a major requirement in the CAP is the implementation of transportation control measures designed to reduce motor vehicle trips and miles traveled by local residents The APCD recommends that site development include the following mitigation measures to encourage transportation alternatives to the single occupant vehicle and make the project attractive to bicyclists an pedestrians. CONCLUSION: Potentially significant. Future site development will impact air quality as a result of construction activity and traffic generated by uses established. Standard mitigation is recommended t reduce impacts resulting from construction activity and future site development. Mitigation Measure: Future development shall include: • bicycle parking and shower and locker facilities for employee use; • continued sidewalk along the property street frontage; • outdoor employee rest area to encourage employees to stay on site during the lunch hour; and • extensive tree planting in the parking areas to help reduce evaporative emissions from automobiles. 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:' a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 10, x 11, 12 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp x curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment))? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby x uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 10• x e) Kcazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? x f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative x transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?` g) Rail, waterborne or.air traffic impacts (e.g. compatibility 9between with San Luis Obispo Co. Traffic impacts of the home improvement store were previously evaluated and mitigated as paproject EIR. Mitigation measures required roadway improvements to widen LOVR to 4 lanes Madonna Road and Calle Joaquin, signalize the intersection of LOVR and the project entry, providestop on the LOVR frontage, provide sidewalks and bike lanes on the project frontage, provide turn aneso LOVR to the project site, and contribute the fair share cost for numerous intersection improvement impacted by the proposed project. The annexation of additional vacant land will not create any additiona traffic impacts beyond those that were previously addressed as part of the project EIR and the City's Update of the LUE of the General Plan. The potential impacts of future development will be reviewed and addresse in more detail once specific plans for commercial buildings come forward. This initial study addresses generic development of the remaining annexation area. 10 � Jssues and Supporting Informs Sources Sources Pote �\ Potentially Less Than No Si M Imp__ ER 51-00; Madonna Construction Co. AnnexationE �'� m> YY Incomd Air traffic compatibility is discussed in Section 1. On-site parking is subject to zoning regulation standard and will be addressed as part of the architectural review. CONCLUSION: Potentially significant. Mitigation Measure: Future site development shall be subject to further analysis as part of the development review process t ensure compliance with City standards and the payment of City traffic impact fees which were established (Resolution No. 8406) to mitigate the impacts of .new development. on the City's streets, transit, and bikeway facilities. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal affect: a) Endangered, threatened or"rare species or their habitats 7, x ,IrrV1YYl•ry vY. .rYI ..Ir rllvY tY �,rurrlJ, 1rJrr, JYYIJ, r r, animals or birds)? 13 b). Locally designated-species (e-g. heritage trees)? 7,11 x c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g..oak forest 1,7, x coastal habitat,etc.)? 11 d) Wetland habitat-(e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? 1,7, x 11 13 e) Wildlife:dispersal or migration corridors? 1,7, x 11 A detailed assessment of biological resources present on the site was evaluated as part of th Madonna/Eagle Hardware EIR. The primary sensitivity area includes seasonal wetlands that are locate toward the southeast corner of the annexation area. The additional annexation area between the development area evaluated in the County EIR and the DeVaul Ranch property was also evaluated as project alternative and found to not contain any sensitive resources. The conclusions that were reached i the project EIR were that the development would impact annual grassland habitat to a less than significan level and the wetland losses could be mitigated. The wetland mitigation can be accomplished to the satisfaction of the County of San Luis Obispo, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A Corps permit has been obtained. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. Annexation itself will not result in any biological impacts. Based on information contained in the Madonna/Eagle Hardware EIR, there is no evidence before the Department tha the project and development will have any potential adverse effects on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends provided the project complies with the mitigation measures thal were established through the County approval process. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a)'"Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 1 x b) -Use non-renewable resourcesin a wasteful and 1 x inefficient manner? c): Result in the loss of availability of-a known mineral x resource that would-be of future value to the region andahe-residents of the State_? The Energy Element states that, "New development will be encouraged to minimize the use of conventiona energy for space heating and cooling, water heating, and illumination by means of proper design an orientation, including the provision and protection of solar exposure." The City implements energ conservation goals through enforcement of the California Energy Code which establishes energ conservation standards for residential and nonresidential construction. Buildings proposed as part of thi project must meet those standards. The City also implements energy conservation goals through` 11 `lam Issues and Supporting Informa+' ' Sources Sources Poter Potentially Less Than No Signa.,`_ Significant Significant Impact ER 51-00; Madonna Construction Co. Annexation Issues in 66(%F architectural review. Project designers are asked to show how a project makes maximum use of passive means of reducing conventional energy demand, as opposed to designing a particular image and relying o mechanical systems to maintain comfort. CONCLUSION: Potentially significant. To be consistent with adopted energv conservation policies and avoid using non-renewable resources in an inefficient manner, the following standard mitigation is recommende for any future site development approved by the City of San Luis Obispo: Mitigation Measure: New buildings constructed on this site shall incorporate the following as feasible: • Skylights to maximize natural day fighting. • Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation. o Enp.rny-pffinipnt lirhtinri 3vctar.c fnr linch inrprinr anrJ. ?vtarinr ima If these features are not included or feasible in the design of new buildings, the project architect shal document why they were determined to be infeasible. The Community Development Director shall revie vy this document and make a final decision as to the feasibility of incorporating these energy conservin features. 9. HAZARDS. Would.the.proposal involve:. a) A risk of accidental explosion or release,of hazardous 3,4, x substances (including,-but not limited to: oil, pesticides, 13 chemicals or radiationN. 14 b) Passible-interference with an emergency response plan 13 x or emergency evacuation plan?. c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health 13 x hazard? 14 d) Exposure of people to existing sources.of,potential 13 x health hazards? 14 e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brusti,. 13 x grass or.tmes? Annexation is not anticipated to result in the creation or exposure of people to any known health hazards The site is not known to contain hazardous materials. CONCLUSION: Less than significant 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? 1 x b) Exposure of people to "unacceptable" noise levels as 1 x defined by the San Luis Obispo_..:General Plan Noise Bement? Annexation by itself has no noise impacts. The anticipated commercial uses are not noise-sensitive uses a described by the Noise Element of the General Plan. There are noise sensitive uses in the area, which includ the residential neighborhoods on the northeast side of Los Osos Valley Road as well as the newly approve and pending residential developments on the DeVaul Ranch property. Impacts to these neighborhoods wil be predominantly from increased traffic traveling on Los Osos Valley Road as well as stationary noise with commercial activities on the property. Mitigation that was required as part of the Madonna/Eagle Hardware development included a noise wall t be constructed along some properties along Garcia Drive. This mitigation is occurring as part of the CountV review of the building permit for the Home Depot store. The residential development of the DeVaul Ranch has similar mitigation that applied to it that will involve the installation of a noise wall along Los Osos Valley Road to mitigate traffic noise impacts. 12 < Issues and Supporting Inform Sources Sources Pote Potentially Less Than No Signit,..dnt t Im as ER 51-00; Madonna Construction Co. Annexation Issues unp duaft ' �" m�rparate gig As far as operational noise, no mitigation was required as part of the EIR due to the distance between the home improvement store and the DeVaul Ranch development. However, this annexation will involve undeveloped commercial property that is adjacent to the DeVaul Ranch and Laguna West (commonl referred to as DeVaul Iq. Future development of areas adjacent to these residential developments will require further noise analysis and likely the construction, of a solid noise wall that secarates the ccmmercia and residential developments. CONCLUSION: Potentially significant. Mitigation Measure: Any future development adjacent to residential areas shallrequire a noise analysis and mitigation in order to comply with the City's Noise Standards contained in the General Plan. +.7:'.Z7 7:� ��."2377^�2 3ainui,r -?iMo nrnnneai nava an oivo�t ,mnn �. .c� d4 :n ..00.: •�... ..mo. ... �:aa.�� i government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? 13 x b) Police protection? 13 x c) Schools? x d) Maintenance ofpublicfacilities, including roads? 13 x e) Other governmental services? 13 x CONCLUSION: Less than significant. Annexation will not have any impact on public services. Comments from various City Departments (attached) indicate what fees, infrastructure, easements and dedications will be necessary to accommodate additional site development. 12. UTILITIES AND.-SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems-or suppfres, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gasT x b) Communications systems? x c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 13 x facilities? d) Sewer-or.septi.c.tanks? 13 x e) Storm water,drainage? 13 x f) Solid waste disposal? 6 x g) Local or regional water supplies? 1 x Comments from various City Departments (attached) indicate what fees, infrastructure, easements and dedications will be necessary to ensure adequate delivery of City services to this site. In order to implement the goals and objectives of the San Luis Obispo General Plan, and to provide adequate water supply and treatment facilities, and wastewater collection and treatment facilities, to serve new development in the City of San Luis Obispo and to mitigate the impacts of that new development, certain public facilities and improvements must be, or had to be, constructed. The City Council has determined that connection fees are needed in order to finance these facilities and improvements and to pay for new development's fair share of the construction costs of these facilities and improvements. Site development will be subject to payment of water and wastewater impact fees and construction of infrastructure necessary to deliver services to the project site. Water Supply — The Utilities Department has reviewed this annexation application and determined that it is consistent with the Water Management Element and that there is sufficient water available to serve site development. The City of San Luis Obispo obtains its water from a combination of surface and groundwater sources. Adopted safe annual yield from these sources is 7,735 acre-feet per year. The City is pursuing the 13 3� Issues and Supporting Informati, Sources Sources eotentir" potentially Less Than No Signifi ct ER 51-00; Madonna Construction Co. Annexation "G Y Issue n orated development of additional water supplies, including the Nacimiento Pipeline Project, the Salinas Reservoi Expansion Project, and the Water Reuse Project. Reuse of treated wastewater for non-potable needs, suc as landscape watering, will reduce demand on potable water supplies. This is likely to be the first additional source developed and is projected to yield.roughly 1200 acre-feet per year. Half that amount would be het in reserve. The other half would be used in place of potable water, thereby increasing the amount of cctebf water available for allocation by roughly 600 acre feet per year. Planning for future water use in the City is based on an average consumption of 145 gallons per day pe person or 0.162 acre-feet per person per year, which is somewhat higher than actual consumption during and since the most recent drought. Based on this water use rate and current city population, presen demand is about 6,962 acre-feet per year. This number is recalculated annually using updated populatio estimates from the California Department of Finance. The difference between safe annual yield and presen demand is 773 acre-feet per year, which is available to serve new development. Half this amount (386 acre- ,pp—.1 ;;v;;il.;t;la inr rlavg.:nnnpn-, in are.A$ Until retrofit of the entire City is essentially complete, all developers are subject to the City's Water Allocation regulations and must retrofit existing facilities with low-flow plumbing fixtures in order to offset twice the expected demand of their development prior to issuance of a building permit. The Utilities Department staff estimates that remaining opportunities for retrofitting could reduce current water use b 500 acre-feet per year. Building permits for the home improvement center were based on private on-site water supplies. Upon annexation, the applicant will request City services, which will trigger the establishment of a water allocation. The applicant could continue to use well water for landscape irrigation to reduce demand for Ci water. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. The project's (permitted and future) estimated water demand is approximately 10 acre-foot per year. Compliance with Water Allocation regulations will ensure water stuppl availability. Waiter Distribution — The applicant will have to extend the water main in Los Osos Valley Road in order to hook up to City water. This will be a condition of site development. Sewer— The applicant will have to extend the sewer main in Los Osos Valley Road in order to connect City sewer service. Storm Water - Discussed under Water above. Solid Waste- Solid waste from this site is delivered to Cold Canyon landfill, which has a capacity to accept solid waste for approximately 18.5 years, based on_the current rate of disposal and ongoing trends showing a reduction in per capita waste generation. Measures to reduce solid waste are still needed to improv compliance with the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939) shows thatCalifornians dispose of roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per person per year.. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills, posing a threat to groundwater, air quality, and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach rt capacity in the year 2018. The act requires each city and county in California to reduce the flow o materials to landfills by 50% (from 1989 levels) by 2000. As of 1998 (the date for which latest figures are available), San Luis Obispo had reduced its waste stream by 34%. CONCLUSION: Potentially significant. 14 Issues and Supporting Informa�`Sources Sources Porn Sionitant 91mPa ER 51-00; Madonna Construction Co. Annexation Issues ' ation Incorporated To help reduce the ongoing waste stream, the current operation should include facilities for both interior an exterior recycling to reduce the unrecycled waste stream generated by the project consistent with th Source Reduction and Recycling Element. To help reduce waste generated by future site development, a solid waste reduction plan for recyclin discarded demolition and construction materials should be submitted with the building permit application. Mitigation Measures: Future site development shall include a .solid waste recycling plan for on-going operations and for th recycling of discarded building materials, such as concrete, sheetrock, wood, and metals, from th construction site. The plan shall be submitted for approval by the Community Development Director, prio 'r. huiKnr, narmi' is ia�rg. Existing and future site development shall incorporate convenient facilities for interior and exterior on-sit recycling. A description of current. recycling efforts and any plans to expand those efforts shall b submitted to the Community Development Department prior to City Council review of the annexation request. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or-scenic highway? x b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? x c) Create light or glare? _ x This section of Los Osos Valley Road is identified in the City's Circulation Element as a "road with moderat scenic value'. Annexation by itself will have no aesthetic impacts. Further development of the site to b annexed will be subject to architectural review and approval to ensure against negative aesthetic impacts compliance with the City's Scenic Roadways section of the' Circulation Element, and compliance with City lighting standards. CONCLUSION: Potentially significant. Mitigation Measures: Exterior lighting shall be directed downward and not spill onto adjoining properties. The maximum height o lighting equipment and supporting structures, including fixture(s), standard and base, shall not be higher tha 20 feet above the finished grade. Lighting levels measured at finished grade directly beneath the fixture shall not exceed 10 footcandles. Any future development shall be subject to the architectural review process to ensure against negative aesthetic impacts and compliance with City development standards including the Scenic Highways sectio of the Circulation Element. 14: CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposals a) ''Disturb'paleontological resources? x b) -Disturb archaeological resources? 15 x c) :Affect historical resources? x d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which x would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the x potential impact area? Cultural and historic surveys were performed of the Froom Ranch in 1993 and 1998. These surveys failed 15 1` / Issues and Supporting Informati, Sources Sources Potenti• t. ess an o Signifk S a S t ER 51-00; Madonna Construction Co. Annexation Issues Incorporated to find any pre-historic resources. Several historic buildings were identified on the property that ar associated with early and on-going agricultural operations on the Froom Ranch. Despite recommende mitigation, it was determined that the relationship of the home improvement store and the historic ranc buildings, that there were going to be significant and unavoidable impacts. A statement of overridin considerations was adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Future build out of the remainder of th annexation area will occur further away form these historic resources and is determined to be less tha significant. CONCLUSION: Not significant. 15.-RECREATION: Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks x or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? x 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade*the x quality of the 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 eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Without mitigation, the project would have the potential to have adverse impacts for all issue areas checke in the table on page 3. Based on information in the application, existing environmental studies that cover the project area, a fiel inspection, and a review of relevant references in the Department, staff has determined that thereis 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 that were not previously addressed and mitigated. CONCLUSION: Potentially significant without mitigation. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- x term, to the disadvantage of.long-term, environmental goals? Short-term and long-term goals are the same. CONCLUSION: Not significant. c) Does the project have impacts that are individually x limited,.but 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) The annexation itself will not result in any potentially significant impacts to the environment. Compliance with adopted City policies and regulations related to growth management and resource availability and the inclusion of mitigation measures recommended in this initial study will reduce cumulative impacts of air quality, traffic, noise aesthetics and energy consumption to a less than significant level. 16 Issues and Supporting Informa.�\Sources Sources PokUf=InC0=Po, ' si9 PIM ct ER 51-00; Madonna Construction Co. Annexation ]s ion ared CONCLUSION: Potentially significant without mitigation. A Does the project have environmental effects which will x cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? With incoiooration of mitication measures. the aroiect will not result in subs?entiel adverse imn?cTs on humans. CONCLUSION: Not significant. 17 1 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be-.used where, pursuant to the tiering,. program EIR, or other CEQA.process, .one c more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier.EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (; (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. a Find FIR fnr tho 1994 1 onC! I leo mnri riro,iintinn Flgmornt I Inr4?tee rit" of Con 1 .dc 1lhienn py�ila'nlo nt the Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo. • Final Supplemental EIR for the Madonna/Eagle Hardware & Garden, Certified by the County Board of Supervisors on November 2, 1999. Available at the Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo. • Final EIR fpr the DeVaul Ranch North development certified by the San Luis Obispo City Council on December 15, 1998. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the.above checklist were .within the scop of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and stat 'vviid iiioi suGii eiieCib vveju duu used by iiiiiiyaiivil 1 iied5u(es bdsed on the eariier analysis. NA 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 t which-they address site-specific conditions of the project.. NA 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan: Land Use; Circulation, Noise, Energy, Open Space, Seismic Safety, Water and Wastewater Management Elements 2. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations 3. County of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo Area Plan, January 1997 4. City of San Luis Obispo Source Reduction and Recycling Element 5. 1995 Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County 6. SLO County Airport Land Use Plan 7. City of San Luis Obispo Informational Map Atlas 8. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990 9. Letter from Arnold Jonas outlining applicable fees in the event of annexation 10. City Department Comments 11. Final Supplemental EIR for the Madonna/Eagle Hardware& Garden, Certified by the County Board of Supervisors on November 2, 1999 12. Resolution No. 8332 approving the City's 1994 LUE Update and EIR supplement 13. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Nationwide Permit for the Froom Ranch development 14. 15. ATTACHMENTS: Vicinity Map Annexation Map Tentative Parcel Map �/J 19. M_ ITIGATION MEASURES/MONITORING PROGRAM Air Mitigation Measure: 1. Future development shall include: Quality bicycle parking and shower and locker facilities for employee use; • continued sidewalk along the property; • outdoor employee rest area to encourage employees to stay on site during the lunch hour; and • extensive tree planting in the parking areas to help reduce evaporative emissions from automobiles. Monitoring Program: Architectural review and building permit issuance. Energy Mitigation Measure: 2. New buildings constructed on this site.shall incorporate the following Conserva- as feasible: tion • skylights to maximize natural day lighting; • operable windows to maximize natural ventilation; and 0 onarrni_affirient link?inn evetamc.r'nr Ant'n inTari�r anr7 ovtori�r lice If these features-are not included or feasible in the design of new buildings, the project architect shall document why they were determined to be infeasible. The Community Development Director shall review this document and make a final decision as to the feasibility of incorporating these energy conserving features. Monitoring Program: No building or grading permits will be issued without compliance with this mitigation measure. Noise Mitigation Measures: 3. Any future development adjacent to residential areas shall require a noise analysis and. mitigation in order to comply with the City's Noise Standards contained in the General Plan. Monitoring Program: No architectural review approvals.will be granted to future development without additional analysis of the development's compliance with the City's noise standards. Solid Mitigation Measure: 4. Future site development shall include a solid waste recycling plan for Waste recycling discarded building materials, such as concrete, sheetrock, Capacity wood, and metals, from the construction site. The plan must be .submitted for approval by the Community Development Director, prior to building permit issuance. 5. Existing and future site development shall incorporate convenient facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling. A description of current recycling efforts and any plans to expand those efforts shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to City Council review of the annexation request. Monitoring Program: Architectural review and building permit issuance. Aesthe- 6. Exterior lighting shall be directed downward and not spill onto tics adjoining properties. The maximum height of lighting equipment and supporting structures, including fixture(s), standard and base, shall not be higher than 20 feet above.the finished grade. Lighting levels measured at finished grade directly beneath the.fixture shall not exceed 10 footcandles. 7. Any future development shall be subject to the City's architectural review process to ensure against negative aesthetic impacts and compliance with City development standards including the Scenic Highways section of the Circulation Element. Monitoring Program: Architectural review and building permit issuance. 19 �� xhibit 6699 Traffic Mitigation Measure: Future site development shall be subject to further analysis as part of and the development review process to ensure compliance with City Circulation standards and the payment of City traffic impact fees which were established (Resolution No. 8406) to mitigate the impacts of new development on the City's streets; transit, and bikeway facilities. Monitoring Program: Architectural review and building permit process. Manda- Mitigation Measure: See above mitigation measures. tory Findings of Signif- icance 20 �� nljj��J pill II ® sem t��s ®�,EmuASPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 INITIAL STUDY habit 56l9 uv v 1nv1rw1C6t NMI_ vflC�n� :y rvnrv� ER 87-00 1 . Project Title: DeVaul Ranch South Annexation and Prezone (ANNX/R 87-00) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo ^n n•r�..4 %o.cnr. o.,r. Win.no \1; m... . �J,.ccnria�o �l.nnor '�onnv 1A�nrlbii(:a 781-7175 4. Project Location: 11955. Los Osos Valley Road 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Jet-Ski Land Development #3, LLC, 484 Mobil Ave., Ste. 19, Camarillo, CA 93010 6. General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential and within the urban reserve line. 7. Current County Zoning: Residential Multi-Family 8. Description of the Project: . The applicant is requesting prezoning and annexation of a 13.6-acre parcel lying within the City's Urban Reserve Line. The area to be annexed contains vacant land designated for future residential development consistent with the City's General Plana This initial study addresses the annexation and prezoning of this property to Interim Open Space. Subsequent environmental analysis will be required to address the rezoning, subdivision and proposed development plans for the property. 9.. Entitlements Requested: Annexation and Prezoning. No development is proposed at this time. 10. Surrounding Land Uses: Just outside the proposed annexation area to the south-is the Froom Ranch ranchland, farmhouse and -outbuildings. To the immediate west is agricultural land, used for grazing. Running roughly parallel. with Los Osos Valley Road are the Irish Hills, which provide a visual backdrop to the site. To the north of the project site is the DeVaul Ranch North property, which is currently farmed/grazed but approved for residential development. Across Los Osos Valley Road are houses and a school. OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. i . d@r �id'L 6f�99 11 . Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): .Local Agency Formation Commission Airport Land Use Commission /I 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: � �!# 6b�l9 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. Land Use and Planning _Biological Resources Aesthetics Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources Resources Geological Problems Hazards Recreation . I I Water Noise Mandatory Findings of_Significance Air Quality Public Services Transportation and Utilities and Service Circulation Systems There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish and wildlife resources orthe 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. L1The 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. 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 X NEGATIVE DECLARATION-will be prepared. 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 the mitigation measures described on a attached sheets have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. find that the proposed project May have a significant effect on the environment, and a ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(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 a described on attached sheets, if the effect is a `Potentially Significant Impact" or is 'Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must i 1 2 III v �� xhibit "G" analyze only the effects that remain to.be addressed 11 1-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 all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided o mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. June 1, 2000 natuA Date Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager. Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir. Printed Name For 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. "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). 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 -plansi- 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. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 1 3 �� eW e &If 7011 Issues and Supporting Informat, aources Sources Potea ; p , I an a SigniI', S� Ii cant fApact Issues ER 87-00;Jet-Ski Development Annexation 71ncwormpor=atcdJ gation 11955 Los Osos Valley Road 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING -_Would the.proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 1,2,3 x 4 b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans.or policies 6, x adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? 10 c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? 1,2 x d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e:g. impac- 1,7 x to soils cr farmlands, or irripacts from incompatible lane 11 uses? 12 e) Disrupt or divide the physical _arrangement, of at x established community (including a low-income o Pre-Zoning The City's General Plan applies a designation of Medium Density Residential to this site. To allow for the orderly annexation of this property with the adjoining Froom Ranch parcel, the site is proposed to b prezoned Interim Open Space (C/OS). After annexation, the applicantwill request approval of development plans for the property which will include the need for another rezoning to allow for residential developmen at this location. Subsequent environmental review will be required to address any future rezoning subdivision or development proposals on the property once it is annexed to the City. CONCLUSION: Not significant. Consistency with general plan polices and zoning regulations can b achieved by prezoning the subject property Interim Open Space (C/OS). Agricultural Compatibility The project site has historically been used for cattle grazing and crop production. The project will ultimate) remove 13.6 acres of the DeVaul Ranch South out of this historic agricultural use. According to the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service maps, the two dominate•soil types of the site (Cropley clay 127, and Salinas silty clay loam, 197). The soil is suited to vegetable crops, dryland farming and pasture, however, crop production may be greatly reduced during the winter unless surface and subsurface drainage system are installed. For agricultural production, the soils within .the subject property have crop production capability classifications of Class I and Class II soils when irrigated and Class III when not irrigated. Class 1 and II soils are the equivalent to prime soil beneficial for use in agriculture practices. Normally, the conversion of prime agricultural land is considered a significant impact. These impacts were previously evaluated and mitigated as part of the City's LUE EIR, 1994. More specifically, adoption of the City's LUE EIR included a statement of overriding consideration for conversion of prime agricultural land t urban uses (Resolution 8332). CONCLUSION: Not significant due to previous evaluation and Council action. Airport'Compatibility The site is included within the boundaries of the County's Airport Land Use Plan and is more specificail located in Land Use Area 6. Open space uses and residential development are considered "compatible uses within this planning area. CONCLUSION: Not significant. Annexation will not impact airport operations. Approved and future use o 4 �✓ Issues and Supporting Informa` Sources Sources Potenr- % &)It Less Than No Signi_ Significant Impact Issues— ER 87-00;Jet-Ski Development Annexation Is 79 1.1955 Los OsoS Valley Road the site is considered compatible with airport operations. Future development may require the dedication o an avigation easement in accordance with the Airport Land Use Plan policies and procedures. Land Use Element Policies This site is envisioned by both the City and County land use plans to be annexed to the City. The property i located within the City's adopted Sphere of Service, Sphere of Influence, and Urban Reserve Line. Governing Policies: ♦ 1.13 Annexation and Services ♦ 1.13.1 Water & Sewer Service The City shall not provide nor permit delivery of City water or sewer 'services to t~8 follcwln areas. However, the City will Serve thcss parties having V3li-4 previous connections or contracts with the City. A. Outside the City limits; B. Outside the urban reserve line; C. Above elevations reliably served by gravity-flow in the City water system; D. Below elevations reliably served by gravity-flow or pumps in the City sewer system. CONCLUSION: Not Significant. Annexation into the City will ensure compliance With this policy. In addition, the property is located inside the City's urban reserve line. See also.the water supply discussio under Utilities and Service Systems. ♦ 1.13.2 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 reservdine which are to be developed with urban uses should be annexed before urban development occurs. Th City may annex.an area long before such development is to occur, and the City may annex areas whic 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 wil reflect topography, needed capital facilities and funding, open space objectives, and existing an proposed land uses and roads. Annexation of this site is consistent with this policy.Topography poses no issue since the site is essentiall flat. CONCLUSION: Not significant. Urban development and annexation of this site are envisioned in both City and County land use plans. ♦ 1.13.3 Required Plans Land in any.of the following.annexation areas may be developed only after the City has adopteda.plan for land uses, roads, utilities, the overall pattern of subdivision, and financing o public facilities for. the area. The plan shall provide for open space protection consistent with polic 1.13.5. D. For any other annexations, the required plan may be a specific plan, development plan under `PD zoning, or similar development plan covering the entire area. CONCLUSION: Not significant. The applicant's request is for annexation and prezoning of Interim Ope Space (C/OS). It is being annexed at this time to facilitate a logical extension of the city limits boundarV between the DeVaul Ranch North and the Froom Ranch properties. After annexation, the applicant. wil request approval of development plans for the property which will include the need for another rezoning-LC 6 Issues and Supporting Informatl,r�`ources sources Potent Potential iy Less Than No ER 87-00;Jet-Ski Development Annexation issues ti 699 ' 1 I955 Los Osos Valley Road e allow for residential development at this location. Subsequent environmental review will be required t address any future rezoning, subdivision or development proposals on the property once it is annexed to th city. ♦ 1.13.4 Development and Services Actual development in an annexed area may be approved only whe is se— increasing the cost of services for existing development and for build-out within the City limits as of Jul 1994, in accordance with the City's water management policies. The water management policies may allow part of the water retrofit credit that would be needed for build-out within the 1994. city limits to be used for annexation projects. Water for development in an annexed area may be made available b any one or any combination of the following: A. City water supply, including reclaimed water; B. Reducing usage of City water in existing development so that there will be no net increase in iong-term water usage; C. Private well water, but only as an interim source, pending availability of an approved addition t City water sources, and when it is demonstrated that use of the well water will not diminish the City's municipal groundwater supply. No development is proposed as part of this annexation and prezoning to C/OS. Asa condition of an development proposal; the applicant will have to develop a water allocation before connecting to Ci services. Currently, this-requires that the applicant retrofit existing plumbing fixtures throughout the City t save twice the amount of water that site development is anticipated to use. CONCLUSION: Not significant. Connection to City water with future site development under the jurisdiction of the City will be subject to the City's water allocation regulations. ♦ 1.13.5 Open Space ♦ Each annexation shall help secure permanent protection for areas designated Open Space, and for th habitat types and wildlife corridors within the annexation area that are identified in policy 6.1.1 Policie concerning prime agricultural land shall apply when appropriate. The following standards shall apply t the indicated areas: A. Irish Hills Area properties shall dedicate land or easements covering an area in the hills at least equa to the area to be developed. CONCLUSION: Not significant. The applicant intends to annex 13.6 acres of developable property an dedicate an additional 13..6 acres of the Irish Hills to the City of San Luis Obispo as part of the 187 acre DeVaul Ranch North open space dedication. s 1.14 Costs of Growth The costs of public facilities and services needed for new development shall be borne by the nevy development, unless the community chooses to help pay the costs for a certain development to obtai community-wide benefits. The City will adopt a development-fee program and other appropriate financing measures, so that new-development pays its share of the costs of new services and facilities needed to serve it. CONCLUSION: Not significant. Project specific infrastructure needs will be addressed through conditions o future site development. 6 Issues and Supporting Informat," Lources sources Patent- Potentially [ess7han Signi, r i r)VIP ER 87-00;Jet-Ski Development Annexation Issue ry adt 11955 Los Osos Valley Road Ing 6 ♦ 1.15 Solid Waste Capacity In addition to other requirements for adequate resources and services prior to development, the CitV must determine that adequate solid waste disposal capacity will be available before granting an discretionary land use approval which would increase solid waste generation. CONCLUSION: Not significant. No development is proposed as part of this annexation. After annexation, the applicant will request approval of development plans for the property which will include the need for another rezoning to allow for residential development at this location. Subsequent environmental review will be required to address any future rezoning, subdivision or development proposals on the propertwnce it is annexed to the City. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING.Would the proposal:: a) Cumulatively exceed.official regional or local populatior 1 x -- ar.'inre7 b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly o x indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped are:. or major infrastructure? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable X housing? The Land Use Element (LUE) growth management provisions (section 1.0 of the LUE) call for limitations o the number of residences that may be built every year, to maintain an average growth rate of one percen per year during the 1990s. CONCLUSION: Not significant. Annexation by itself will not impact population. The residential development anticipated at this location will provide for needed housing in the City and help mitigate the Curren jobs housing imbalance. 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? 11 x b) Seismic ground shaking? 1, 11 x c) Seismic ground-failure, including liquefaction? 1, 11 x d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X e) Landslides or mudflows? 1, 11 x f) Erosion, changes in topography or,unstable soil 1, 11 x conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the.land? 11 x h) Expansive soils? 11 X i) .Unique geologic or physical features? 11 x An EIR prepared for the DeVaul Ranch development notes that the project is located within, or in clos proximity to the Los Osos fault zone. The potential for fault rupture and general geologic hazards wer investigated. Risk of fault rupture, slope instability, earthquake shaking, liquefaction, and subsidence wer found to be insignificant. Construction in accordance with local building codes will mitigate any impacts t a level of insignificance. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. No development is proposed as part of this annexation. Any plans for development will require additional environmental review. Pursuant to State law and the .Draft Safety Element, development will be required to be located away from any active faults. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant will be required to submit site specific testing and construction techniques the ensure compliance with applicable building codes. 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the 1 x 7 J� Issues ' Supporting InfOrmaU' ources Potent' PotentWly Less Than No and Su Sources Po SignifiL,_ ER 87-00;Jet-Ski Development Annexation Issues u � 6i 9! 11955 Los Osos Valley Road Incorporated rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards x such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of x surface water cuality (e.o. tamoerature. dissolved oxygen or turbidity? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water x body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water x movements? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either througt x direct additions or withdrawals, or-through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through biiuo�mnlal Ivaa Gi yiGuPwrvaici iBAildPyo �aNaui,ity: g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? x h) Impacts to groundwater quality? x i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater x otherwise available for public water supplies? Annexation itself will not cause any impacts to water or drainage. Any future development will increase runoff from the site as a result of site improvements. The applicant will be required to mitigate these impacts through the use of a drainage detention basin. CONCLUSION: Not significant. Annexation itself has no impacts. Any future development improvements to the site will include the development of a'drainage detention basin in order to ensure no increase i discharge of surface water from the site from present conditions. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any.air quality standard or contribute to an 7, 11 x existing orprojected air quality.violation (Compliance With APCD EnvironmentaF.Guidelines)? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants x c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause x any change in climate? . d) Create objectionable odors? x Annexation itself will not cause any air quality impacts. The potential impacts of future development will b addressed once plans for residential development come forward. Short-term Impacts During project construction of future development, there will be increased levels of fugitive dust associate with construction and grading activities, as well as construction emissions associated with heavy-duty construction equipment. Compliance with the dust management practices contained in Municipal Cod Section 15.04.040 X. (Sec. 3307.2) will adequately mitigate short-term impacts. No further mitigation is necessary. Long-Term Impacts San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State ozone and PM70 (fine particulate matter 1 microns or less in diameter) air quality standards. State law requires that emissions of non-attainment 8 Issues and Supporting Informs sources sow Wcant al No ignifi t Itnpact Imp }sss�es ER 87-00;Jet-Ski Development Annexation _ _ I I955'Los Osos Valley Road Incorporated pollutants and their precursors be reduced by at least 5% per year until the standards are attained. Th 1995 Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County was developed and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) to meet that requirement. The CAP is a comprehensive planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor vehicle use. Land Use Element Policy 1.18.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan. Motor vehicles account for about 40% of the precursor emissions responsible for ozone formation, and are also a significant source of PM,,. Thus, a major requirement in the CAP is the implementation of transportation control measures designed to reduce motor vehicle tripsand miles traveled by local residents. The APCD recommends that site development include mitigation measures to encourage transportation alternatives to the single occupant vehicle and make the project attractive to bicyclists and pedestrians. CONCLUSION: Not significant. Annexation itself will not cause any air quality impacts.The potential impacts of fume t.Pvelmrment will ha %,Ierpscze�. mice, ::lAi7C for r�cidentinl devel�nnrrt ^nno, fn;✓a-� �'�nr'a;� rr.iti�a7inn is recommended to reduce impacts resulting from construction activity and future site development. 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.- .Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips.or traffic':congestion? 10, x 11, 12 b) Hazards to safety.from design features (e.g. sharp x curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (6.g-. farm equipment))? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby x uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? x e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? x f) Conflicts with adopted policiessupporting alternative x transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts (e.g..compatibilit} x with San Luis Obispo Co. The annexation of vacant land and prezoning to C/OS will not create any traffic impacts. The potentia impacts of future development will be reviewed and addressed in more detail once specific plans fo residential development come forward. The granting of an avigation easement will be required as a condition of any development approvals for the site. On-site parking is subject to zoning regulation standards and will be addressed as part of the architectural review. CONCLUSION: Not significant. Future site development shall be subject to further analysisas part of the development review process to ensure compliance with City standards and the payment of City traffic impact fees which were established (Resolution No.' 8406) to mitigate the impacts of new development o the City's streets, transit, and bikeway facilities. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal affect: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats 7, 11 x (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, 10 animals or birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? 7,11 x c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest 1,7, x coastal habitat, etc.)? 11 d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? 1,7, x 11 9 <� 7- Issues and Supporting Informati_ purees sources Po ` y 40 Si nific , �1F i 1 9 ► p= ER 87-00;Jet-Ski Development Annexation P� ' 11955 Los Osos Valley Road Incorporated e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 1,7, x 11 Annexation itself will not have an impact on biological resources. The EIR prepared for the DeVaul Ranc North property identified the existence of the Congdon's tarplant on site. The potential impacts of future development (includinc the oresence of the Concdon's tarolant', will b4 addressed once clans for residentia development come forward. CONCLUSION: Not significant. Annexation and prezoning to C/OS will not result in any biological impacts. 8. ENERGY AND MINERALRESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 1 x b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 1 x inefficient manner.? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral x resource that wouio be of iuiure vaiue io the region and the residents of the State? The Energy Element states that, "New development will be encouraged to minimize the use of conventiona energy for space heating and cooling, water heating, and illumination by means of proper design an orientation, including the provision and protection of solar exposure." The City implements energ conservation goals through enforcement of the California Energy Code which establishes energ conservation standards for residential and nonresidential construction. Any future development will b required to meet these standards. The City also implements energy conservation goals through architecture review. Project designers are asked to show how a project makes maximum use of passive means o reducing conventional energy demand, as opposed to designing a particular image and relying on mechanic systems to maintain comfort. CONCLUSION: Not significant. Annexation itself will not have an impact on energy or mineral resources. Future site development shall be subject to further analysisas part of the development review process to ensure compliance with City standards. 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous 3,4, x substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, 14 chemicals or radiation)? b) •Possible.interference with an emergency response plan x or-emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health x hazard? 14 d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential x health hazards? 14 e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, x grass or trees? Annexation is not anticipated to result in the creation or exposure of people to any known health hazards. CONCLUSION: Less than significant 10.NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? 1 x b) Exposure of people to `unacceptable" noise levels as 1 x defined by the. San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise 10 Element? Annexation by itself has no noise impacts. There are noise sensitive uses in the area, which include the residential neighborhoods on the northeast side of Los Osos Valley Road as well as the newly approved an pending residential developments on the DeVaul Ranch North property. Impacts to these neighborhoods will 10 Issues and Supporting Informa+ ;ources sources saga o I i miaa3i: "M 1 act ER 87-00;Jet-Ski Development Annexation �RV7' a� paulon 11955 Los Osos Valley Road o be predominantly from increased traffic traveling on Los Osos Valley Road as well as stationary noise with commercial activities to the south of the property. Mitigation that was required as part of the Madonna/Eagle Hardware development included a noisewall to be constructed along some properties along Garcia Drive. This mitigation is occurring as part of the Coun review of the building permit for the Home Depot store. The residential development of the DeVaul Ranch' has similar mitigation that applied to it that will involve the installation of a noise wall along Los Osos Valle Road to mitigate traffic noise impacts. Future development will require further noise analysis and mitigation in order to comply with the City's Noise Standards contained in the General Plan. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. . P11R C g0V.1'r_:FS. 'aL'r.0d h: nr.nncal haves an zffa:. •7lan. -17 7PA:il% i a nsn;*d ':07 npw r government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? x b) Police protection? x c) Schools? x d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? x e) Other governmental services? x CONCLUSION: Less than significant. Annexation will not have any impact on public services. Future site development shall be subject to further analysis as part of the development review process to ensure compliance with City standards. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utiftes: a) Power or natural gas?. x b) Communications systems? x .c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution x facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? x e) Storm water drainage? x f) Solid waste disposal? 6 x g) Local or regional water supplies? 1 x In order to implement the goals and objectives of the San Luis Obispo General Plan, and to provide adequate water supply and treatment facilities, and wastewater collection and treatment facilities, to serve new development in the City of San Luis Obispo and to mitigate the impacts of that new development, certain public facilities and improvements must be constructed. The City Council has determined that connection fees are needed in order to finance these facilities and improvements and to pay for new development's fair share of the construction costs of these facilities and improvements. Site development will be subject to payment of water and wastewater impact fees and construction of infrastructure necessary to deliver services to the project site. Water Supply — The Utilities Department has reviewed this annexation application and determined that it is consistent with the Water Management Element and that there is sufficient water available to serve site development. The City of San Luis Obispo obtains its water from a combination of surface and groundwater sources. Adopted safe annual yield from these sources is 7,735 acre-feet per year.. The City is pursuing the development of additional water supplies, including the Nacimiento Pipeline Project, the Salinas Reservoi Expansion Project, and the Water Reuse Project. Reuse of treated wastewater for non-potable needs, suc it Issues and Supporting.lnformat,:� )urces Sources PY07 ratervialya s ,an OP=Si ifica__ i 9 I p ER 87-00;Jet-Ski Development Annexation F� x&99 Irrrp 11955 Los Osos Valley Road incorporated as landscape watering, will reduce demand on potable water supplies. This is likely to be the first additiona source developed and is projected to yield roughly 1200 acre-feet per year. Half that amount would be hel in reserve. The other half would be used in place of potable water, thereby increasing the amount of potabl water available for allocation by roughly 600 acre feet per year. Planning for future water use in the City is based on an average consumption of 145 gallons per day pe person or 0.162 acre-feet per person per year, which is somewhat higher than actual consumption during and since the most recent drought. Based on this water use rate and current city population, presen demand is about 6,962 acre-feet per year. This number is recalculated annually using updated populatio estimates from the California Department of Finance. The difference between safe annual yield and presen demand is 773 acre-feet per year, which is available to serve new development. Half this amount (386 acre- feet) is available for development in annexation areas. :i'iiI rc'r7?:7 ;tie pmim Cav i5 c.SberT..i811L co -plet2;. all v2V21v}70P$ :�:� SUbIQCi tC II'•2 C12V'S VUa12F Allocation regulations and must retrofit existing facilities with low-flow plumbing fixtures in order to offset twice the expected demand of their development prior to issuance of a building permit. The Utilities Department staff estimates that remaining opportunities for retrofitting could reduce current water use b 500 acre-feet per-year. Upon annexation, the applicant may request City services, which will trigger the establishment of a wate allocation. The applicant could continue to use well water for landscape irrigation to reduce demand for C' water. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. Compliance with Water Allocation regulations will ensure water supply availability. Water Distribution — The applicant will have to extend the water main in 'Los Osos Valley.Road in order to hook up to City water. This will be a condition of any future site development. Sewer— The applicant will have to extend the sewer main in Los Osos Valley Road in order to connect City sewer service as a condition of any site development. Storm Water- Discussed under Section 4, Water above. Solid Waste- Solid waste from this site is delivered to Cold Canyon landfill, which has a capacity to accept solid waste for approximately 18.5 years, based on the current rate of disposal and ongoing trends showing a reduction in per capita waste generation. Measures to reduce solid waste are still needed to improv compliance with the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939) shows that Californian dispose of roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per person per year. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills, posing a threat to groundwater, air quality, and public health. Cold Canyon landfill.is projected to reach it capacity in the year 2018. The act requires each city and county in California to reduce the flow o . materials to landfills by 501/o (from 1989 levels) by 2000. As of 1998 (the date for which latest figures are available), San Luis Obispo had reduced its waste stream by 34%. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. Annexation of vacant land will not have a significant impact on the solid waste generated at the site. Future development will be required to comply with the City's waste reduction standards contained in the General Plan. 13.-AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: 12 � - 1 s Issues and Supporting Informa, ources Sources ss No Si t i6cant Impact . hs ER 87-00;Jet-Ski Development Annexation miti 'on 11955 Los Osos Valley Road Incomorated a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? x b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? x c) Create light or glare? x This section of Los Osos Valley Road is identified in the City's Circulation Element as a "road with moderate scenic value'. Annexation by itself will have no aesthetic impacts. Further development of the site to b annexed will be subject to architectural review and approval to ensure against negative aesthetic impacts compliance with the City's Scenic Roadways section of the Circulation Element, and compliance with C' lighting standards. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. Any future development will be subject to the architectural review process to ensure against negative aesthetic impacts and compliance with City development standard including the Scenic Highways section of the Circulation Element. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a� LIIOIW V �JGIGVIILVIVlJ14G1 ,cavui .co: ;� b) .Disturb archaeological resources? 13 x 15 c) Affect historical resources? x d) Have the potential-to cause-a-physical change which x would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the x potential impact area? . F 1 In the 1990's cultural and historic surveys were performed on the .Froom and DeVaul Ranch properties These surveys failed to find any pre-historic resources. Several historic buildings were identified.on the adjoining properties that are associated with early and on-going agricultural operations on the Froom an DeVaul Ranches. Any future development of this site will occur well away from these historic resources an is determined to be not significant. CONCLUSION: Not significant. 15.RECREATION. Would the.proposalc a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks x or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? x Annexation and prezoning will have no impact on recreational facilities or opportunities. CONCLUSION: Not significant. 16. MANDATORY:FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to.degrade the x quality of the 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 eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Based on information in the application, existing environmental studies in the vicinity of the project area, field inspection, and a review of relevant references in the Department, staff has determined that there is n evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish and wildlif resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends that were not previously addressed and mitigated. `✓// 13 �y issues and Supporting Informati ources Sou cm omnNo igni Si cant Impact ER 87-00;Jet-Ski Development Annexation 1 mitigation 11955 Los Osos Valley Road Incorporated CONCLUSION: Not significant. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- x term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Short-term and Iona-term ooals are the same. CONCLUSION: Not significant. c) Does the project have impacts that are individually x limited, but 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 r.....-- ---°--- iu�u,c Nvjc.w, The annexation itself will not result in any potentially significant impacts to the environment. Future site development shall be subject to further analysis as part of the development review process.to ensure compliance with City standards. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. x d) Does the project have environmental effects which-will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Annexation will not result in substantial adverse impacts on humans. CONCLUSION: Not significant. 14 �I T CEx"=IbJt "G" 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one c more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (: (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. Final EIR for the 1994 Land Use and Circulation Element Updates. Citv of San Luis Obisoo. Available at the Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo. Final Supplemental EIR for the Madonna/Eagle Hardware & Garden, Certified by the County Board of Supervisors on November 8, 1999. Available at the Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo. • .Final EIR for the DeVaul Ranch North development certified by the San Luis Obispo City Council on December 15, 1998. b) Impacts<adequately addressed. Identify.which effects from the above .checklist were within the scop of and adequately analyzed in an earlier documentpursuant to applicable legal standards, and stat VLatta- Such GS -=s YYG-G VQJGV VItIL.IG- -i:... 1....:.. WV GUIIIGI 41 IU1�JIJ. NA c) Mitigationmeasures. for effects that are..:"Less;:than Significant with.Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refiined from:the earlier document and the extent t which they address site-specific conditior►s_,of-the.;project. NA 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan: Land Use, Circulation, Noise, Energy, Open Space, Seismic Safety, Water and Wastewater Management Elements 2. City of-San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations 3. County of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo Area Plan, January 1997 4. City of San Luis Obispo Source Reduction and Recycling Element 5. 1995 Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County 6. SLO County Airport Land Use Plan 7. City of San Luis Obispo Informational Map Atlas B. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist- Pnolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990 9. 10. Final EIR for the DeVaul Ranch North development certified.by the San Luis Obispo City Council on December 15, 1998. 11. Final Supplemental EIR for the Madonna/Eagle Hardware & Garden, Certified by the County Board of Supervisors on December 15, 1998 12. Resolution No. 8332 approving the City's 1994 LUE Update and EIR supplement E5.14 ATTACHMENTS: Vicinity Map Annexation.Map I co ` royo ready for R Pol YAW** restores ill'playoffs tonight baseball spirit to youth SPORTS, CZ a1-c� T� TURF MEETS THE TURF SAN LUIS COASTAL BUDGET BATTLE Layoffs - pretty much a given DISTRICT'S POLICY OF SMALL, --" - NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOLS CONTRIBUTES TO FUNDING WOES, OFFICIALS SAY SAN LUIS OBISPO Recommended gags BY JEFF BALLINGER The list of$3.6 million in 10 011MM THE TRIBUNE cuts recommended by the About 30 positions face elimina- superintendent include the r: tion tonight as the San Luis Coastal following cuts,among others school board looks to slice more$3 (and projected cost savings): TRIBUNE PHOTO BY.10E JOHNSTON leaving Ocean Dunes state vehicle park on Monday. cause from finingnext year'srevenues. et be •a restructuring of the mid- cause of declining revenues. dle schools and high With roughly i percent of the schools that could result in O C E A N O boosted Lopez Lake to 71 percent budget tied up in employees' capacity and swelled Arroyo salaries and benefits—and most of the layoffs of 18 or more Grande Creek as it entered the the remainder tied to specific pro- teachers($1 million); BY CAROL iSUNERoBS ocean at the Oceano Dunes park s—there are f areas from •cutting in half the Reading THE TRIBUNE !fin g • 9 Many crossed the creek with which to cut Recovery program ore than 380 fami- help from Angello's Towing Ser- "I think that's pretty much a gig lies crossed a vice. Some, like Suzy and Paul ($492,000); rushing Arroyo Giddens of Lodi, drove a mo- layofen, fs, that there are goingoffs,the extent of which be some I don't .establishing fees to ride l Grande Creek af- torhome that towed an ATV think anyone knows,"trustee Glenn the bus to and from school ter heavy rains trailer,a rig that stretched some Oelker said. ($204,000); lay morning to get out of 50 feet.They paid the firm $65. ATn'bune survey of districts else • eliminating General Fund Iceano Dunes State Vehicu- to escort thein into their favorite g creation Area their holi camping spot Friday and out where in the county,as well as oth contributions to stipends reekend having come to an again Monday morning. ersin the state that are similarly sized t ($200,000); The popular oceanfront camp- sizedhow staffing is used in San Luis • reducing custodial staff San Luis Coastal, shows storm dumped more than ing area had more than 640 units ch of rain in Cambria and there Sunday, said Alan Mar Obispo to maintain the existence of ($181,000), :adero on Monda ,accord- shall,a supervising something long valued by local par - y, pe ing state ranger. •eliminating General Fund o unofficial tallies, while (A unit equals one street-legal ents — small, neighborhood contributions to sixth-grade retpleton stu received an inch of vehicle).Despite the rains help schools. field trips($180,000), et stuff. ing to swell the creek,only a cou- Teachers, administrators and ich of the South County re- Please see CUTSj CUTSBoit Page i d less than half an inch that Please see RAIN,Back Page Please see SCHOOLS,Back Page I i I i BACK PAGE TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 200I tors, more than the larger Lucia Comparing Schools Mar and also more than Atas- cadero and Paso Robles com- iere's a look at how San Luis Coastal Unified School District compares to other large districts in the county and to two similar bind•The district's ratio of one :alifornia districts.Davis and Los Alamitos districts were chosen for comparison because they have similar student demographics and administrator per 190 students is_. ire similar in size to San Luis Coastal.The chart shows some spending patterns and compares items such as dropout rates,standings higher than all the districts sur- ra the Academic Performance Index,the state's 2-year-old ranking system based on test scores;and numbers of advanced placement veyed,and is well above the state :ourses for college,details commonly used to show how successful schools are. average of 1 to 283.5. SLCoastal L uda Mar Macadam Paso Rabies• Davis LOS Alamitos Calif Livingston said this is mostly be- • iveragei cause of the dozen elementary schools San Luis Coastal operates, ?000.01 general fund budget (millions) $50.9 $66 $36.7 $43.7 $418 $48.4 n/a many maw of which are small:four have STUDENTS fewer than 300 students and only-,. Enrollment 81508 11,000 5,852 6,434 7,943 8,736 59 million one has more than 500.The state " percent students qualify for free meals 1776% 40% 20% 29.4% 13.8% 6% 47.3 average is around 600 students. .7ercent English learners 5% 11% 3% 18% 9 3% 23% 24.9% Livingston points to four.. Vo.of elementary schools 12 10 7 5 8 6 n/a decades of efforts to maintain Avg.enrollment K-6 elementary schools 387 524 471 561(K-5) n/a n/a 589 neighborhoodelementary.: Avg.class size middle school 31 n/a 255 237/20.710 n/a n/a n/a schools. J. Avg.class size high school 31 n/a 27.5 24.5 n/a n/a 26.7 "Ifs been a value thats been in-,.: Avg.class size combined 31 28 n/a n/a n/a 28.5 n/a this community for 30 to 40 years,";: Schools attabove API of 8 44% 31% 14% none 30% 22% n/a he Said. on similar schools rank9 Decker and other teachers want--'Avg.SAT score 1118 1,052 1,077 1,038 11150 1,091 1,015 Percent of grads taking SAT 52% 35% 44% 394% 53.9% 62% 49% the district to combine some of the Percent of grads eligible for UC/CSU entrance 52% 325% 53% 22.7% 549% 59.6% 35.6% smallef elementary schools, and Annual dropout rate 1.6% 1% .9% (1% 1.5% 1% 2.8% Livingston expects the school, board will ponder consolidation in TEACHERS the future. Total no.of teachers 425.3 565 315 926 399 383 n/a "We recognized a long time ago • Avg.no.minutes taught daily elem/sec. 245 middle school270/275 270/255 282/280 n/a 270/291 n/a that the cost of maintaining small Morro Bay/San Luis Obispo HS 233/256 c elementary schools was more Percent of general fund spent on teachers 52% 51% 49.3% 41.2% 50% 45.4% 43.85 J6 than we could afford,"Livingston Teaching salaries Beginning2 $30,0423 $34,000 $33,353 $34,904 n/a $41,482 $29,747 said." ofs why we expanded ca- Top pay/years to obtain $55,574/28 $65,424/28 $54,904/75 $64,226/24 n/a $78,501/21 $58,106 pacifies at each school instead of building new schools"during the ADMINISTRATORS Measure A construction project . No,of administrators 43 41 19 22.2 272 233 n/a Another factor that makes the Percent of general fund spent on administration 7.9% 3.86% 4.05% 5A% est 5% 4%('90-99) 5.49% district different than other local Ratio of administrators to students 1/195 1/266 1/345 1/290 1/292 1/372 1/283.5 oma:it has two high schools,one' in San Luis Obispo and the other;, PROGRAMS in Charge to ride bus No° No No No n/a yess n/a Morro Bay.The large campuses, Have PE specialists in grades 1-3 Yes Yes Nob No n/a No n/a are far more expensive to operate: No.of district nurses 3 6 None 3 n/a n/a n/a' than elementary and middle No.of Advanced Placement Courses 9 13 8 6 n/a 16 n/a schools because of the facilitiesr, No.of vocational ed courses/teachers 37/21 18/10 20/10 37/6.48 n/a n/a n/a needed for athletics, performing arts and vocational programs. Figures are provided by the districts,except for the state averages obtained from the California Department of Education.State teacher salaries and Some of the most passionate, general fund percentages are for unified districts with 5,000 to 9,999 students.Alt district figures are for the current school year,.except those from speakers at the public meetings-- Davis,which are for 1998.99 and were obtained at the Ed-Data Partnership Web site(www.ed-data.kl2.ce.us/dev/District.asp). have talked about the importances of qualified 1-California figures are from the state Department of Education for 1999-2000(except for spending per student which is from 1997-98%collected from dents in gradeess teachers for Stu one to three. Ladd : the most recent numbers available on the state Web site(http://datalxdexa.gov/dataquest/L recommended eliminating those.- 2-For a teacher on the first step of the pay scale who has a bachelor's degree and additional course work. jobs, projected to save the 3-San Luis Coastal salary figures are for the 1999-2000 school year because negotiations are still ongoing for this year.All other districts'salary fig- jo ,a move P roJ uses are for the 2000-01 school year. district about$135,000.' ' 4-San Luis Coastal is considering bus fees estimated at$i per ride per student,with family discounts yet to be determined. However,Ladd changed his list 5-Los Alamitos charges annual bus fees of$267 per student Second and third children per'family,respectively,are charged$172 and$95. to add the PE teachers back into., 6-Atascadero has physical education specialists in grades three to six. the budget in response to public., 7-The state average in 1995 was one nurse per 1,800 students. comment and the trustees'direr.- . 8-Includes sections of the same course. tions. Now he proposes to elimi,: 9-State education officials rank schools from 1 to 10 based on how their test scores compare to other similar schools around California. 10-Paso Robles has two middle schools. nate just the PE instructional aides.' __.. .._ _ for grades one through six.That , TRIBUNE GRAPHIC would save roughly$42,0(]0. • entary schools,and because it is Trustees to (meet earn San Luis Coastal is current mittee's list because he believes e only local district with two high ly involved in contract negotiations he has trimmed enough and does Cuts hools.Its 12 elementary schools The San Luis Coastal Uni- with teachers and staff not need to go deeper. e two more than Lucia Mar has fied School District govern- "We've got a lot of programs Jeff Decker,a Los Osos Middle From Page Al id equal the combined total in ing board is expected to de- were supporting,and they re labor School teacher and the teachers' ascadero and Paso Robles.The tide on recommended cuts intensive,"he said.-Ws why the union's chief negotiator,said up to reducing or eliminating )s,Alamitos-district in Orange of$3.6 million at its regular budget cuts are in personnel." 26 teachers could lose their jpbs in t�acher clerical aides ($139,000);.= 3uuty tics 200 more students than meeting at 7 p.m.today at seems to irk teachers and 'a"ice of$1.million-called fof lit the reducing counseling services m invg Coastal,but half as�y the district meetingroom, _ district critics most is that the ad- h46 schools and middle sdiools grades 7 ( �) "Were not krsmg a proportionate moving two teachers working in e��7 ooh 1499 San Luis Drive in Sart~ minish4live positions on Ladd's " the Instructional Services Divi- Paso Robles$upm'ititendent Pat Luis Obispo.' '`:' ctitLst limited to a total of four nolo toes of administ i ato s he Sid. ryne,who has worked in education Ladd,however,contests that as- sion back into the classroom. r nearly 40 years,pointed out that positions.They are spread among sertion. He has said cuts to ad- ($120,000); _ the Buildings,Grounds and Trans eliminating three staff posi- m IurisCoastalcould"fire every ad- ministtahon represent 10 percent �g inisbator;and it still wouldn't pre- San Luis Coastal,described the dig_ portation Department, Reading of the total reductions, slightly tions at the district's Instruction- xvethose programs."Not enough Uict as"income-pow and personnel- Recovery and the district's In- more than its 7.9 percent share of al Media Center($111,000); loney would be saved, he ex- heavy."He said compounding the structional Media Center. the budget. Statewide, districts reducing by$70,000 the contri- wined,to head off other reductions. problem is that the district doesn't Ladd left off his list nearly$1 spend an average of 5.49 percent bution from the General Fund to Rory Livingston,assistant super- pay its employees as much as what million in administrative cuts rec- in administration. athletics;and reducing nursing ,tendent of business services for those in neighboring districts ommended on the budget com- The district has 43 administra staff from three to two ($39,120). Monterey lots that a San Luis Obispo Raiday because of a problem with Service in Ventura.The meteorols.- County builder bought from n rainwater, according to a Pacific ogist predicted 13-to 17-foot-high From Page Al an absentee owner a few From Page Al Bell spokeswoman. Officials swells for today, "which can pro,.>! months ago. More lots could hoped to have service restored duce 9-to 13-foot breakers." 4,000 acres near the Work be in the offing if the absentee ple of pickups sank during the Monday night More rain is expected Thursday property, said he'd rather owners- relatives of Roth crossing and had to be pulled out Though the rain is expected to afternoon before showers diming,, things stay the way they are. now living on the East Coast "Generally,"Marshall said,'"every taper off this afternoon and ish Friday, he explained.Yet an- "We want to keep it in agri- -pursue plans to sell more one who took their time made it" Wednesday,there will be a heavy other storm system could ap-' culture and we do believe that than 10010,acre lots they own Even when crossing isn't a prob- surf advisory in effect, said Curt proach on Saturday, the weather. is what it should be-agricul- in Monterey County. lem for campers,the state Coastal Kaplan with the National Weather service forecasts. ; ture and wildlife,"he said.To- Roth said his relatives had Commission said steelhead trout day, the Monterey County sold the five 10,acre parcels for migrating up the creek to spawn Board of Supervisors will hear a total of$250,000 and each lot face difficulties. If you have or had a Sulzer brand hip a staff report about the urban- is now on the market for The commission decided last implant it may be subject to recall due to ization of rural Monterey $110,000,a total of$550,000. week while meeting in San Luis manufacturing defects. This may entitle County-a problem that rur- Jim McCormick, the San Obispo to not only to study the you to substantial compensation from al preservationists say is being Luis Obispo County real estate problem of vehicles driving over the company. FREE advice from an • exacerbated by the presence agent who is handling the sale steelhead and other wildlife, but Mr of small, developable lots of of the five lots,said the asking also how to protect the rights of H IP experienced local attorney record in the midst of land price is slightly over market families who enjoy of€road vehi- Glenn Dorfman zoned for agriculture. rate. But he said the lots are cies. ' "Everyone thinks Monterey stili.attractive to would-be buy- Elsewhere in the South County, Toll Flree (877) 559-49.18 County ends at King City," ers since existing homes in the more than 1,000 phone lines in .. - . , _ -^^ _. .- -1.1- r--. I Ph- X165-1na6 A6 THE TRIBUNE BACK PAGE T u E S DAA', F tors, SchoolsComparing schools Mae From Page Al Here's a look at how San Luis Coastal Unified School District compares to other large districts in the county and to two similar bines trustees aclmowledgethere are just California districts.Davis and Los Alamitos districts were chosen for comparison because they have similar student demographics and athth too many elementary schools in the are similar in size to San Luis Coastal.The chart shows some spending patterns and comppres items such as dropout rates;standings high district-up to twice as many as on the Academic Performance Index,the state's 2-year-old ranking system based on test scores;and numbers of advanced placement veyel some similarly sized districts.The courses for college,details commonly used to show how successful schools are. avers realization foreshadows what will SLCoastal Lucia Mar Atascadero Paso Robles• Davis Los Alamitos Calif. become a major issue later this average' Isyear-Trustees will grapple with the 2000-01 general fund budget (millions) $50.9 $66 $36.7 $43.7 $42.8 $48.4 n/a issue of school consolidations after 11=1 the budget crisis is resolved. STUDENTS fiffwe "There wasn't enough time to Enrollment 8,508 11,000 51852 6,434 7,943 8,736 5.9 million one I talk,to the school communities be- Percent students qualify for free meals 17.76% 40% 20% 29A% 13.8% 6% 47.3 aver fore you do something lute that," Percent English learners 50A 11% 3% 18% 9.3% 2.3% 24.9% Li' said Diane Dixon,board president No.of elementary schools 12 10 7 5 8 6 n/a deca "You've got to get their input" Avg.enrollment K-6 elementary schools 387 524 471 561(K-5) n/a n/a 589 neig Some residents have asked Avg.class size middle school 31 n/a 255 237/20.710 n/a n/a n/a scho whether the district spends too Avg•class size high school 31 n/a 275 245 VIA n/a 26.7 "It much on administration.Since hav Avg.class size combined 31 28 n/a no n/a 22% n/a this more schools requires more Schools at/abovesimilar s API is 8 9 44% 31% 14% none 30% 22% n/a he sr ing 4 on similar schools rank principals,the district spends up to Avg.SAT score 1318 1,052 1,077 1438 1,150 1,091 1,015 Df twice as much as other districts on Percent of grads taking SAT 52% 35% 44% 39.5% 53.9% 62% 49% the d administration,when compared as a Percent of grads eligible for UC/CSU entrance 52% 325% 53% 22.7% 54.3% 59.6% 35.6% sinal percentage of the general fund the Annual dropout rate 1.6% 1% .9% h% 1.5% 1% 2.8% Livii Tribune survey shows. San Luis TEACHERS boar Coastal also has more admirish'amrs the f Total no.of teachers 425.3 565 315 326 399 383 n/a district which has 2,50 than the South s 2,500 more slit Lucia Mar Avg.no.minutes taught daily elem/sec. 245 middleschoo1270/275 270/255 282/280 n/a 270/291 n/a m Morro Bay/San Luis Obispo HS 233/256 t dents Percent of general fund spent on teachers 52% 51% 49.3% 02% 50% 45.4% 43.85% am th eil The analysis also showed other Teaching salaries an key factors undetsconitlgissues dig Beginnine $30,0423 $34,000 $33,353 $34,904 n/a $41,482 S29,747 said. community members raised at four Top pay/years to obtain $55,574 26 $65,424/28 $54,904/25 $64,22624 n/a S78,501/27 $58,106 pacit public meetings the district held in built ADMINISTRATORS recent weeks: Mea • Only Lucia Mar and San Luis No.of administrators 43 41 19 22.2 272 23.5 n/a Ar Coastal have physical education Percent of general fund spent on administration 7.9% 3.86% 4.05% 5.4% est.5% 4%('9,8.99) 5.49% distr teachers in grades 1-3. San Luis Ratio of administrators to students 1/195 1266 11345 1290 1292 1/372 1/283.5 ones Coastal Superintendent Steven in Sa PROGRAMS Ladd had originally recommendedi the amended list of$3.6 in M eliminating these.teachers,but left Charge to ride bus No° No No No n/a o n/a are f it off mil- Have dspecialists s grades 13 yes yes No 3 nN n/a / n/a No.of district nurses 3 6 None 3 n/a n/a n/aT than lion in cuts trustees will consider. No.of Advanced Placement Courses 9 13 - 8 6 n/a 16 n/a schc The dnstricfsteachers are among No.of vocational ed courses/teachers 3721 18/10 20/10 37/6.48 n/a n/a n/a neec the lowest paid in the county.Pay- arts; ing them more would mean trim- Figures are provided by the districts,except for the state averages obtained from the California Department of Education.State teacher salaries and Sc ming the budget in other ways. general fund percentages are for unified districts with 5,000 to 9,999 students.Alt district figures are for the current school year,except those from spea As district officials weigh how to Davis,which are for 1998-99 and were obtained at the Ed-Data Partnership Web site(www.ed-data.kl2.ca.us/dev/District-asp). have cut more than$3 million from next 1-California figures are from the state Department of Education for 1999-2000(except for spending per student,which is from 1997-98),collected from of qi year's$51 m$lion budget,they face the most recent numbers available on the state Web site(http://datal.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/). dent a deadline: A decision must be 2-For a teacher on the first step of the pay scale who has a bachelor's degree and additional course work. reco made this month to meet state re- 3-San Luis Coastal salary figures are for the 1999-2000 school year because negotiations are stili ongoing for this year.All other districts'salary fig- jobs, quirements,and the district needs ures are for the 2000-01 school year. drstr to plan for the coming year. 4-San Luis Coastal is considering bus fees estimated at$1 per ride per student,with family discounts yet to be determined. H( One reason a budget crisis con- 5-Los Alamitos charges annual bus fees of$267 per student.Second and third children per family,respectively,are charged$172 and$95. to ac fronts the district is because it Used 6-Atascadero has physical education specialists in grades three to six. the 1 an$8.3 million endowment over the 7-The state average in 1995 was one nurse per 1,800 students. come 8-Includes sections of the same course. past five years to spend more than 9-State education officials rank schools from 1 to 10 based on how their test scores compare to other similar schools around California. tions it takes in.Tax revenues from Pa- 10-Paso Robles has two middle schools. nate, cific Gas and Electric Co.'s nuclear for g power plant at Diablo Canyon are al- TRIBUNE GRAPHIC so declining. With that money gone,officials mentary schools,and because it is Trustees to meet earn. San Luis Coastal is current mittee's list because he believes must weigh how to corral a budget the only local district with two high ly involved in contract negotiations he has trimmed enough and does Cu with features other districts lack- schools.Its 12 elementary schools The San Luis Coastal Uni- with teachers and staff. not need to go duper. like the Reading Recovery remedi- are two more than Lucia Mar has fied School District govern- "We've got a lot of programs Jeff Decker,a Los Osos Middle Fron al program,the physical education and equal the combined total in ing board is expected to de- were supporting,and they�re labor School teacher and the teachers' instructors for primary grades,and Atascadero and Paso Robles.The tide on recommended cuts intensive,"he said."Ihafs why the union's chief negotiator,said up to rf innovative high school schedules Los Alamitos district in Orange of$3.6 million at its regular budget cuts are in personnel." 26 teachers could lose their jobs in .earl -but that many want to preserve County Lias 200 more students than meeting at 7 p.m.today at What seems to irk teachers and a tart of$1 mrglion called for at the re A series of meetings district offi- San Luis Coastal,but half as many the district meeting.room, district critics most is that the ad- high schools and middle schools. in 91 cials held drew about 1,500 people. elementary school& 1499 San Luis(Alive?In Sart "We're not losing a proportionate mov Several times at the sessions some Paso Robles Superintendent Pat ministrative positions on Ladd's number of administrators,"he said. the] speakers criticized the ciistrids ad- Sayne,who hasworked n education Luis Obispo: cut list are limited to a total of four Ladd,however,coma stir that as sion ministrative spending,but most of for nearly 40 years,pointed out that _ positions.They are spread among sertion. He has said cuts to ad- ($12 the public response protested cuts San Luis.Coastal could`fire every ad- the Buildings,!sounds and Trans- ministration represent 10 percent • el of primary grades' PE teachers, ministratar;and it still wouldn't pre- San Luis Coastal,described the dis' portation Department, Reading of the total reductions, slightly tions nursing positions and secondary serve those programs."Not enough trict as"income-poor and Pte- Recovery and the district's In- more than its 7.9 percent share of a]M counselors. money would be saved, he ex- heavy."He said compounding the structional Media Center. the budget. Statewide, districts redu San Luis Coastal officials say the plained,to head off otherr+eductions problem is that the district doesn't Ladd left off his list nearly$1 spend an average of 5.49 percent butt( district spends more on administra Rory Livingston,assistant super pay its employees as much as what million in administrative cuts rec- in administration. �lle tion because of its many small ele- intendant of business services for those in neighboring districts ommended on the budget com- The district has 43 administra-�ff Tetanus Montereylots that a San Luis Obispo Rain day because of a problem with Sery County builder bought from rainwater, according to a Pacific ogisl From Page Al From Page Al an absentee owner a few From Page Al Bell spokeswoman. Officials swel months ago. More lots could hoped to have service restored duce scarce doses for high-risk patients 4,000 acres near the Work be in the offing if the absentee ple of pickups sank during the Monday night M with burns, infected wounds or property, said he'd rather owners-relatives of Roth crossing and had to be pulled out Though the rain is expected to after otter severe trauma things stay the way they are. now living on the East Coast "Generally,"Marshall said,"every taper off this afternoon and ish 1 We use it 'til it's gone, and "We want to keep it in agri- -pursue plans to sell more one who took their time made it" Wednesday,there will be a heavy othe when it's gone, it's gone," she culture and we do believe that than 100 lGacre lots they own Even when crossing isn't a prob• surf advisory in effect, said Curt proa said. is what it should be-agricul- in Monterey County. lem for campers,the state Coastal Kaplan with the National Weather sere The shortage hasn't yet affect tore and wildlife,"he said.To- Roth said his relatives had Commission said steelhead trout ed San Luis Obispo County hospi- day, the Monterey County sold the five 10acre parcels for migrating up the creek to spawn tals,say officials who haven't had Board of Supervisors will hear a total of$250,000 and each lot face difficulties. If you have to ration tetanus shots. But phar- a staff report about the urban- is now on the market for The commission decided last implant it mi macists say they have had prob- ization of rural Monterey $110,000,a total of$550,000. week while meeting in San Lois manufacturer leets getting the vaccine over the County-a problem that rur- Jim McCormick, the San Obispo to not only to study the you st last few months. al preservationists say is being Luis Obispo County real estate problem of vehicles driving over the y "We've had a little trouble off exacerbated by the presence agent who is handling the sale steelhead and other wildlife, but and on, but we're stocked now," of small, developable lots of of the five lots,said the asking also how to protect the rights of experienced I said Betty Trubo,a pharmacist at record in the midst of land price is slightly over market families who enjoy off-road vehi- G'e French Hospital Medical Center zoned for agriculture. rate. But he said the lots are cles. in San Luis Obispo. "We've been "Everyone thinks Monterey still attractive to would-be buy- Elsewhere in the South County, Toll Fre getting it directly from the com- County ends at King City," ers since existing homes in the more than 1,000 phone lines in -.1 1 1 1 , , _..__ -_11 [..- -L-..a 60AA inn T:-�- "---L ____ ..-......Ll.. 4r-- 0 3 ( fiat •".r�. 4 w: i v z s" 1 ac tat n,.. a DeVaul Ranch South in Flood. Photo 10 Photo taken 2/1972001 9 a.m. by Michael Sullivan, standing at northeast corner of DeVaul Ranch South property, adjacent to Los Qsos Valley Road. View is toward the south, toward Froom Ranch in the background. Road to the left is Los 050S Valley Road. Fenceline to the right is the boundary of DeVaul Ranch North. Photo shows that runoff from DeVaul Ranch North flows toward the southeast onto DeVaul Ranch South. � � G DeVaul Ranch South In Flood. Photo 3. Photo taken 2/19/2001 9 a.m. by Michael Sullivan, standing at southeast corner of DeVaul Ranch South property, adjacent to Los Osos Valley Road. View toward the west and northwest, toward DeVaul Ranch North and existing buildings in the background. Fenceline to the left is the boundary of Froom Ranch. Photo shows that flooded area extends along Los Osos Valley Road frontage, and also along the boundary with Froom Ranch, extending to about 1/3 of the distance from Los Osos Valley Road to the base of the Irish Hills. K k v, u n DeVaul Ranch South in Flood. Photo 2. Photo taken 2/19/2001 9 a.m. by Michael Sullivan, standing at southeast corner of DeVaul Ranch South property, adjacent to Los Osos Valley Road. View is toward the west and northwest, toward DeVaul Ranch North and existing buildings in the background. Road to the right is Los Osos Valley Road. Fenceline to the left is the boundary of Froom Ranch. Photo shows that the flooded area visible in this view extends along Los Osos Valley Road frontage, and also along the boundary with Froom Ranch, extending to about 1/3 of the distance from Los Osos Valley Road to the base of the Irish Hills.