Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/19/2002, C4 - RFP REQUESTING EIR CONSULTANT FOR THE BOWDEN RANCH DEVELOPMENT, 1636 WOODLAND DRIVE (ER 11-01) council j acEnaa RepoRt CITY OF SAN LU I S OB I SPO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Directo� By: Whitney MclIvaine, Associate Planner SUBJECT: RFP REQUESTING EIR CONSULTANT FOR THE BOWDEN RANCH DEVELOPMENT, 1636 WOODLAND DRIVE (ER 11-01) CAO RECOMMENDATION: A. Approve the workscope for Environmental Impact Report (EIR) consultant services in connection with the Bowden Ranch project and authorize staff to proceed with sending out Request for Proposal (RFP) documents to qualified consulting firms. B. Authorize the CAO to award the contract to a qualified consulting firm, contingent upon the developer depositing with the City the amount of the contract plus a 30% administrative fee. DISCUSSION: Situation Bowden Ranch Partners have filed an application for a 24-lot subdivision on a 40-acre site to the northeast of the intersection of Woodland Drive and Wilding Lane. The subject property has a General Plan land use and zoning designation of Low-density Residential (R-1). It is part of the Woodland Drive hillside planning area. The proposed project would create 23 residential lots and one 27-acre open space lot. The project developers have also applied for Planned Development overlay zoning as required by Land Use Element policy 6.2.6 B. Please refer to the vicinity map and the proposed lot configuration (Attachments 1 and 2). In order to proceed with the applicant's proposal, the project must be processed consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and all applicable City Regulations. The Community Development Department staff has completed an environmental initial study and determined that it will require the preparation of a focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to evaluate the potential impacts of the project and to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. EIR Workscope The EIR will address potential impacts in the areas of: aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, energy resources, geology, hazards, hydrology and drainage, land use and planning, noise, public services, recreation, transportation/circulation, and utilities. Included as issues to be addressed in the workscope for the EIR are concerns raised by Council members during site d1 I i Council Agenda Report—Bowden Ranch Project EIR RFP Page 2 3/19/02 Visits regarding the proposed removal of mature trees, encroachment into riparian and woodland areas, and road alignment. Impacts will be evaluated for project-specific and cumulative effects. The EIR will also examine project alternatives, including "Reduced Density," "Clustered Development," "Alternative Site," and "No-Project" scenarios. Attachment 3 is a copy of the proposed EIR workscope. It should be noted that the workscope may be refined with input from the Council and the selected EIR consultant. Potentially significant impacts are briefly discussed in the EIR workscope. Less than significant impacts were identified in the areas of. agricultural resources, air quality, and population. The EIR will discuss why these issue areas were determined to be less than significant. The EIR will also review and summarize mitigation recommended in the initial study. Available Environmental Studies and Resources The EIR will use information provided in the Land Use Element/Circulation Element Updates Final EIR, prepared by the City of San Luis Obispo in August 1994 in addition to several specific studies submitted as part of the application. It is not often that the application for a project requiring an EIR is submitted with the number of special studies that accompanied this application. Staff expects that the EIR consultants will be able to utilize these studies to expedite their analysis. Each of the studies submitted by the applicant will be reviewed for completeness in characterizing the potential impacts of the project as well as for adequacy and internal consistency of recommended mitigation measures. Staff will direct the consultants to incorporate the various studies into a single, easily referenced document that clearly analyzes project impacts. Schedule for EIR Preparation With City Council endorsement of the RFP and workscope; RFPs would be sent out to qualified consultants on March 22, 2002, with consultant proposals due back to the City on April 24, 2002. The schedule included in the RFP anticipates interviews to be held in mid-May and a consultant contract awarded on May 20, 2002. The RFP specifies that the Administrative Draft EIR would be delivered to the City within 60 days after execution of the contract. CONCURRENCES The proposed plans were distributed to other departments for review and comment. Those comments have been included in the EIR workscope. It should also be noted that all City departments and other governmental agencies will be given another opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation that will be sent out prior to beginning work on the EIR. oO-Z Council Agenda Report_9owden Ranch Project EIR RFP Page 3 3/19/02 FISCAL IMPACT Once a qualified consultant is selected and a contract negotiated, the project applicant will pay all of the costs for the consultant services to prepare the EIR, plus a 30% administrative fee, with the administration of the consultant contract overseen by the Community Development Department, in conjunction with the Finance Department. This is the approved procedure for City-required EIRs. Therefore, the project will have no direct fiscal impact. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the workscope, but direct staff to prepare the EIR. If a consultant were not retained to prepare the EIR, it would be the responsibility of the City to do so. With staff responsible for EIR production, the timeframe for completion of the document would be lengthier than that estimated above for a consultant, and other staff work program items would be further postponed. In addition, staff would need to hire sub-consultants to adequately evaluate certain technical issues. 2. Continue consideration of the workscope and RFP with direction to staff on necessary changes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Vicinity map Attachment 2 Proposed lot configuration Attachment 3 Excerpts from Draft RFP including the Scope of Work Attachment 4 Proposers List Attachment 5 Initial study ��3 i R-1 Attachment 1 C R -S R 5 C/OS-40 V g� PF PF C/OS-40-SP -2 R-1-SP R-3 R-1 -2 R- 3 1 R- /OS-40 O-S 1 R-1 .1 O-S VICINITYMAP ER/TR/PD 11 -01 N 1636 WOODLAND A ev. c� o O � P OC b F 6. h umn AID a z �C- ........ LLJ r '36 f' Q� a � O 0 o �► W432Wca z a 0 x Section A Attachment 3 DESCRIPTION OF WORK f f Proiect Description An application has been filed to develop 40+/- acres of vacant land with 23 custom residential lots and one 27-acre open space lot. The project involves: site grading, utility installation, roads, parking, and restoration landscaping. The project site is characterized by gentle to steep slopes covered with grasslands, oak woodlands, stands of Eucalyptus, cactus, and riparian vegetation. Four creeks cross the site. Botanical and biological studies indicate that the site supports a rich diversity of species, including rare and endangered species and species of special concern. The project is described in greater detail in application materials submitted by the applicant, which are available for public review in the Community Development Department. A reduced site plan is attached. Scope of Work A preliminary review of this project determined that there may be significant environmental impacts associated with development and that an environmental impact report (EIR) is required. The following workscope more specifically identifies issues and tasks that need to be performed to evaluate potential impacts of the project. EIR Workscope Items Aesthetics The overall layout of lots, building envelopes, construction of streets, and tree removals may have associated aesthetic impacts. This issue should be addressed with the design of the subdivision in order to maximize the effectiveness of mitigation rather than relying on architectural review of individual homes after the subdivision is approved. To better understand the potential visual impacts of the project, field studies should be performed to identify vantage points from which site development would be most visible. A visual simulation of lot development, grading for streets, and proposed tree removal would enable a better evaluation of the magnitude of this impact. Biological Resources Rare, threatened, and endangered species, sensitive habitat, and species of special concern can be found on the project site. The applicant proposes to mitigate most of the environmental impacts of development by avoiding the most critically sensitive areas, where possible, and by setting aside an area of open space running roughly through the center of the project site on either side of the main creek channel. Several biological and botanical studies and addendums were submitted with the project application. One of the objectives of the EIR preparation is to consolidate those studies and relevant recommendations into a single document. The EIR should summarize the findings and recommended mitigation strategies in the biological resource reports submitted with the project application; evaluate the adequacy of recommended mitigation; and & 6 �ppn identify effective monitoring strategies. Where potential impacts are identified, they should bAtt eaq h t"it"iedt 3 if feasible. Where on- or off-site in-kind mitigation is proposed, the location should be identified and a restoration, management, and monitoring plan should be prepared or detailed criteria for such a plan should be provided. On- or off-site mitigation should be described in terms of location, installation, management, and monitoring. Potential conflicting objectives contained within mitigation strategies should be resolved. Mitigation recommended in the biological survey report and in the report on Monarch butterflies includes restricting the planting of ornamentals and the use of biocides through covenants, codes and restrictions (CC&R's). While not unreasonable, establishing behavioral limitations on property owners through CC&R's is problematic from a practical enforcement and monitoring standpoint. Additional means of mitigation, such as establishment of biological easement areas,should be identified. The tree removal plan and the grading plan should be reviewed for potential impacts on sensitive habitat areas. Some additional cross-sections and road profiles would enable a better understanding of the potential impacts to existing trees and other sensitive species and habitats as a result of cuts and fills necessary for roads and emergency access. The preliminary grading plan should be reviewed for impacts to trees not shown for removal. The potential damage to oaks as a result of grading and construction is outlined on page 49 of the Biological Survey prepared by Holland, Keil, and Villablanca and dated December 2000. The extent of potential damage should be quantified. The EIR should document the extent of riparian habitat and include map exhibits that clearly delineates creek setbacks and distinguishes between setbacks from the edge of riparian habitat and setbacks from the top of creek bank. The EIR should address the issue of resident use of pesticides and herbicides and identify means to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. The EIR should evaluate the project's potential impacts on local species of concern. Cultural Resources An archival records search and phase one archaeological surface survey were prepared by Robert Gibson for this project.That report is supplemented by a historic review report prepared by Chattel Architecture,Planning, and Preservation, Inc. No archaeological resources were noted during the phase one surface survey. However, Mr. Gibson concludes that site development will have an adverse impact on important historic cultural resources, namely those related to the La Loma Adobe and surrounding lands. He specifically cites the windrow of Eucalyptus on the north side of the main creek, fencing, pipelines, and water tanks as part of the historic context of the La Loma Adobe. A previous survey and monitoring on the parcel immediately east of the adobe encountered historic bits of glass and ceramics, shells, bone, and a small cobblestone foundation. Similar items could be encountered during grading in the area once occupied by a farm house (near proposed lot 3) and where a large wooden barn was demolished in 1996. The EIR should evaluate proposed mitigation as outlined in the initial study. The EIR should clearly identify likely impacts to historic resources on site as well as to the La Loma -2 Cl/-7 Attachment 3 Adobe. It should provide project alternatives that do not impact the historic resources identified in Mr. Gibson's report. Where project alternatives will involve adverse impacts, the EIR should identify adequate means of mitigation. A qualified archaeologist, familiar with both historic and pre-historic cultural resources shall review project plans, and develop an historic monitoring plan which outlines the monitoring method and schedule;identifies the most sensitive areas;and includes a final report of results with map exhibits. The monitoring plan shall specify that if excavations encounter significant cultural materials, construction activities, which may affect them, shall cease until the extent of the resource is determined and the Community Development Director approves appropriate protective measures. Any additional mitigation measures recommended by the archaeologist shall be evaluated by the Community Development Director, and upon Director approval, implemented by the applicant. Given the likelihood of encountering historic resources and artifacts during on-site grading, a schedule for pre-construction monitoring should be established. This would involve trenching under the supervision of a qualified historic archaeologist approved by the Community Development Director. Energy and Mineral Resources The EIR should evaluate proposed mitigation as outlined in the initial study. Geology and Soils Earth Systems Pacific prepared three reports for this project: a geotechnical feasibility report, a geologic hazard study, and a soils engineering report. An addendum report, dated January 25, 2002, which addresses the use of individual on-site detention basins and the potential for debris flow was also submitted. The primary geotechnical concerns with development of this site, as identified in the geologic hazard study, are the potential for differential settlement, the existing fill soils, the expansive on-site soils, the erodible nature of the soil, and the potential for localized hard or cemented areas within the sandstone that may be encountered during excavation. The site's steeper slopes will require grading to meet minimum City standards for slopes. Additional analysis of the site slopes and the required amount of grading is necessary to better understand associated environmental impacts. The EIR should evaluate proposed mitigation as outlined in the initial study. Alternatives to proposed detention basins or underground holding tanks on each lot, such as fewer and larger detention basins, should be evaluated. Slopes pose somewhat of a constraint in terms of grading necessary for roads and driveways as well as soil erosion.The EIR should include a slope analysis exhibit which distinguishes slopes across the site in the following categories: 0-5%, 6-10%, 11-15%, 16-20%, 21-25%, and 26% or more, prepared using City-approved methodology. Project application maps are available for reference. The EIR should include an analysis of the extent of cut and fill necessary to achieve the maximum slopes for fire access (15%), fire truck turn-arounds (4%), and private driveways (20%). -3- p ell- 0 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Attachment 3 The EIR should evaluate proposed mitigation as outlined in the initial study. Hydrology and Water Site development will affect four drainages that cross the property. The Flood Insurance Rate Map only shows a small area of the project site near the intersection of Lizzie Street and Wilding Lane within a 100-year flood zone. The soils engineering report prepared for this project indicates potential for flooding on some of the lower lots fronting on Woodland Drive and Wilding Lane. A drainage study was prepared by Engineering Development Associates for this project. The drainage study indicates that runoff after site development will not increase significantly over current site runoff due to the steepness of the site and existing impervious areas related to site soils and geology. With on-site detention, post- development runoff is projected to be less than current runoff. It notes that the existing storm drain in Lizzie Street does not have the capacity to handle a 10-year storm.,Storm water currently over tops the inlet during heavy winter storms, sometimes resulting in down stream flooding. The EIR should evaluate proposed mitigation as outlined in the initial study. The EIR for this project should include: • a summary of the drainage analysis as prepared by the project civil engineer and reviewed by the City Public Works Department • an analysis of alternative methods of on-site storm water detention • a method for filtering storm water before discharging it into the creeks • a method for dissipating discharged storm water • an erosion control plan for construction activity and post construction soil stabilization, or detailed criteria for such a plan • an analysis of potential solutions or improvements to the existing storm drainage problem, such as increasing the intake capacity of the storm drain in Lizzie Street and capturing and redirecting storm water runoff in Woodland Drive The project description should provide preliminary details of such improvements to enable evaluation of their environmental impacts. Land Use & Planning The City's Land Use Element reap and official zoning map designate the project site as suitable for low-density residential development. Policies and development guidelines are contained within the Land Use Element related to residential development and residential hillside development in particular. The Open Space Element contains policies addressing private development in and near areas with sensitive habitat or unique resources (as defined in the Open Space Element). The Housing, Circulation, Safety and Conservation Elements also contain policies relevant to the proposed development. -a- ell- 9' Attachment 3 The EIR should include a discussion of relevant City general plan policies related to land use, safety, housing, environmental protection and conservation and an evaluation of project consistency with those policies. Noise The EIR should evaluate proposed mitigation as outlined in the initial study. Public Services The EIR should briefly summarize provision of public services to the project including servicing potential formal public access to the open space areas. Recreation Currently, informal trails lead through the site to the open hillsides beyond. The project is designed to retain access through the site to the existing hillside trails. The EIR should address current and proposed use of the trails leading through the site and up to the eastern hillsides; possible impacts on existing and future residents of the area in terms of traffic, litter, trespassing, privacy, and noise; adequacy of proposed parking for trail users; designated times for trail use; and the desirability of any additional amenities such as trash receptacles and informational signs. Transportation/Circulation The EIR should evaluate proposed mitigation as outlined in the initial study. The EIR should summarize the findings of the traffic study prepared for this project, project improvements related to traffic, and relevant comments from the City's Public Works Department. Utilities The EIR should summarize utility and service system requirements for the project and provide an expanded discussion of the proposed water delivery system to ensure adequate water pressure for domestic use as well as fire sprinklers. Additional EIR Workscope items 1. In addition to the above-mentioned significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed development, the EIR should discuss any other significant environmental impacts that are discovered within the review process. Although staff prepared a list of potentially significant impact items, other items revealed by the EIR should be included. In order to be sure the EIR is a comprehensive list of all the potential significant items a discussion of standard CEQA items that were not considered significant should be included. A description of each of these items, including justification of why they were deemed less than significant, should be provided. Cumulative Effects The EIR must address cumulative impacts within each area of analysis. 5_ C4(-/O Alternatives Attachment 3 Alternatives to the proposed project design need to be evaluated. Alternatives need to clearly indicate how they would address identified project impacts and should at minimum evaluate the following: • the"no"project alternative; • other comparable sites where the project might be developed; • a reduced density alternative; and • a clustered residential development. Resources The applicant has provided numerous studies that address the project's potentially significant impacts. It is not the City's intention to have the EIR consultants duplicate work that has already been done. It is the City's desire to have the EIR reference these studies as part of the analysis and incorporate them into a single document. Informational resources are listed in Section 19 Source References in the environmental initial study (ER 11-01). -6- ey-�( Attachment 4 PROPOSERS LIST BOWDEN RANCH DEVELOPMENT EIR-SPECIFICATION NO.90317 Envicom Denise Duffy&Associates Fugro West, Inc. 28328 Agoura Rd. 947 Cass Street Suite C 1012 Pacific St., Ste. A Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Monterey, CA 93940 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 EMC Jones and Stokes Associates The Morro Group Attn: Teri Wissler Adam 2600 V St., Ste. 100 1422 Monterey St. Suite. C-200 301 Lighthouse Ave Suite C Sacramento, CA 95818-1914 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Monterey, CA 93940 Amec. SAIC FIRMA 1 E. Anapamu St. 816 State St., Ste. 500 849 Monterey St. Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Law/Crandall, Inc. Woodward Clyde Attn: Roberta Tassey Michael Brandman Associates Consultants 2710 Gateway Oaks Dr., Ste. 150N Attn: Patricia Hughes 5951 Encina Rd., Ste. 200 Sacramento, CA 95833 15901 Red Hill Ave., Ste. 200 Santa Barbara, CA 93117 Tustin, CA 92780-7318 David Early, Principal Kleinfelder Design, Community & Planetek, Inc. Attn: Susan Charles Environment 41 E. Foothill Blvd., Suite 200 1370 Valley Vista Dr., Ste. 150 1600 Shattuck Ave. Arcadia, CA 91006 Diamond Bar, CA 91765-3910 Berkeley, CA 94709 Greystone Leighton and Associates, Inc. Brady and Associates Attn: Jeffrey Harvey Attn: Andrew Price Attn: David Clore 1211 H Street, Ste. A 31344 Via Colinas, Ste. 102 2215 Fifth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Westlake Village, CA 91362 Berkeley, CA 94710 Rincon Consultants, Inc. Emcon LSA Associates Attn: Stephen Svete Attn: Ilona Rubino Attn: Lynette Stanchina 790 E. Santa Clara St. 1921 Ringwood Ave. 2215 Fifth Street Ventura, CA 93001 San Jose, CA 95131-1721 Berkeley, CA 94710 Tetra Tech, Inc. Chambers Group,Inc. Regional Environmental 4213 State Street, Suite 205 17671 Cowan Ave., Suite 100 Consultants Attn: Sandra Fayette Santa Barbara, CA 93110 Irvine, CA 92614 1927 Fifth Ave. Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101-2358 Cy�z Robert Bein, William Frost & Attachment 4 Zeiser Kling Consultants Associates Attn: Barbara 14725 Alton Pkwy. 3187 Red Hill Ave.,#135 Irvine, CA 92618-2069 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 TPG Consulting, Inc. Takata Associates Attn. Quincy Struve Attn: Kathleen Takata 679 Monterey Street 600 Fremont Ave. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 South Pasadena, CA 91030 McLaren/Hart, Inc. Padre Associates, Inc. 16755 Von Karman Aave., 5450 Telegraph Rd., Suite 101 #200 Ventura, CA 93003 Irvine, CA 92606-2667 Helix Environmental Planning, Burns &McDonnell Inc. 2102 Business Center Dr., Suite 8100 La Mesa Blvd., Suite 150 130 La Mesa, CA 91941-6476 Irvine, CA 92612 Douglas Wood & Associates, Duane A. Morita Inc. 14312 Shadybrook Dr. 1461 Higuera St., Suite A Tustin, CA 92680 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 C�-/3 ��il��h�lllll�lllll�����������llllll►11111 ���� city of sAn WIS OBISPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 Attachment 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER 11-01 1. Project Title: Bowden Ranch 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: Whitney McIlvaine, Associate Planner 805-781-7164 4. Project Location: 1636 Woodland Drive 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Karl Wittstrom, Bowden Ranch Partners 5875 Stockdale Road, Paso Robles, CA 93446 (805) 237-7489 6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential 7. Zoning: Low Density Residential 8. Description of the Project: Planned development rezoning and subdivision of a 40-acre site within city limits into 23 lots for single family house development and one 27-acre open space lot with associated road and utility improvements. The project would require approval of creek setback exceptions for modifications of the street system and an exception to City Engineering standards which limit the number of parcels served by a common driveway to four. The attached "Applicant Proposed Mitigation Measures" summarizes mitigation proposed to be part of the project description. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: Open space, San Luis High School, and single family houses. 10. Project Entitlements Requested: Tentative map approval. Planned development rezoning. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board The 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. Cw Attachment 5 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 X Geology/Soils X Public Services Agricultural Resources X Hazards&Hazardous X Recreation Materials Air Quality X Hydrology/Water Quality X Transportation&Traffic X Biological Resources X Land Use and Planning X Utilities and Service Systems X Cultural Resources X Noise X Mandatory Findings of Si iftcance X Energy and Mineral Population and Housing Resources FISH AND GAME FEES There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish 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 X and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE X The project requires review by one or more State agencies such as Cal Trans or the California Department of Fish and Game and is to be sent to the State Clearinghouse for routing. ilk Crry OF SAN Luis OEISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 �y.�s Attachment 5 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an X ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions Lor mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. e uired. February 28, 2002 Signature Date Ron Whisenand, for John Mandeville Deputy Community Development Director Community Development Director �lr CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 C44e6 Attachment 5 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: I. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 'The explanation of each issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any,used to evaluate each question. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact'is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering, program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California Administrators Code. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. �/ CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 Issues, Discussion and Suppotttng Information Sources Sources i ,ially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 11-01 Bowden Ranch Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated. Andcrim 1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,3, X 27 b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited X to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of X the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would X adversely effect day or nighttime views in the area? The site is currently undeveloped and characterized by meadows, an extensive cactus patch,hilly grassland, and stands of oak and eucalyptus trees along the creeks. It lies above a stretch of Johnson Avenue, which is designated as a road of moderate scenic value in the City's Circulation Element. The most significant views from this stretch of Johnson are looking northwest (away from the project)toward Cerro San Luis and Bishop's Peak. The project is to the east of Johnson Avenue in the Santa Lucia Foothills. Views of the foothills also contribute to the scenic quality of this roadway. Existing development and vegetation will likely block views of new houses on the site from the Johnson Avenue corridor.The immediate neighborhood adjacent to the site would be most affected by the visual impacts of developing home sites on the property. More distant views of site development could occur from other parts of town,which are at or above elevations similar to those of the upper slopes of the project site (just below the urban reserve line which follows the 460-foot elevation contour). The Open Space Element (OSE) describes the hills and mountains surrounding and within the city as a major aesthetic resource which defines the city (OSE p. 13). The Land Use Element states that subdivision approval in hillside planning areas will include designation of sensitive sites, which are subject to architectural review(LUE Programs 6.3.1 and 6.3.3). Because this project is within the Woodland Drive hillside planning area, architectural review will be required for all new houses, and designs will be subject to compliance with specified hillside development standards(LUE Policy 6.2.2). The Final EIR for the Land Use and Circulation Element updates states that land development increases resulting from the adopted updates will unavoidably change the aesthetic character of the City. The EIR concludes that while site specific impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level through implementation of standard City policies and ordinances, including project-specific environmental review, the cumulative change to the aesthetic character of the community is unavoidable and significant. A thorough evaluation of project-specific visual impacts and identification of project-specific mitigation will help to minimize cumulative unavoidable and significant aesthetic impacts(pp. 6.12-1 —6.12-5 and 6.12-30— 6.12-32). Possibly one of the most notable changes to the visual character of the site is the proposed tree removal. The proposed alignment of Lizzie Street would require removal of 19 trees, mostly large Eucalyptus that form a fairly prominent canopy along the northerly side of the main creek channel. Plans indicate that approximately 16 other trees—mostly oaks—would be removed in conjunction with the proposed extension of Woodland Court. As mitigation, the project includes a proposal for replacement planting at a ratio of 4 to 1, using sycamores, bay laurels, and oaks. The replacement plan does not indicate where on site roughly 140 new trees might be accommodated. Another potential aesthetic concern is grading. To avoid exceeding the maximum slopes allowed by City standards for streets and driveways,grading cuts will be required—in some cases up to ten feet. Depending on the overall visibility of the site and the final configuration of the streets,this may or may not be a significant visual impact. Conclusion: Potentially significant. The overall layout of lots, building envelopes,construction of streets, and tree removals may have associated aesthetic impacts.This issue should be addressed with the design of the subdivision in order to maximize the effectiveness of mitigation rather than relying on architectural review of individual homes after the subdivision is approved. CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 5 INIrtAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 e44.a Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources P�_.,tially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 11-01 Bowden Ranch Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated EIR Workscope: To better understand the potential visual impacts of the project, field studies should be performed to identify vantage points from which site development would be most visible. A visual simulation of lot development, grading for streets, and proposed tree removal would enable a better evaluation of the magnitude of this impact. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of 1, 2,7 X Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a X Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to X their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program designates most of the site as potential grazing land. The lower 13 acres will be developed with 23 homes consistent with the property's single family residential zoning. 27 acres of the site will remain in open space along with the 180 acres of the Bowden Ranch located above the city limits line. The development won't impact the grazing potential of this open space area. The property is not zoned Agriculture and is not in an agricultural use. Conclusion:Not significant. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 15, X existing or projected air quality violation? 23 b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X quality plan? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X people? e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria X pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozone precursors)) The Air Pollution Control District (APCD) staff has reviewed the project (see attached letter dated March 16, 2001). The letter concludes that the project, by itself, will not exceed CEQA significance thresholds and so will not significantly impact air quality. Dust control measures are recommended during construction. Dust control is required by Appendix Section 3307 of the City's modifications to the Uniform Building Code.No additional mitigation is recommended. The letter from APCD also includes suggestions related to energy conservation, which on a cumulative basis, would help to reduce emissions at a power plant source. See discussion and recommended mitigation under Energy and Mineral Resources below. Conclusion: Less than significant. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or 1 1,2,4, through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a 8, X candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional 9,10, CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 e14/-/9 Issues, Discussion and SuppZTing Information Sources Sources k. _otially Potentially Lms Than No Significanil Significant Significant Impact ER # 11-01 Bowden Ranch Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department 11,12, of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? 23,24 b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional X plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or X ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native X resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved X local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act X (including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? The following reports on biological resources were submitted with the project application. They are incorporated herein by reference. • Biological Survey,prepared by V.L.Holland, David Keil,and Francis Villablanca,dated December 2000. • Supplement to the Botanical Survey (part of the biological survey) prepared by V.L. Holland and dated July 20, 2001 • Woodrat Monitoring Report,prepared by Francis Villablanca and dated July 22,2001 • California Red-legged Frog Biological Assessment Report,prepared by Julie Schneider and dated November 6, 2000 • Biological Survey: Monarch Butterfly Habitat,prepared by Dennis Frey and dated January 2000 Rare, threatened, and endangered species, sensitive habitat, and species of special concern can be found on the project site. The applicant proposes to mitigate most of the environmental impacts of development by avoiding the most critically sensitive areas, where possible, and by setting aside an area of open space running roughly through the center of the project site on either side of the main creek channel. The project was redesigned from its original layout to include the large open space lot in response to conclusions of the biological studies and recommended mitigation contained within those studies. Previous lot layout concepts are shown at the back of the document prepared by Oasis Associates, Inc.entitled"Development Plan: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2420 Bowden Ranch Estates."A brief summary of issues related to biological resources as discussed in the various reports follows. W oodrats: There are two species of woodrats that inhabit the site: the San Diego desert woodrat and the Monterey dusky-footed woodrat. Both species are listed as state and federal species of special concern. The estimated population on site for the areas surveyed is 14 to 21. Two of the four woodrat houses found on site are very near the proposed extension of Lizzie Street. One is located in the clumps of trees on the boundary between lots 20 and 21. The latter would be removed as part of proposed site development. While they would generally be found in the woodland and cactus patch areas of the site, woodrats were also CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 ey-zo Issues, Discussion and SupoL,,.rig Information Sources Sources i tally PotentiallyCosSThan No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 11-01 Bowden Ranch Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated trapped in the grasslands. Attachment 5 Most of the currently proposed development would occur adjacent to rather than within woodrat habitat. Suggested mitigation includes minimizing vegetation removal and trimming at the rear of lots 1 through 7; imposing a "no-cut" restriction along the southern edge of lots 8 through 12; minimizing brush and cactus clearing; and provision of replacement nesting structures in the open space lot. Recommended mitigation should be evaluated and further refined to achieve consistency with the tree removal plan and the fire management plan, and to determine the best method for imposing recommended development restrictions. California red-legged frogs: The site offers potential habitat for red-legged frogs and is within the known range of the species. This species was federally listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act on June 24, 1996. A survey was conducted in September, 2000. No frogs were sighted. A report prepared by Julie Schneider, wildlife biologist, concludes that because the project is within the range of this listed species, mitigation recommended in the report should be included in the project to ensure potential impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. The mitigation recommended in the report appears to follow U.S. Fish and Wildlife protocol,but needs to be quantified in terms of creek setbacks and riparian vegetation restoration. Monarch butterflies: Monarch butterflies have an overwintering roosting site in the western area of the open space lot at the confluence of the two creeks. The monarch butterfly is a species of special concern in California where its range has been progressively restricted. The proposed project, if left unmitigated,poses a potential threat to this monarch site as a result of site disturbance associated with lot development, tree clearance, use of pesticides, and smoke from chimneys and bar-b-ques. The report suggests minimizing construction activity during the overwintering period (November—February); restricting the use of pesticides and biocides; preserving a minimum area around the identified roosting sites; and cooperation among biologists, property owners and Fire Department staff during removal of brush for purposes of fire hazard abatement. Grading plans should be reviewed for potential impacts on trees identified as important to be retained in order to preserve the roosting site. Rare and Endangered Plant Species: Several rare and endangered plant species were found on the site, including the San Luis Obispo morning glory, the San Luis mariposa lily, Palmer's spineflower, the San Luis dudleya, and Hoffman's sanicle.According to the botanical survey, the San Luis mariposa lily, Palmer's spineflower, and San Luis dudleya were found in the open space lot and not on other lots proposed for development. The survey recommends off-site in-kind planting at a minimum ratio of 3 to I as mitigation for the impacts to the morning glory. Pre-construction surveys are recommended as well as a restoration plan. The restoration plan should be developed as a mitigation measure. The loss of species and habitat should be quantified and the location for off-site,in-kind planting should be identified. The method for planting/transplanting and monitoring should be explained. Potentially Threatened Habitats: Oak woodlands, California native grasslands and riparian habitats are considered sensitive habitats by the California Department of Fish and Game and the City of San Luis Obispo. Each of these habitat types can be found on the project site. Both the riparian areas and the grassland areas contain both native and non-native plant species. These three types of habitat together with the cactus patch offer food,foraging,water and nesting areas for wildlife. Each type of habitat will be impacted to some extent by the proposed development. The preliminary grading plan indicates that certain areas of oak woodland will be removed as a result of road construction and grading. Roads, housing and residential landscaping would occupy roughly 10 acres of grassland. Road construction will also involve grading within creek setbacks. More intensive use of the site by humans and their pets could further diminish its wildlife and habitat value. Mitigation recommended in the supplemental biological and botanical reports and incorporated into the project plans includes CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO li INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 0_4 Issues, Discussion and Supp. _..ng Information Sources sources ially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 11-01 Bowden Ranch Issues unless Impact Mitigation Incorporate W nco rated ac me maintaining large areas of grassland outside the development as permanent open space; using building envelopes and covenants, conditions, and restrictions to protect the oak woodlands and forest corridors from direct and indirect impacts associated with home development; replacement tree planting; designating a lot encompassing the major riparian areas as open space;and developing a riparian restoration plan. The EIR should evaluate the level of significance of impacts on biological resources and the adequacy of off-setting mitigation. Wildlife corridors: To ensure habitat is accessible to wildlife, the biological survey prepared for this project recommends that cross- and rear-lot fencing be reduced or eliminated,or designed to enable migration corridors. Creek Setbacks: Local policies in the Land Use Element and Open Space Element address creek preservation and restoration of degraded riparian areas. Construction of the proposed roadways through the site will involve grading and tree removal within the creek setbacks in certain areas. Mitigation is proposed in the form of replacement tree planting and dedication of a permanent open space lot containing the main creek channel. The vesting tentative map shows the location of creek channels on the property and delineates a.20-foot setback from the top of bank. City policy and regulations specify a 20-foot setback from the top of bank or edge of riparian vegetation,whichever is greater. In some areas, particularly at lot 13, it appears that the setback line should be adjusted to extend 20 feet beyond the edge of riparian vegetation,rather just from the top of bank. Where Lizzie Street would be extended and where Woodland Court would be constructed, portions of the roadways will encroach into the setback area. In both cases this is unavoidable given existing rights-of-way and the location of creeks. In the case of Woodland Court, the road will cross a creek. Tract improvement plans will contain a detail of the road construction. Permits will be required from the Department of Fish and Game, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Pesticide/Herbicide Use: The use of pesticides and herbicides by future residents of the site could pose a danger to the natural biotic community which currently provides for wildlife corridors and habitat for listed plant and animal species. The City's Open Space Element recommends creating a buffer between development and habitat to be protected and preserved. Ideally, lots would not encroach into sensitive habitat areas. Designating building envelopes on lots is less effective, since pesticide and herbicide use is largely connected to landscaping and yard maintenance. As a rule, it is more straight forward to establish clear spatial boundaries through lot configuration and subdivision design rather than try and impose behavioral limitations on property owners. Conclusion: Potentially significant.As proposed, the project will encroach into areas of sensitive habitat. EIR Workscope: The EIR should summarize the findings and recommended mitigation strategies in the biological resource reports submitted with the project application; evaluate the adequacy of recommended mitigation; and identify effective monitoring strategies. Where potential impacts are identified, they should be quantified if feasible.Where off-site in-kind mitigation is proposed, the off-site location should be identified and a restoration, management, and monitoring plan should be prepared or detailed criteria for such a plan should be provided. On-site mitigation should be described in terms of location, installation, management, and monitoring. Potential conflicting objectives contained within mitigation strategies should be resolved. CITY OF SAN LUIS OinsPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 Ci/- Issues, Discussion and SuppWg Information Sources Sources ially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 11-01 Bowden Ranch ]sues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Attachment Mitigation recommended in the biological survey report and in the report on Monarch butterflies includes restricting the planting of ornamentals and the use of biocides through covenants,codes and restrictions(CC&R's). While not unreasonable, establishing behavioral limitations on property owners through CC&R's is problematic from a practical enforcement and monitoring standpoint. Additional means of mitigation, such as establishment of biological easement areas, should be identified. The tree removal plan and the grading plan should be reviewed for potential impacts on sensitive habitat areas. Some additional cross-sections and road profiles would enable a better understanding of the potential impacts to existing trees and other sensitive species and habitats as a result of cuts and fills necessary for roads and emergency access. The preliminary grading plan should be reviewed for impacts to trees not shown for removal.The potential damage to oaks as a result of grading and construction is outlined on page 49 of the Biological Survey prepared by Holland, Keil, and Villablanca and dated December 2000.The extent of potential damage should be quantified. The EIR should document the extent of riparian habitat and include map exhibits that clearly delineates creek setbacks and distinguishes between setbacks from the edge of riparian habitat and setbacks from the top of creek bank. The EIR should address the issue of resident use of pesticides and herbicides and identify means to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. The EIR should evaluate the project's potential impacts on local species of concern. 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 4,6, X historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 13,14, 23 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X archeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource X or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of X formal cemeteries? An archival records search and phase one archaeological surface survey were prepared by Robert Gibson for this project.That report is supplemented by a historic review report prepared by Chattel Architecture, Planning, and Preservation, Inc. These reports are incorporated herein by reference. No archaeological resources were noted during the phase one surface survey. However, Mr. Gibson concludes that site development will have an adverse impact on important historic cultural resources,namely those related to the La Loma Adobe and surrounding lands. He specifically cites the windrow of Eucalyptus on the north side of the main creek, fencing, pipelines, and water tanks as part of the historic context of the La Loma Adobe. A previous survey and monitoring on the parcel immediately east of the adobe encountered historic bits of glass and ceramics, shells, bone, and a small cobblestone foundation. Similar items could be encountered during grading in the area once occupied by a farm house(near proposed lot 3)and where a large wooden barn was demolished in 1996. The proposed project would remove the Eucalyptus windrow and would involve grading for house foundations, utilities, and roadways, which could impact buried cultural resources. The historic review report provides documentation and mapping for the historic features identified in Mr. Gibson's report. According to the conclusion section of Mr.Gibson's report,the historic documentation in itself could provide adequate mitigation for the adverse impacts to cultural resources. CEQA Section 15126.4 notes that in some cases,documentation of an historical resource will not mitigate the effects to a less than significant level. In the same section, it is also stated that where several measures are available to mitigate an impact, each should be discussed and the basis for selecting a certain measure should be identified. This analysis would be most appropriately included as part of an Environmental Impact Report. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 15y-z3 Issues, Discussion and SupplWg Information Sources Sources tally Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 11-01 Bowden Ranch Issues unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated /AttaChment A letter from the Board of the Friends of Las Casas de Adobe, dated April 20, 2001, raises concerns about the adequacy of the historic review report. The letter notes that the report does not evaluate the likely effects of development on the identified historic features. Conclusion: Potentially significant. Mitigation: A qualified archaeologist, familiar with both historic and pre-historic cultural resources, and approved by the Community Development Director,shall be retained to monitor project grading and trenching activities. If any archaeological resources are found during site preparation, all earth-work within 150 feet of object(s)shall cease until the resources have been evaluated by a archaeologist. Any additional mitigation measures recommended by the archaeologist shall be evaluated by the Community Development Director,and upon Director approval,implemented by the applicant. If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American monitor should be called in to work with the archaeologist to document and remove the items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal laws. A note concerning this requirement shall be included on the grading and construction plans for the project. EIR Workscope: The EIR should clearly identify likely impacts to historic resources on site as well as to the La Loma Adobe. It should provide project alternatives that do not impact the historic resources identified in Mr. Gibson's report.Where project alternatives will involve adverse impacts,the EIR should identify adequate means of mitigation. A qualified archaeologist, familiar with both historic and pre-historic cultural resources shall review project plans, and develop an historic monitoring plan which outlines the monitoring method and schedule; identifies the most sensitive areas; and includes a final report of results with map exhibits. The monitoring plan shall specify that if excavations encounter significant cultural materials, construction activities, which may affect them, shall cease until the extent of the resource is determined and the Community Development Director approves appropriate protective measures. Any additional mitigation measures recommended by the archaeologist shall be evaluated by the Community Development Director; and upon Director approval,implemented by the applicant. Given the likelihood of encountering historic resources and artifacts during on-site grading, a schedule for pre-construction monitoring should be established. This would involve trenching under the supervision of a qualified historic archaeologist approved by the Community Development Director. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the ro'ect: a) Conflict with adopted energyconservation plans? 1,5 X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X manner? c) Result in the loss of Availability,of a known mineral "resource X that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? The Energy Conservation Element policies encourage the use of techniques to minimize energy use, such as designing subdivisions to maximize solar exposure. Lots proposed are large enough to enable houses to take advantage of solar exposure without requiring that the longest dimension of the lot be oriented within 30 degrees of south. To address the cumulative impacts of energy use on air quality, comments from the Air Pollution Control District recommend that building design exceed baseline energy efficiency standards. Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. ��+ CirY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 Issues, Discussion and Sup g Information Sources Sources dally Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 11-01 Bowden Ranch Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Mitigation: Attachment 5 • All glazing shall be dual paned. • Wall and ceiling insulation shall exceed Title 24 energy standards to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. • Appliances, furnaces, water heaters, and lighting shall be high-efficiency and energy-conserving to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. • The project shall use energy efficient lighting. • Landscaping plans for individual lots shall include shade trees along the southwestern side of the houses to reduce summer cooling needs. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOELS Would theproject: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 1,15, effects, including risk of loss,injury or death involving: 16, 17,25 I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the X most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? H. Strong seismic ground shaking? X III. Seismic related ground-failure,including liquefaction? X IV. Landslides or mudflows? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that X would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on or off site landslides,lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction,or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the X Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? Earth Systems Pacific prepared three reports for this project: a geotechnical feasibility report, a geologic hazard study, and a soils engineering report — all of which are incorporated herein by reference. An addendum report, dated January 25, 2002, which addresses the use of individual on-site detention basins and the potential for debris flow was also submitted. The primary geotechnical concerns with development of this site, as identified in the geologic hazard study, are the potential for differential settlement, the existing fill soils, the expansive on-site soils, the erodible nature of the soil, and the potential for localized hard or cemented areas within the sandstone that may be encountered during excavation(Geologic Hazard Study p. 5). In the past, during heavy rain fall, rocks and boulders have moved down through hillside drainages above Johnson Avenue. The addendum report prepared by Earth Systems Pacific concludes that this is not a likely scenario for the project site. Field observations did not include any evidence of slope instability or landsliding (Geologic Hazard Study p. 6). Due to the shallow bedrock underlying most of the site, there is little or no potential for liquefaction (Geologic Hazard Study p. 8). The site is not located in an Earthquake Fault Zone and there are no mapped faults crossing the site. However, the site does have the potential for experiencing strong ground shaking from earthquakes on regional and/or local causative faults—as does all of San Luis Obispo(Geologic Hazard Study pp. 6-9). One issue raised in the geologic hazard study is the potential for flooding where the three drainages merge in the southwest =026CnY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMEWAL CHECKLIST 2001 Cif-2s' Issues, Discussion and Suppu..ng Information Sources Sources ially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 11-01 Bowden Ranch Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated area of the site. This could affect lower lots between the main creek channel and Woodland Drive. Flooding is discussed below under Hydrology and Water Quality. Attachment 5 The soils report provides extensive direction regarding drainage improvements and soil stabilization during and after construction to address the issue of soil erodibility. The same report also provides very thorough direction for grading and construction of foundations to address the soil and slope characteristics of the site. Since the soils report was prepared, the project has been modified to include a proposal for individual detention basins on each lot with a 5000 gallon capacity.The addendum report addresses this issue. Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. Mitigation: All recommendations contained in the soils engineering report prepared by Earth Systems Pacific for Tract 2420 and dated April 23,2001 (File No. SL-12332-SB)shall be incorporated into the project grading and construction. EIR Workscope: Alternatives to proposed detention basins or underground holding tanks on each lot,such as fewer and larger detention basins, should be evaluated. Slopes pose somewhat of a constraint in terms of grading necessary for roads and driveways as well as soil erosion. The EIR should include a slope analysis exhibit which distinguishes slopes across the site in the following categories: 0-5%, 6-10%, 11-15%, 16-20%, 21-25%,and 26%or more,prepared using City-approved methodology. The EIR should include an analysis of the extent of cut and fill necessary to achieve the maximum slopes for fire access (15%),fire truck turn-arounds(4%),and private driveways(20%). 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the roject: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 1,8, X though the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous 12,18, materials? 21 b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous X emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,it would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within X two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for the people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation CITY OF SAN Luis OsisPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 cy a6 Issues, Discussion and Supp. ..,ng Information Sources Sources .ially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 11-01 Bowden Ranch Issues unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, X or death,involving wildland foes,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? Environmental site assessment: Earth Systems Pacific prepared a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for this project, incorporated herein by reference. The assessment revealed no evidence of recognized hazardous materials on the property. Conclusion: Less than significant. Pesticides and Herbicides: Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. Refer to the discussion in the section on Biological Resources. Wildland Fire: The project site is shown on Figure 2 in the General Plan Safety Element as an area of high fire hazard potential. A fire management plan, incorporated herein by reference,has been submitted with project to reduce potential fire hazards to a less than significant level. The City Fire Marshall has reviewed the fire management plan submitted for this project. His comments are attached.The document has been revised as of February 5,2002 to reflect his recommended changes. Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. Mitigation: The Fire management plan shall be implemented as part of this project. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the m'ect: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 16,19, X requirements? 25 b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(eg.The production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X capacity of existing or planned storm-water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding onsite or offsite? f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on X a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INmAL STODY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKusT 2001 ell-v Issues, Discussion and Supj .,ng Information Sources Sources Bally Potentially Less Than No Sigfiificant Significant Significant Impact ER# 11-01 Bowden Ranch Issues Unless Impact o'o,lat achm g) Place Within a 100-year flood hazard area:structures which X would.impede or iedireci flood flows?' h) .Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X Site development will affect four drainages that cross the property.The Flood Insurance Rate Map only shows a small area of the project site near the intersection of Lizzie Street and Wilding Lane within a 100-year flood zone. A General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit is required from the State Water Resources Control Board. The soils engineering report,prepared by Earth Systems Pacific, notes that on-site soils are highly erodible and will require stabilization during and after construction to reduce erosion damage (p. 23). The report notes the importance of landscaping in erosion control. Improvements to Woodland Drive and construction of the Woodland Court entrance to the site will involve crossing the creek that runs along Woodland Drive. Changes to this channel will require permits from the Department of Fish and Game, the Army Corps of Engineers,and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. A drainage study was prepared by Engineering Development Associates for this project and is herein incorporated by reference. The drainage study indicates that runoff after site development will not increase significantly over current site runoff due to the steepness of the site and existing impervious areas related to site soils and geology. With on-site detention, post-development runoff is projected to be less than current runoff. It notes that the existing storm drain in Lizzie Street does not have the capacity to handle a 10-year storm. Storm water currently over tops the inlet during heavy winter storms, sometimes resulting in down stream flooding. Mitigation: Prior to issuance of any grading permits for subdivision improvements, the subdivider shall submit copies of permits required by the Department of Fish and Game, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Regional Water Quality Control Board for work affecting wetlands and creeks. EIR Workscope: The EIR for this project should include: • a summary of the drainage analysis as prepared by the project civil engineer and reviewed by the City Public Works Department • an analysis of alternative methods of on-site storm water detention • a method for filtering storm water before discharging it into the creeks • a method for dissipating discharged storm water • an erosion control plan for construction activity and post construction soil stabilization,or detailed criteria for such a plan • an analysis of potential solutions or improvements to the existing storm drainage problem, such as increasing the intake capacity of the storm drain in Lizzie Street and capturing and redirecting storm water runoff in Woodland Drive The project description should provide preliminary details of such improvements to enable evaluation of their environmental impacts. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING- Would the ro`ect: a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of, 1,23 X an _with .Jurisdiction over„the proiect adopted for the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 p Issues, Discussion and SupMWg Information Sources Sources _,ti "y Potentially Less Than No Sigto Icaant Significant Significant Impact ER # 11-01 Bowden Ranch Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco d en 5 purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b) Physically divide an established community? X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X community conservationplans? The City's Land Use Element map and official zoning map designate the project site as suitable for low-density residential development. Policies and development guidelines are contained within the Land Use Element related to residential development and residential hillside development in particular. The Open Space Element contains policies addressing private development in and near areas with sensitive habitat or unique resources (as defined in the Open Space Element). The Housing,Circulation,Safety and Conservation Elements also contain policies relevant to the proposed development. Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. Mitigation will be necessary for compliance with relevant general plan polices. EIR Workscope: The EIR should include a discussion of relevant City general plan policies related to land use, safety, housing,environmental protection and conservation and an evaluation of project consistency with those policies. 11.NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of people to or generation of`unacceptable"noise 24 X levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance? b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne X vibration or groundborne noise levels? d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within X two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The project will generate noise during grading and construction. These activities are subject to the Noise Ordinance. To avoid exposing surrounding residents to excessive and prolonged amounts of noise,the following mitigation is recommended: Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. Mitigation: Grading and construction work shall occur during the weekdays only and not on Saturday,Sunday,or holidays. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the ro'ect: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly X (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Census data indicates that there is an average of 2.27 people per household. As proposed, the project would result in 23 new houses for an estimated total additional population in this area of 52.21 people. r CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 ell-a9 Issues, Discussion and Sup ting Information Sources Sources itially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant impact ER # 11-01 Bowden Ranch Issues unless Impact Mitigation Incorpopted Arragiment Conclusion: Less than significant. 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? 24 X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Roads,and other transportation infrastructure? X f) _ Other public facilities? ._ X Police:The City police force is adequately staffed to provide service to this site. Schools: The project will be subject to payment of school fees. Parks: The project will be subject to payment of park-in-lieu fees. Fire and Roads:The provision of public roads and emergency and fire access to the.site will require grading that may have an adverse physical impact on the environment. Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. Refer to the discussion under Biological Resources related to potential impacts resulting from proposed grading. EIR Workscope: The EIR should briefly summarize provision of public services to the project including servicing potential formal public access to the open space areas. 14. RECREATION. Would theproject: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks of 1 X other recreational facilities such that substantial Physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or X expansion of recreationall facilities,,which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Conclusion: Less than significant. With a maximum number of 23 households, the impacts on recreational facilities will be less than significant. Furthermore, the subdivision is.subject to payment of park in-lieu fees. Currently, informal trails lead through the site to the open hillsides beyond. The project is designed to retain access through the site to the existing hillside trails. Parking is provided on the southerly side of Lizzie Street for hikers. Mitigation is also recommended in the Transportation section of this initial study which would require provision of short-term bicycle parking to encourage hikers to bike to the site. It is not anticipated that the project will increase existing use of the trails. However, the EIR should address potential secondary impacts associated with trail use on existing and future residents of the area. EIR Workscope: The EIR should address current and proposed use of the trails leading through the site and up to the eastern hillsides;possible impacts on existing and future residents of the area in terms of traffic, litter, trespassing, privacy, and noise; adequacy of proposed parking for trail users; designated times for trail use; and the desirability of any additional amenities such as trash receptacles and informational signs. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 1,20 X existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? b) 'Exceed,either individually_or cumulatively,a,level of service CrrY of SAN Luis OstsPo 17 INITIAL STUDY ENvIRoNmENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 im.3o Issues, Discussion and Sup -..ng Information Sources Sources __,,Bally Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues unless Impact ER # 11-01 Bowden Ranch Inco M standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways? c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g. sharp X curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? X f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative X transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land X Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise, or a change in air trafficpatterns? The ITE Manual estimates approximately 10 trips per day for each single family house. As proposed, the project would increase daily trips by approximately 230. A traffic report was prepared for this project by Penfield and Smith Engineers and is incorporated herein by reference. The report analyzed peak hour impacts on the Lizzie Street and Johnson Avenue intersection and concluded that the additional traffic generated by this project will not reduce level of service at this intersection.At the peak hours between 7:00 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. and between 4:00 p.m.and 5:30 p.m., the project is projected to add roughly 17 and 23 trips respectively through the intersection. Existing traffic counts for this time period were 1,863 cars in the morning peak hour and 1,948 in the evening peak hour. The project, therefore,would increase peak hour traffic by roughly one percent. The three streets in the immediate vicinity of the project are classified as local streets, which have the capacity to serve this development subject to certain improvements. Woodland Drive and Wilding Lane will be improved to include sidewalks. A portion of Woodland drive will be widened. The Public Works Department has reviewed the project and their comments are attached. To enable emergency access, parking will only be allowed on one side of the street along the extended portion of Lizzie Street and Woodland Court. Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. Mitigation: To encourage hikers to bicycle to the site, consistent with alternative transportation policies in the Circulation Element, a bicycle rack shall be provided reasonably close to the trailhead. Local streets at the perimeter of the site and on-site streets shall be improved and constructed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and the Fire Marshall. EER Workscope: The EIR should summarize the findings of the traffic study prepared for this project, project improvements related to traffic, and relevant comments from the City's Public Works Department. 16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the ro'ect: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 1,24 X Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water X 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 X CFTY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 18 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 CX/_ r Issues, Discussion and Sup .....ng Information Sources Sources --'"a"' Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 11-01 Bowden Ranch Issues Unless Impact Mitigation IncoEeo t 1 from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and expanded water resources needed? d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider X which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand and addition to the provider's existing commitment? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations X related to solid waste? Water Availability: The City's Water Conservation Coordinator has reviewed the proposed subdivision and estimates that 23 homes would require approximately 10.3 acre-feet of water annually. As of December 4, 2001 the City has approximately 142 acre-feet of water available to allocate to infill 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 7,530 acre-feet per year. The City is pursuing the development of additional water supplies, including the Nacimiento Pipeline Project, the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project, expansion of groundwater resources, and the Water Reuse Project. Reuse of treated wastewater for non-potable needs, such 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 at buildout. Half that amount would be held in reserve. The other half would be used in place of potable water,thereby increasing the amount of potable 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 per 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, present demand is about 7,246 acre-feet per year. This number is recalculated annually using updated population estimates from the California Department of Finance. The difference between safe annual yield and present demand is 284 acre-feet per year, which is available to serve new development. Half this amount (142 acre-feet)is available for development in infill areas. The Utilities Department has reviewed this subdivision application and determined that it is consistent with the Water Management Element and that there is sufficient water supply available to serve site development, although water pressure may be an issue. Comments from the Utilities Department note that water pressure for the uppermost lots may not meet the City's objective of a minimum of 40 pounds per square inch at the water meter. (This is an objective as a matter of practice, but not a policy requirement.)Water supply calculations prepared by Engineering Development Associates indicate there should be at least 20 psi at the 460-foot contour, which is the City's service limit. The Uniform Building Code requires a minimum pressure of 15 psi at the furthest water fixture. With pressures below 40 psi, individual pumps may be required to provide adequate pressure for a fire sprinkler system and to deliver the level of water pressure occupants expect for domestic water needs. Conclusion: Less than significant. The Utilities Dept. states that water supply is adequate to serve the project, although delivering water at pressures that exceed the minimum requirements may involve additional design considerations. Storm Drainage: Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. See the discussion under Water and Hydrology. Solid Waste: Land Use Element Policy 1.15 Solid Waste Capacity states that: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 Iffy-3i Issues, Discussion and Sup tng Information Sources Sources `/tially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 11-01 Bowden Ranch Issues Unless Impact Mirigat' Inco a Ichmeni In addition to other requirements for adequate resources and services prior to development, the City must determine that adequate solid waste disposal capacity will be available before granting any discretionary land use approval which would increase solid waste generation. Solid waste from this site is delivered to Cold Canyon landfill, which currently has a capacity to accept solid waste for approximately 18 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 improve compliance with the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939)shows that Californians 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 its capacity in the year 2018. To help reduce the ongoing waste stream, the City recently adopted an ordinance which requires that a construction materials recycling plan be submitted with construction or demolition plans to help reduce waste and comply with Assembly Bill 939. Conclusion:Less than significant. EER Workscope: The EIR should summarize utility and service system requirements for the project and provide an expanded discussion of the proposed water delivery system to ensure adequate water pressure for domestic use as well as fire sprinklers. 17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? The initial study identifies that the project raises potentially significant impacts for all the issue areas checked in the table on page 3. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but X cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable futureprojects) Impacts discussed under the headings of aesthetics, biology,cultural resources,energy, hydrology and water quality could be considered to have cumulative significance. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause X substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? An EIR will be required to analyze the potential adverse environmental impacts associated with project development. Mitigation measures recommended in this initial study, along with mitigation proposed by the EIR consultant,will prevent the project from resulting in substantial adverse impacts on humans. CITY OF SAN LUIS OsisPO 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 C,A/-33 Initial Study Summary C �) Bowden Ranch Development At TR/PD/ER 11-01 achr??ent 5 18.EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. N/A b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. N/A 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. VA 19. SOURCE REFERENCES 1. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan 2. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Ordinance 3. ARC Guidelines 4. Information Map Atlas 5. 1998 Clean Air Plan, SLO APCD 6. City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines 7. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency 8. * Biological Survey, prepared by V.L.Holland, David Keil, and Francis Villablanca, dated December 2000; and su lenient dated January 2001 9. * Supplement to the Botanical Survey (part of the biological survey) prepared by V.L. Holland and dated July 20, 2001 10. * Woodrat Monitoring Report,prepared by Francis Villablanca and dated July 22,2001 11. * California Red-legged Frog Biological Assessment Report,prepared by Julie Schneider and dated November 6, 2000 12. * Biological Survey: Monarch Butterfly Habitat,prepared by Dennis Frey and dated January 2000 13. * Archival Records Search And Phase One Archaeological Surface Survey,prepared by Robert Gibson and dated July 17,2000 14. * Historic Review Report,prepared by Chattel Architecture,Planning,and Preservation,Inc.and dated December 21,2000 15. * Geotechnical Feasibility Report for Bowden Ranch Estates,prepared by Earth Systems Pacific and dated July 11, 2000 16. * Soils Engineering Report Bowden Ranch Estates,prepared by Earth Systems Pacific and dated August 23,2001 17. * Geotechnical Hazards Study for Bowden Ranch Estates,prepared by Earth Systems and dated July 19,2000 18. * Fire Management Plan,prepared by Oasis, and dated 8/30/01 19. * Bowden Ranch Drainage Analysis prepared by Jeff Emrick,EDA,and dated 12/21/01. 20. * Traffic Study prepared by Penfield Smith and dated 1/18/01 21. * Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Earth Systems Pacific and dated 11/13/00 22. * Water Systems Analysis prepared by Engineering Development Associates and dated 8/31/01 23. Comments from City departments and other agencies(attached) 24. San Luis Obispo City Municipal Code 25. * Letter from Earth Systems Pacific dated January 25,2002 regarding detention basins and debris flow 26. * Development Plan Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2420,prepared by Oasis Associates Inc.and dated January 2001 27. Final EIR for the Land Use and Circulation Element Updates,dated August 1994 * - Submitted by the applicant 61�.3y Initial Study Summary �' Bowden Ranch Development Attachment 5 TR/PD/ER 11-01 Attachments: Vicinity and project maps Applicant's summary of project mitigation Comments from City departments and other agencies wm/ER/ER 11-01 Bowden tract cy.3S -� - Attachment 5 Initial Study Summary Bowden Ranch Development TR/PD/ER 11-01 Summary of EIR Workscope Items/Recommended Mitigation Measures AESTHETICS EIR Workscope: To better understand the potential visual impacts of the project, field studies should be performed to identify vantage points from which site development would be most visible. A visual simulation of lot development, grading for streets, and proposed tree removal would enable a better evaluation of the magnitude of this impact. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EIR Workscope: The EIR should summarize the findings and recommended mitigation strategies in the biological resource reports submitted with the project application; evaluate the adequacy of recommended mitigation; and identify effective monitoring strategies. Where potential impacts are identified, they should be quantified if feasible. Where off-site in-kind mitigation is proposed, the off-site location should be identified and a restoration, management, and monitoring plan should be prepared or detailed criteria for such a plan should be provided. On-site mitigation should be described in terms of location, installation, management, and monitoring. Potential conflicting objectives contained within mitigation strategies should be resolved. Mitigation recommended in the biological survey report and in the report on Monarch butterflies includes restricting the planting of ornamentals and the use of biocides through covenants, codes and restrictions (CC&R's). While not unreasonable, establishing behavioral limitations on property owners through CC&R's is problematic from a practical enforcement and monitoring standpoint. Additional means of mitigation, such as establishment of biological easement areas, should be identified. The tree removal plan and the grading plan should be reviewed for potential impacts on sensitive habitat areas. Some additional cross-sections and road profiles would enable a better understanding of the potential impacts to existing trees and other sensitive species and habitats as a result of cuts and fills necessary for roads and emergency access. The preliminary grading plan should be reviewed for impacts to trees not shown for removal. The potential damage to oaks as a result of grading and construction is outlined on page 49 of the Biological Survey prepared by Holland, Keil, and Villablanca and dated December 2000. The extent of potential damage should be quantified. The EIR should document the extent of riparian habitat and include map exhibits that clearly delineates creek setbacks and distinguishes between setbacks from the edge of riparian habitat and setbacks from the top of creek bank. CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 23 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 CIIxv „«au►lment 5 Initial Study Summary _ J Bowden Ranch Development TR/PD/ER I1-01 The EIR should address the issue of resident use of pesticides and herbicides and identify means to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. The EIR should evaluate the project's potential impacts on local species of concern. CULTURAL RESOURCES Mitigation: A qualified archaeologist, familiar with both historic and pre-historic cultural resources, and approved by the Community Development Director, shall be retained to monitor project grading and trenching activities. If any archaeological resources are found during site preparation, all earth-work within 150 feet of object(s) shall cease until the resources have been evaluated by a archaeologist. Any additional mitigation measures recommended by the archaeologist shall be evaluated by the Community Development Director, and upon Director approval, implemented by the applicant. If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American monitor should be called in to work with the archaeologist to document and remove the items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal laws. A note concerning this requirement shall be included on the grading and construction plans for the project. EIR Workscope: The EIR should clearly identify likely impacts to historic resources on site as well as to the La Loma Adobe. It should provide project alternatives that do not impact the historic resources identified in Mr. Gibson's report. Where project alternatives will involve adverse impacts, the EIR should identify adequate means of mitigation. A qualified archaeologist, familiar with both historic and pre-historic cultural resources shall review project plans, and develop an historic monitoring plan which outlines the monitoring method and schedule; identifies the most sensitive areas; and includes a final report of results with map exhibits. The monitoring plan shall specify that if excavations encounter significant cultural materials, construction activities, which may affect them, shall cease until the extent of the resource is determined and the Community Development Director approves appropriate protective measures. Any additional mitigation measures recommended by the archaeologist shall be evaluated by the Community Development Director, and upon Director approval, implemented by the applicant. Given the likelihood of encountering historic resources and artifacts during on-site grading, a schedule for pre-construction monitoring should be established. This would involve trenching under the supervision of a qualified historic archaeologist approved by the Community Development Director. CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 24 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 CA(-P Initial Study Summary , Bowden Ranch Development Attachment 5 TR/PD/ER 11-0 1 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Mitigation: • All glazing shall be dual paned. • Wall and ceiling insulation shall exceed Title 24 energy standards to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. • Appliances, furnaces, water heaters, and lighting shall be high-efficiency and energy-conserving to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. • The project shall use energy-efficient street lights. • Landscaping plans for individual lots shall include shade trees along the southwestern side of the houses to reduce summer cooling needs. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Mitigation: All recommendations contained in the soils engineering report prepared by Earth Systems Pacific for Tract 2420 and dated April 23, 2001 (File No. SL-12332-SB) shall be incorporated into the project grading and construction. EIR Workscope: Alternatives to proposed detention basins or underground holding tanks on each lot, such as fewer and larger detention basins, should be evaluated. Slopes pose somewhat of a constraint in terms of grading necessary for roads and driveways as well as soil erosion. The EIR should include a slope analysis exhibit which distinguishes slopes across the site in the following categories: 0-5%, 6-10%, I1-15%, 16-20%, 21-25%, and 26% or more, prepared using City-approved methodology. The EIR should include an analysis of the extent of cut and fill necessary to achieve the maximum slopes for fire access (15%), fire truck turn-arounds (4%), and private driveways (20%). HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Mitigation: The Fire management plan shall be implemented as part of this project. CRY OF SAN Lum OHISPO 25 INITIAL STuDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 CX1-3� Initial Study Summary _ Attach Bowden Ranch Development (pint TR/PD/ER I1-01 5 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Mitigation: Prior to issuance of any grading permits for subdivision improvements, the subdivider shall submit copies of permits required by the Department of Fish and Game, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Regional Water Quality Control Board for work affecting wetlands and creeks. EIR Workscope: The EIR for this project should include: • a summary of the drainage analysis as prepared by the project civil engineer and reviewed by the City Public Works Department • an analysis of alternative methods of on-site storm water detention • a method for filtering storm water before discharging it into the creeks • a method for dissipating discharged storm water • an erosion control plan for construction activity and post construction soil stabilization, or detailed criteria for such a plan • an analysis of potential solutions or improvements to the existing storm drainage problem, such as increasing the intake capacity of the storm drain in Lizzie Street and capturing and redirecting storm water runoff in Woodland Drive The project description should provide preliminary details of such improvements to enable evaluation of their environmental impacts. LAND USE & PLANNING EIR Workscope: The EIR should include a discussion of relevant City general plan policies related to land use, safety, housing, environmental protection and conservation and an evaluation of project consistency with those policies. NOISE Mitigation: Grading and construction work shall occur during the weekdays only and not on Saturday, Sunday, or holidays. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 26 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 CZ/-3? Initial Study Summary Bowden Ranch Development TR/PD/ER I1-01 Attachment 5 PUBLIC SERVICES (environmental impacts of providing) EIR Workscope: The EIR should briefly summarize provision of public services to the project including servicing potential formal public access to the open space areas. RECREATION EIR Workscope: The EIR should address current and proposed use of the trails leading through the site and up to the eastern hillsides; possible impacts on existing and future residents of the area in terms of traffic, litter, trespassing, privacy, and noise; adequacy of proposed parking for trail users; designated times for trail use; and the desirability of any additional amenities such as trash receptacles and informational signs. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Mitigation: To encourage hikers to bicycle to the site, consistent with alternative transportation policies in the Circulation Element, a bicycle rack shall be provided reasonably close to the trailhead. Local streets at the perimeter of the site and on-site streets shall be improved and constructed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and the Fire Marshall. EIR Workscope: The EIR should summarize the findings of the traffic study prepared for this project, project improvements related to traffic, and relevant comments from the City's Public Works Department. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS EIR Workscope: The EIR should summarize utility and service system requirements for the project and provide an expanded discussion of the proposed water delivery system to ensure adequate water pressure for domestic use as well as fire sprinklers. Resources Available: All maps and studies submitted as part of the application. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 27 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 Cr'/-70 04 � � � 1 . ii Aij Attachment 5 'Tank 1 BM 152 4 ' i .i�._�. . J • ,' ' % i _ `\ Elti LAII N �`*'� t L ► i"\i""j PROJECT SITE AN ie. Hill I Excerpt—USGS San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map q A FIGURE 2 BOUNDARY MAP Oasis Associates,Inc. II.-4 January 2001 Bowden Ranch Estates Development Plan&Tentative Tract Map 2420 V Attachment 5 43, Eiji 19 •�/-.�\ RAN \ fF�� `�,�, \ \ v[v � 1 1 �k BAN A 1 ay. it Fir pr ol All " ' @Q I� O p 0 M _ 2 2 ;a JRD ti n m 1• � o cm uMrts Attachment 5 \\1-' ,\( � --•'.San.: :• � y���`^ \ __\ /�'°`( rx d Q P ,A �i 1p Attachment 5 y "� "A \ , T J r ...� yes=. `r Or� •`��' ! ` � -� �!" U r • �j s a • r � r 6�r.v�rvrr y�� � AF[F i �• � ei � � � O gg5RE9a4Qe�e�e�ie�e�teagq •� till '�^ $7�$�kkRERkk nnb 6 HOURoil 11 f.f e t■ nnnN� Attachment 5 E W O C U y� U L' O R w H U a o h o H 0u 2u c U y T V] Co dp0 yraIn �•I N C l!S ® Q A M C/] W Cd N � *aOPI S. Iwo + O w^ Q Aill G •x •b � N_ ^1 y Ic•Sd � 'd U � Q o` R c U o b ¢ x M r N 00 CIS M h 0. Attachment 5 c C G £ Y o p C a0i m a YCo E al w o ❑ r- 0o ID o W W fl W c c o ° N964 N �o C a C -0 = r co rz 0Q) Co 7O ce > E U r viCd C fl o a •O p C p y > O EU O > 4n d U c bo 3 3: N E cCa N U O Cd yam„ > O ti N C R Uoj .� o a a � •� Cl 0. o .a O c y a N ¢ O O .. O p r � aoo� o� O .j � Qgrnp°O, q � W .z o e° a ox � ova 'WR.�. w �4Z tt o R C via yr � � o N.� a, a F- e o oCO o > o Z d C7 Er ncmQ0owi - W = 14) y � a o a U o o o� ONCS F- ►►yyy v� r d O. - C4 Ute° a 4r a� A Q Z a y� � N z W h 0 ~ y U yW � 3 0 f� Attachment 5 wb ° 6 G N •' 'b b C 'C 7 N O .D cNC q V ` C O 00" cC b '�' '° i N y jG '� .� O .� N C y Fpo O a U v CCa E s q •N .° ° :° c N b > eow C ao N > N A N U O w p CC y G O w T Y.. O T.. yam, ..+ YO C N C Ur. ��. C d W W Cd O^ % .� f1 ~ t+ A �y ¢ y b00 p0 O O+ lu, C v� p °= '{cC�{a�,,� aCi o /o v -G �0 ° D ai i o o o o a O U •'r' i°. Y fO U N Y N 'O^�'O V. Co M w�V N �. Y-� M, N Y IC 4-i ° •° Gy °'C > v aCi p m C O i C «= 'N b Cd Cd C U is (u :b . O. 0C3 'b C LL eC f3. C�C c� O S cd C cc .b N N O N N E Ca ° .N. N .U. N G 'b C u CO U h N W CC U U 1± N M-� Y N O "� a. r .> ° U b A a « ° o u °3 o P] o w^ 0 5 3 b ;; b m N ° O F bCa ° ,� m U p o .N b I b aNCi > U - p b o C C a c��a y n ,� C7 �.. o o ° o O u v co N > Ca C ° .tw o far [y C U C G v C .�� ? C -C > U 5 'Y v ° cnd v U b y y d ° � � � � NaDycwzGJ � K � � ox°' ocs m ` CS E N' .fl.YG °� o 3 a� tt� ON CO C ms U 'b o U >= ° 7 0 a =1 0as o a5L1 .. a c 35 .= 5 `N° Ca o a ¢ o � . Z .� Z c� � 6�' P: rs ° ° N [•j N O 'rz 1 a o 4Ca U 2t Co o e a w Q > C Q N O z A cC0 vs Ce I C Lay •� Q � dxo c�A' '•� � Q Q 't3 N �C i y W r Ca o W " tl o o , z ., " a� q Ll . o W �, o a o o Wa O ° Co O o o'o � � iU o ° Octi rj Cc W O W �'_ v N o � � � � �•� � ooyNo � O LL�i U rho � to 4, oQ � .� o -Za W n4ti ovi l a o � N ° x ok, a cO o ° e �Ct3 m a� roa v c � a � � Ll m � N ~ o oQON tos o4ij W W o0. a>i I � ayQ a F rs ma �" to U .Y . CC m o� o~ E C 0 o y to a c�i y a r4 i° o c o o a£i o��° �� y 5 'o Q o�ip C � o o w ova Ci � � $M.•z � - c o � Q w 000tiUx ¢ waox �w � gwQ �� � > ro � � w a e CL -- N M Q� -• N M � C N N I� Q F � � v z a W � � z � w o Cc x W o 3 0 ¢1 Cy—�� h L > m b ed O 7 v N > U b 4. •C .c p to m U =° o ° c � N ° Eu 0 3L ao wO aCO m yU w mU Or1l0 OC > cd AO4° 0 U o -Go o a o m o o U a t/1 ° o F U m I o o 0 ° b cLa .o o to a y ci 4" aUi Uc Ln " ° 3 (U m = `Ld > n m to p d o a � .d L ipsi, Q+ •-°a-, oU o o41 c > aa �U m> �m U m Ca = 4d Y 0 UU � al s ° ° o ¢-U , s pC" 0. Cd to ca — cd H U-1 •E�. `C _ b LW Cca [a moL emE ° u U . 'co; Cd U U u bD > o U O ~ y°a sCa 'Ito o aoaLU.. d i N m Q 0 u m y o ie U •r v U . b e I � :° o U ❑ .0 . w U d ch U av N � b u U m n b v b L va C v Q 0 O m sUr h 0 .y O y y m C U '4„ b y *- m U m o U }•' W O O C O m O u 3 .c y 4^r �4•bm^D m C Ar O 4r am. ca O .u N U 'm y p ._ '0 R O L O y m a) n1 0 0 0 .. .�+ �N/ pD E m U O c0 r a N = ^ W r.r' ^ N fir' f^" pi L rd cw LO O N .n .� 'x 'C ^- 43i U '� ^ .° cai c a � U Ea v ypa .E E � 3 co AU a>i � -0 3 :n a Lo. a o6 3a; U •� hod3 Q. O o � hY y « U Z oo UO bo � W � 00 U AQ h W o qc W ,C r Q Lc e �. 4 °o 0. v = o p- o e v m Q d m b ❑ o r� o•� N o a o = .b L �d WG4 0 y43U I y cd coal o ca 03 N U G O x >0 CD > w > W m� p d ►y cn �C ra ^N � � A ... W � C .M O tm. U m '•' 'tS w Q = UQ � Ua2, iY004In a� � c a E a U Q y H v O � ca z � N a 4 V v o a z ° W � 3 0 N��7 ..- -.. -_. ' N 4. Icy � O � �}3 00 .� o •7 �ce ^ � y w o a b mrm a ••.. le c X ca o v a y - v �' t U a� ° Q 0 a Q` un cd ,� i u •C. C m m 0 .� moo . yo N c � apU0a 0 , :0 �L. .b ,� m cue A Gw . . d. 0-4 Ca � V fe 3 � ° .n.D0 � � co 'onwyo w :z - , oU o E E cp y ❑ fl •� v zv] z . �° c ' aNi w > Eo a a�icpEY b Cj ° z z a F, Q U W z a ca C/1 iVy C w cu Q E a 0 v Q a z � a Q N W � y' U O O C W .o tj d � 3 0 a0 _ C - Attachment 5 N S o i IS cC CO w O O o ° 5 c c t' Cr r. l i M m 'o v a U � �'ro i wC,u Cd _ c 2 o o ti DaUi tl ° 'ups L ao a O NO cU0 N .fl C C •ti ."� CIJ b O y N AN O •� ,c y ce O > .� OCa —0 ca p m O C U •� o w b •F O C C •C w 00 Cd 0. 0 Cts V A (L) Cd zw .-. C N O o. O 0 'd .0 C E U U h U chi 0. Co O O c�0 a0 0. o c G wO W ° 3 G 3 ^� a U CZ O ° Co o CroS °o' er ° a m ° a �' 'c b o [r~rh� 5n do v A ° ani P; .G cTa 3 Ca 0E ' ti > 00•> = U .0Ca U cE U 'ti CO O o. y N O N U N i0 � � a G > o ' '� ° o cam„ ; N .0 o ° � .� y � b y w > o C Cy «° U ca w^ U ^ y F A O o ... "O .0 b N cO N 'C y U a+ sU.. y '� y •p "� O y e V y ctl '� N C a �, •• tb M 8 c 8 o 0 o b Ij °' w d � w w -0 — �. cC U d w > F'o U .,+ L a N U }i C N f7J1 0 _W > 00j �U! O"U �.. '� 0.•b .0 U > G y o. ¢. m o o G ClG d cc C S o W .a t 8 w w F Z b as -o A w . A 0 u U U .-. N •-• N M � C �i •ti s.. o 511. u y Z qa � co � � A ah � o 0 0 q o E G o W U 4- to, $ fix ° = ` v ° y tw GG o U -0 A � .❑ o c H Ll bA E �' E W v sC o 0-4 q° mU ' o W Co N"' S o c xti h o J C o c o N 8 0 cC y U , 'D k y r cd C cd C fn q � ewc7c7 � a ¢ qo ¢ � � w ¢ o. o. Q •-- N Q ^ N O C �q r C z Y A 0 z W 3 0 ,1CG Attachment H y � V Ec "oczo UE «+ "' U OU M17 4 Gi y o U w U 00 E C. c0 y cd O O +' U A y UUE .S co W G. U .0 .� U N U cd o O '"' U •N as U A 0° o a b Yr. O y a O cz O �0-0 Q ^� o v coo C coa��i0 Ea: bb0co gbo cEb � a°i Ca moa .: cc Op 3 o E > .0 v N3 as U v y N y . O Yui d fC fd 0 w Q cam/] ca 3 x w a w p r a b V1 N M N CA O W O C W w z �._ O •y N M y t+7 krj U o 's o a fJr O 1do ca V � � •r z F vu o 0.-0 d o o c � � tr v� � 0. N A F q °? o0 r.. e 20CIA W Q u Cha � W 000 L � Az F/1 Q O N V Z q u a W W U ami D G C/) a .. r ZZ v C 3 0 o� cz/ Attachment 5 c tn o cu U as y N N y O c 0.^ .� - . . C u C C aci U = O O O w cn iO. �'"M"a 'O O O C F `� O ca r N Nto m ti «� V Ccu W- O cd a+ •OD � vc aoio n � D � co � n � 00y 0 � cl c 0c � s 5w 0 -0 � 3 � � oy ,x, � � E a Q o c v o o0 0 m * a• w . v 23 ca D � cca c v � � � o � '� � o " �� 4i cyov `° o � iQ a z .. a Qc c yA N M. o i <o � �n-0 as a � E53v a'� = bw :. rd °ca yam ° a �.. 0 Id 4 c 0 O � UOC V >O O > t VZi cz 14; ucts 'dyA •.� O •N CJ O c0 O w �, rn OA'dC's c0 �•+ O c0 O > y 0. •� QO^ ca .b U A •d `n c0 N. y .L cyd �� Oq b O 'L7 W 3 to E U w N � v..+ ca 'C c0 r ¢ COO y ^0 O y i0 ' a " O O > .O 'b � 0 ¢ 3 � Ad � U ..l b y o m i �° aN ° a0F : s U w • • • o ..1r' W 000 r. w 0 0 v � .� 0.. w • rz U z 'o O 0 O a d o r o o Ro R N W •� N WU 4° 4 -4- V U W Z 'c v cyo y y o71� w �0. C4 yQN "' � O z V CO Ln 00 E.. Q o e - > m y e E ^j unU e ° U - � ? =wa w � T 0 N q a c dc � $ o � = v Q a� > m o m o o > r o m W ...� CU C4) W0. � � v� 04 y d A O 0 Q � � z N ate+ '►� y� y ZS � ti N yJ \ V � � •y W 5 � M � '►�6 0 0 D7 eye C Attachment 5 Ue E F o m H Y O R _ v U p o y m R o s to o U O 0 Cj G E b b v Q o o o a i 0] R Co a},i a a : a Co m ax .y tu C $ c ¢ ti 3 N ¢ E U p cC°i T O O R U Cobo o CL.0 'b y C ti1:1 O 06 Co cd o ~ V . myO C •G : W .a cCa O O 0 N N L V R h ° R ° a eu a Ca E 5NU .a oa oU nj -- N cel 03 C y y O 7 Z w QJ .°o U N a (U b (Z i ..�". W O Cd 00 -.R •� Si w d U 'y z C w j tl O r cc > O FI y- C1O C o p �+ . W . z C O S q F O •� c� V W p � •Co ., y yU O i S O O Ni, d ca �l O\ 'Ct C. h O 4 y en i R rN dCS 0ZI p 0-4C � Cl v o> N O CSO vi oa y o e i o 4 C5 wo Q a C'4m y c O o w O Er ¢ N E � Q .a o H n R Z 0. zw yj y V ~ h d w U b 3 0 W Cy y Attachment 5 Project Address 1636 WOODLAND Parcel # 002-352-018 Date Generated 02/26/01 Application Number 11-01 Legal Description CY SLO PTN PIEDMONT TR & T30S R12E PTN SEC 25 Zoning 1 R-1-SP Zoning 2 Property Owner KUDEN JOHN V TRE ETAL In Care Of Owner Address 1580 LIZZIE ST SLO, CA 9340373605 Applicant Name BOWDEN RANCH PARTNERS, J.V. Day Phone (805)237- 7489 Applicant Address 5875 STOCKDALE RD., PASO ROBLES, CA 93446 Representative Name C.M. FLORENCE, OASIS ASSOC. Day Phone (805)541- 4509 Representative Address 3427 MIGUELTTO CT. SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 ER Review of a proposed tentative map to create 23 residential lots plus a lot for open space purposes Fish & Game/Negative Dec. TR tentative map to create 23 residential parcels and one parcel for open space purposes TR 24 lots PROJECT WILL ALSO INVOLVE A REZONING FROM R-1-SP TO R-1-S WHITNEY McLVAINE @ 781-7164 Return with comments to WHITNEY MCLVAINE by 03/23/01 Routed to: APCD ( 1 copies) Building (Site Grading) ( 1 copies) Transportation ( 1 copies) Natural Resources Manager ( 1 copies) Fish & Game ( 1 copies) School Districts ( 1 copies) County Planning ( 1 copies) Long-range Planning ( 1 copies) Building Reg. ( 1 copies) Parks & Recreation ( 1 copies) Cy^S_57� Attachment 5 m E m o Ra n b u m M s.`:� 7S'— s April 12, 2001 FROM: Michael Clarke —City Biologist SUBJECT: Bowden Estates Biological Survey (Appendix E-G) In general the biological assessments contained within appendices E-G are very well researched and presented. Biological Survey— Appendix E Most of the adverse environmental impacts identified can be mitigated for by a combination of re-alignment of lots 12-15 (page 45) as shown in Figure 1, page 7; and through open space designation. However, the following points must also be addressed: t. The revised lot alignment (dated 12/27/00), shows that lot 13 still impinges into the area that is designated as habitat for San Luis mariposa lily (CNPS List 1B); San Luis dudleya (CNPS List 1B) and Palmers spine flower (List 4). Additional off-site mitigation may be requested for this impingement. 2. Covenants, conditions and restrictions governing the planting of ornamentals should be imposed to protect adjacent vegetation and Monarch butterfly habitat (page 48). 3. Specimens of Hoffmann's sanicle removed by development should be replaced in the creek setback areas at a ratio of 5:1 (page 50). 4. Mitigation for habitat and population loss of San Luis morning glory in lots 16 through 21 is required (page 51). 5. Reduce or eliminate cross and back fencing-to maintain migration corridors (Page 52). 6. Recommended that a spring census is performed for listed special status species e.g. wood rats (page 52 and 56). 7. During construction a temporary barrier should be placed at the edge of the oak canopy to protect root systems from soil compaction (page 54). ey-5t Attachment 5 Bowden Ranch Development Page 2 11. Other: A. Lot layouts don't seem to reflect topography, and significant cut and fill slopes/retaining walls will be necessary adjacent to Lizzie Court and Woodland Court. Lots 9, 10, 12 and 17-14 may be particularly difficult to blend into the site's natural topography. A grading plan with street elevations, building envelopes and FFEs, and finish grades of natural features (significant trees and rock outcrops) is needed to gauge the plan's design feasibility and effects. B. In general, the subdivision might work better with Lizzie cul-de-sac lower down on the hillside and lots 11 — 17 reconfigured to minimize grading and allow use of common driveways. For custom, high end housing, these are small lots that will probably have huge houses. For example, when setbacks and excessively steep portions are excluded, Lots 12 and 13 may need to be combined into one lot to create a large enough site for one house. C. This is the type of site that a residential cluster project would be ideally suited for. Large, custom-lot development may not work here, at least not at the density and number of lots proposed. Conversely, for Residential Suburban density (1 unit per acre), the project appears too dense. Given the many environmental and physical constraints, a more creative, environmentally-sensitive project is needed. D. The applicant's "Development Plan" booklet contains several inaccuracies or incomplete statements given as conclusions. From the project information provided and the potential environmental issues, including water service, biological and visual impacts, geotechnical and grading/drainage issues, wildfire safety, neighborhood compatibility issues and GP consistency, infrastructure, an EIR appears likely. E. Is there any reason why we would want to see a specific plan for this project as opposed to a"development plan?" Perhaps a PD rezoning would be appropriate to tie the approval to a specific design. !h/Ucurrentdevelopment/bowdenranchdevelopment C� ® - Attachment 5 8. All populations of rare plants should be marked prior to grading and protected. If they are within the disturbance area, a qualified ecologist shall prepare a litigation plan to protect these species (page 56). Monarch Butterfly Habitat Survey— Appendix F 1. In addition to the 30 meter core habitat identified in attachment 6.2, all the trees also identified on page 8 must also be protected in order to maintain the integrity of the micro- climate of the core habitat. 2. Development on lots immediately adjacent to this core area (i.e. 7, 8 on the revised plan) should be minimized during months of November through February (page 8). 3. The application of herbicides and/or pesticides should be prohibited (page 8) California Red-Legged Frog Assessment—Appendix G 1. Area was identified as suitable CRLF habitat although none were found during the survey, recommendations on page 5.should be followed. cy s�' • 5 April 10, 2001 Attachment TO: Whitney McIlvaine FROM: Long-Range Planning Division BY: Jeff Hook SUBJECT: ER and TR 11-01, Bowden Ranch Development, 1636 Woodland Bowden Ranch Partners propose a 23-lot residential subdivision on a 40-site. The Land Use Element designates this site as the Woodland Drive Specific Planning area, and includes hillside development standards to address site-specific concerns. This promises to be difficult project. No shortage of General Plan, environmental, subdivision design, and open space issues here. Pertinent GP policies include: 1. Land Use Element Sections 2.1 and 2.2 regarding Neighborhood Protection and Enhancement, and Residential Location, Uses and Design. 2. LUE 2.2.12 on Residential Project Objectives. 4. LUE 6.2.6(B) — Specific Plan requirements for the Woodland Drive Area. The applicant's "Development Plan"doesn't appear to meet requirements 1-6, and 8. 5. LUE 6.6.4 — Archaeological Resources; provide copies of Phase 1 study with project application. 6. Housing Element Sections 1.22.10 (Inclusionary Housing Requirement), 1.27.1- 1.27.4 (Neighborhood Quality), and 1.29.1 (energy conservation). 7. Open Space Element Sections A (Hills and Mountains), B (Creeks), E (Plants and Animals), K (Outdoor Recreation), and Chapt. III, Management Policies of Open Space and Greenbelt Areas. 8. Safety Element Policies 2.2 (Wildland Fire Safety) and 3.2 (Avoiding Slope Instability) 9. Energy Conservation Element programs 32 and 33. 10. Lot areas above the URL should be dedicated in fee or easement as permanent open space, with a dedicated public access easement for the main trail through the site. J Gy s^y City of San Luis Obispo Community DevelopmeSpepartment Project Review 990 Palm Street _i San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 The City has received the following application and would like your comments.Attachment 5 Project Address 1636 WOODLAND Parcel# 002-352-018 Date Printed:02/22/01 Routed to: APCD(1 copies) Application Number 11-01 Building(Site Grading)(1 copies) Legal Description CY SLO PTN PIEDMONT TR&T30S R12E PTN SEC 25 Transportation copies) Zoning 1 R-1-SP Zoning 2 Natural Resourccee s Manager(1 copies) Property Owner KUDEN JOHN V TRE ETAL Fish&Game(1 copies) In Care Of School Districts(1 copies) Owner Address 1580 LIZZIE ST County Planning(1 copies) Long-range Planning( 1 copies) Building Reg.(1 copies) SLO CA 93403-3605 Parks&Recreation(1 copies) Fire Department( 1 copies) Street Trees(Pk.Fmn.)(1 copies) Applicant Name BOWDEN RANCH PARTNERS,J.V. Day Phone(805)237-7489 Utilities(1 copies) Applicant Address 5875 STOCKDALE RD., PASO ROBLES,CA 93446 RGU.MA bt_ T-V-t P Representative Name C.M.FLORENCE,OASIS ASSOC. Day Phone(805)541-4509 Representative Address 3427 MIGUELITO CT.SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA.93401 eh ER Review of a proposed tentative map to create 23 residential lots plus a lot for First action date. 04/25/01 PC open space purposes —, Fish&Game/Negative Dec. First action date: .NULL. NU TR tentative map to create 23 residential parcels and one parcel for open space TR2420 24 lots First action 11*: 04/25!01 PC purposes E3 "�.J Resource Deficiency Certification: 'e Cr 0 r f H i C d 1 P Y S /j e, C _This project can be adequately accommodated without overloading the city's facilities and t c p g S C r l resources. (Municipal Code Chapter 2.44) 1 \ This project cannot be accommodated because jh A c S t 0 S - 1�1 i F�. ..T� of This deficiencies explained here or attached. ` 1 }_ { (Municipal Code Chapter 2.44) 4 �"O.1 1 rJ r/-2 li�,�,..,. e- �� !�` G.y n\r/ n••� L -C .. Signed Date 3 ) 2Return �J Return with comments to WHITNEY MCLVAINE by 03/23/01 ryo�q �– 5�-r" .f J 7FG PROJECT WILL ALSO INVOLVE A REZONING FROM R-1-SP TO R-1-S WHITNEY McILVAINE @ 781-7164 Although not required, comments and conditions are encouraged to be sent to the above planner via e-mail utilizing Microsoft Word format. C441-6 C) • ` AIR POLLUTIOt" CONTROL DISTRICT `= Attachment couur,r or SAN :-1.ns Q815P(� 5 DATE: March 16, 2001 TO: Whitney Mclvaine City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department FROM: Heather Tomley, Air Quality.Specialist '4�r San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District SUBJECT: Bowden Ranch Estates; Application#11-01 Thank you for including the APCD in the environmental review process. We have completed our review of the application for the Bowden Ranch Estates located off of Lizzie Street and Woodland Drive in San Luis Obispo. We have the following comments regarding the proposal. COMMENDATIONS We would first like to commend the applicant on several areas of the project design. 1. The project provides development within the city limits, with nearby access to transit services (SLO Transit Routes 1 and 3), which will reduce dependence on driving. 2. Pedestrian environment enhancements have been included,which will encourage walking: • The development has reserved an area for open space, which will maintain the aesthetics of the neighborhood. • Sidewalks have been proposed for inclusion along both sides of the streets, where applicable. RECOMMENDATIONS District staff assessment of the potential construction and operation air emissions indicate that the project will not exceed our CEQA significance thresholds. Therefore, no specific air quality mitigations are required. In order to reduce the potential for nuisance concerns to nearby properties during the construction phase of the project however, the District recommends inclusion of the following fugitive dust mitigation measures: • Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible. • Speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface. • Should airborne dust be observed to leave the construction site area, water from water trucks or another source must be applied in sufficient quantities to reduce those emissions. In addition, increasing the energy efficiency at the site will decrease demand on electrical supply, thus reducing emissions at the power plant source. Therefore, the District recommends including the following energy efficiency measures: • Increase wall and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements. 3433 Roberto Court • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 • 805-781-5912 • FAX, 805-781-1002 deanair@sloapcd.dst.ca.us www.sloapcd.dst.ca.us (%�j printed on recycled paper `��/ Bowden Ranch Estates Attachment 5 March 16, 2001 Page 2 Energy Efficiency Measures (Continued) • Orient buildings to maximize natural heating and cooling. • Plant shade trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer cooling needs. • Use built-in energy efficient appliances. • Use double paned windows. • Use street lights. • Use energy efficient interior lighting. Again, a appreciate the opportunity to review the project. If you have any questions or comme is please contact me at 781-5912. H:%01W PONSEV329.HAT exl-L L Community Developme -'epartment Project Review 990 Palm street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Attachment 5 The City has received the following application and would like your comments. Project Address 1636 WOODLAND Parcel# 002-352-018 Date Printed:02/2V01 Routed to: APCD(1 copies) Application Number 11-01 Building(Site Grading)(1 copies) Legal Description CY SLO PTN PIEDMONT TR&T30S R1 2E PTN SEC 25 Transportation(1 copies) Natural Resources Manager(1 Zoning 1 R-1-SP Zoning 2 copies) Property Owner KUDEN JOHN V TRE ETAL Fish&Game(1 copies) In Care Of School Districts(1 copies) Owner Address 1580 LIZZIE ST County Planning(1 copies) Long-range Planning(1 copies) Building Reg.(1 copies) Parks&Recreation(1 copies) SLO CA 93403-3605 Fire Department(1 copies) Street Trees(Pk.Fmn.)(1 copies) Applicant Name BOWDEN RANCH PARTNERS,J.V. Day Phone(805)237-7489 Utilities(1 copies) Applicant Address 5875 STOCKDALE RD.,PASO ROBLES,CA 93446 Representative Name C.M.FLORENCE,OASIS ASSOC. Day Phone(805)541-4509 Representative Address 3427 MIGUELITO CT.SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401 ER Review of a proposed tentative map to create 23 residential lots plus a lot for First action date. 04/25/01 PC open space purposes Fish&Game/Negative Dec. First action date: .NULL. NU TR tentative map to create 23 residential parcels and one parcel for open space TR2420 24 lots First action date: 04/25/01 PC purposes (L,�tResource Deficiency Certification. Addy 1 On� I /1` Y1 471 _This project can be adequately accommodated without overloading the city's facilities and resources. (Municipal Code Chapter 2.44) �1( L rp Cy e JGfJtiC�t/ ✓This project cannot be accommodated because utility deficiencies explained here or attached. (Municipal Code Chapter 2.44) �erh cap b e r c�,m�rx?�lac�( . Signed (, ^1 Date 4"20-01 — Return with comment EY MCLVAINE by 03/23/01 PROJECT WILL ALSO INVOLVE A REZONIN FROM R-1-SP TO R-1-S WHITNEY McILVAINE @ 781-7164 Although not required, comments and conditions are encouraged to be sent to the above planner via e-mail utilizing Microsoft Word format. 4CW-63 • Post-it®Fax Note 7671 pa°gesb. EColDept. "Ofn SI Co. Fire Department Phone Phone# r�41- lei Fax# Fax# 1. Fire Department Access: Affachmenf 5 Code Requirement: Access shall be in accordance with Article 9 of the California Fire Code. Access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet. Access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of a 60,000 pound fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Road grade shall not exceed 15%. Condition: Fire Department access appears to exceed the maximum grade of 15% in some areas. On site access and turn-arounds shall be required if any portion of the first story of a structure is located more than 300' from Fire Department access. Minimum vertical clearance shall be no less than 13' 6". 2. Water Supplies: Code Requirement: Water supplies shall be in accordance with Sections 901 and 903 of the California Fire Code. An approved water supply connected to the City distribution system and capable of providing the required fire flow for fire protection is required. The fire flow shall be determining using Appendix III-A of the California Fire Code. Condition: Fire mains will need to be extended and installed in Lizzie and Woodland Court. A fire flow analysis shall be required to detemline the adequacy of the existing and proposed extension of the water system. 3.Fire Hydrants: Code Requirement: Fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with Section 903.4 of the California Fire Code. The location,number and type of hydrants connected to the City system shall be determined using Appendix III-B of the California Fire Code and the approved City Engineering Standards. Fire hydrants shall be installed and serviceable prior to combustible construction. Condition: Plans do not show utility improvements or locations of fire hydrants. 4. Fire Safety During Construction: Code Requirement: Buildings undergoing construction, alteration or demolition shall be in accordance with Article 87 of the California Fire Code. Condition: Fire extinguishers shall be provided for buildings under construction. Combustible debris,waste material or rubbish shall not be accumulated within buildings. 6. Wildland Urban Interface: Applicant shall prepare and submit for approval a vegetation management plan. Fire Department Attachment 5 (from Darren Drake 11-20-01 via J Kenny) 1. Fire Hydrants shall be installed to City standards; locations to be determined by the Fire Marshall during the subdivision improvement plan check process, in accordance with City regulations. Additional hydrants will be required at the end of Lizzie Court and near the intersection of Woodland Dr. and Woodland Court. 2. The proposed fire hydrants shown on the tentative map, within Lot 12 and Lot 23 shall be private and incorporated into the required "common driveway and utility easements", which shall include an agreement for common maintenance and operation of the private fire line and hydrant, as well as the driveway, to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshall. Cy 6T i t Bureau i Tite Prevention Memorandum Attachment � I. To: Whitney Mcilvaine f From: Darren Drake, Fire Marshal 4 i Date: 11/28/01 i Re: Bowden Ranch Estates I I I have completed my review of the Fire Management Plan for the Bowden Ranch Estates — Tract 2420. The following comments should be transmitted to the applicant and the additional information shown on the vesting tentative tract map. t 1. Show the location of the existing fire hydrants on Woodland Dr. and Lizzie. 4 2. Show the required fire department tum-around at the ends of the private driveways. f 3. Add a note in the Fire Management Plan under Fire Vehicle.Access and Circulation that addresses the permanent designation and posting of fire lanes. i 4. Pg.7 of the plan, Roofs shall have a Class A rating not Class C. S. Under the heading Siding and Exterior Awnings change the wording from should be enclosed to I shall. 6. Any fences abutting the wild land interface shall be constructed of non-combustible materials. i 'r f I i I I • Page 1 1 A Fire Department ( 1 copies) Attachment 5 Street Trees (Pk. Finn.) ( 1 copies) Utilities ( 1 copies) Please provide comments on YOUR page Public Works Comments (See separate Arborist Comments) Additional information required to complete comments: The grading plan needs to show the necessary cuts and 1111s to accommodate the driveway and streets for evaluation purposes. Driveway grading to provide reasonable access to the respective lots must be shown, particularly off the steep private driveways. The proposal for dealing with the drainage channel from the outlet of the pipe under Woodland Court to the main channel is necessary. Show basic channel design and improvement requirements for staff consideration to accommodate a 10-year storm, with provisions to contain a 100-year storm to preclude flooding on downstream lots. Also, show what's intended to be constructed with the tract lot development- to accommodate all other runoff to preclude cross-lot drainage. (combination of berms, v-ditches and "curbed cutoff walls",etc.?) It may be desirable to realign the end of Lizzie Ct. (curve CDS northerly) to provide for possible better driveway access and slopes,to upper lots— hopefully to be able to meet Fire Dept.'s access concerns. CONDITIONS: (preliminary) The final map shall accommodate the City-adopted street sections for Woodland Drive (between Wilding Lane and Woodland Court) and Wilding Lane. [16.45 m (54 ft.) R/W and 10.4m (34 ft.) curb to curb and 1.5 in (5 ft.) wide detached sidewalks. The street cross-section for Lizzie Court shall be increased by 8 ft., adjacent to the parking turnout. Any additional rights of way or easements needed to accommodate the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) sidewalk requirements behind driveway ramps shall be dedicated on the final map. C�'�7 i \ ` --� Attachment 5 The proposed Wilding Lane right of way abandonment, as shown on the tentative map, is not approved. However, any"excess" right of way along Woodland Drive, between Wilding lane and Woodland Court will be abandoned as part of the final map process, rather than under the California Streets & Highways Code procedures. Complete street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the most current City regulations, City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Standards and Standard Specifications (integral curbs, gutters & 2m sidewalks (except where detached sidewalks are specifically approved), full width street pavement, signing, striping, barricades, street lights, etc.). Common driveway and utility agreements are required for the three private driveways, to the satisfaction of the Community Development and Public Works Directors, per City standards and regulations. The driveways and utility extensions shall be done as subdivision improvement requirements. Concrete pavement is required for"common driveways" with greater than 15% slope (unless approved otherwise by the Public Works Director and Chief Building Official) and individual driveways greater than 20% slope. The subdivider shall be responsible for necessary adjustments to existing fire hydrants, public and private utility and drainage services and any other affected facilities, to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Utilities Directors. The "open space" lot shall be numbered on the final map, unless it is deeded to the City prior to final map approval. The subdivider shall dedicate a 2m wide public utility 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. 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 The subdivider shall install street lighting and all associated facilities (conduits, sidewalk vaults, fusing, wiring, luminaires, etc.) per City standards, including off site street lighting along roadways leading to and from the proposed development, as determined by the City Engineer. 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 Public Works Director and Utilities Engineer. WAG Attachment 5 The subdivider shall place underground, all existing overhead utilities adjacent to the tract boundary along the public street frontage(s), to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and utility companies. A detailed hydrology study indicating the effects of the proposed development on adjacent and downstream properties is required. The scope of the study must include analysis of all existing public and private drainage facilities and creek capacities between this property and an adequate point of disposal and shall make recommendations for appropriate improvements that will reduce flooding. If the study identifies areas that are subject to flooding during a 100-yr storm event, and those areas are not identified or differ from the current Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the developer may be required to process and complete a Federal Emergency Management Agency Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA), or, Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to final acceptance of any development. Any lots or building pads, identified in the hydrology study to be subject to flooding during a 100-yr storm shall be graded to provide minimum pad elevations of at least 1 foot above the 100-yr storm elevation. Any necessary clearing of existing creek and drainage channels within the tract boundary, including tree pruning or removals, and any necessary erosion repairs shall be to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, the City's Natural Resources Manager and the Dept. of Fish & Game. All lots shall be graded to preclude cross-lot drainage, or, appropriate easements and drainage facilities shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 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 satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Prior to acceptance by the City of public improvements, the developer's engineer shall submit a digital version of all public improvement plans & record drawings, compatible with Autocad(Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 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. Gy Traffic impact fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permitAttaChment 5 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. Transportation Attachme 1. Parking Prohibitions. The subdivider shall post the southern curbline of Lizziet S Court and Woodland Court. as "No Parking — Fire Lane." Parking will be prohibited along one side of"A" Court; the side where parking is restricted will be based on driveway and fire hydrant locations. Prior to completion of improvement plans, subdivider shall submit to the Transportation Staff, for consideration, a plan that stipulates the location and extent of the no parking area along "A" Court. Cif 71 Transportation Attachment 5 Parking Prohibitions. The subdivider shall provide necessary signage along the southern curb lines of Lizzie Court (except parking turnout) and Woodland Court as "No Parking — Fire Lane", to the approval of the Public Works Director and Fire Marshall per City standards e4-7Z- Street Trees (Pk. Fmn.) Attachment 5 Street trees are required along all public street frontages per City standards, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist, with building permits on the respective lots. Species are to be approved by the City Arborist and Natural Resources Manager(in creek areas). All tree removals necessary to construct the public streets, private driveways and grading certain rear yards adjacent to creeks, are subject to a master tree removal permit, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. All other trees within the development areas, not specifically approved for removal, shall remain and be protected during the construction process, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist and Natural Resources Manager. If the City Arborist determines any trees require safety pruning, all pruning shall be performed by a certified Arborist, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. C�-73 Utilities Attachment 5 Code Requirements A water allocation is 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. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued. Both the Water and Wastewater Impact Fees are charged on a "per residential unit"basis. By ordinance, the applicant is required to prepare a recycling plan for approval by the City to address the recycling of construction waste for projects valued at over $50,000 or demolition of structures over 1000 square feet. The recycling plan shall be submitted to the Building Department with the building plans. The City's Solid Waste Coordinator can provide some guidance in the preparation of an appropriate recycling plan. Conditions The City tries to provide a minimum of 40 psi to its water customers. Above elevation 440 in this vicinity, the water pressure can drop below 40 psi. The applicant shall perform a water pressure and fire flow analysis that demonstrates how each lot will receive a minimum pressure of 40 psi. This analysis shall assume the worst-case condition of minimum water elevation at the tank and shall assume appropriate system losses during a fire flow event. 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. ay_7f I Of SAn hAIS OBISPO 879 Morro Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 October 9, 2001 Attachment 5 Jeff Emrick Engineering Development Associates 1320 Nipomo Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Subject: Tentative Tract 2420—Bowden Ranch Subdivision Dear Mr�'ck, I have partially reviewed the latest submittal on the above-mentioned project. While the plans present no new issues, several old issues remain. Primarily, the old issues relate to the ability of the water system to provide minimum pressures to the upper lots. In addition, the water system analysis itself appears substantially flawed. This letter will outline the issues that have surfaced, so far. In the Method of Analysis section of the Water System Analysis, dated August 31, you list several hydrants and their static water pressures. While the data suggests a range of pressures, you have chosen to select the highest in those ranges as the basis for your analysis. This is inappropriate for several reasons. First of all, the data appears to be inaccurate. By adding the pressure head to the elevation head, the water surface elevation can be determined. The data for Hydrant K-11-02 relates to a water surface elevation (WSE) of 569', while Hydrant K-11-04 corresponds to a WSE of 600'. Both of these are theoretically impossible, since the area is served by gravity from Reservoir#2,which has a static WSE of 557' when it is full. The third hydrant, K-11-09, is reported to have an elevation of 226'. According to your plans, this hydrant should be closer to 336'. The hand-written calculations report the hydrant elevation correctly as being around 336', with a pressure head of 226', for a total WSE of 562'. This also is higher than the static WSE of the reservoir feeding this area. This is a discrepancy that must be reconciled. In addition, the analysis does nothing to address the variation in WSE's for hydrants that are relatively close in proximity. A thorough analysis would typically identify these discrepancies and offer explanations and solutions. As we have discussed on several previous occasions, the fire hydrant test data should not be used as the basis of design for subdivisions and fire systems without verification and additional analysis. As you may recall, the City's Water Distribution staff set a pressure recorder on hydrant K-11-09 on April 25, 2001 and gathered continuous water pressure readings for two days. The pressure recorders are considered much more accurate than the hand-held gauges used for hydrant tests. The chart from the pressure recorder shows pressures that range from 74 psi to an absolute maximum of 90 psi. Please note that the higher pressure readings are spikes and are E The 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 Attachment 5 not representative of typical system pressures. The chart shows typical drops to around 78 psi, with an average operating pressure of around 81 psi. Good engineering practice would dictate the use of the worst case in water pressure as the basis for design of the tract. A water pressure figure that is reduced from the minimum by some appropriate factor of safety should be used when designing fire systems. Please do not ignore the data available for this analysis. We also recommend that, as the project engineer, you satisfy yourself as to the accuracy of the information provided by the City. The plans do not indicate pad elevations or finish floor elevations. These will be necessary to determine whether water pressure will meet minimum requirements of the Uniform Plumbing Code and the maximum overall building height. I would also like to see how the water meters will be configured at the end of each cul-de-sac. It appears that eleven water meters will need to be placed at the end of Lizzie Court. Avoiding driveways, street lights, and other utilities will be difficult. Also, we generally do not like to see public hydrants on private driveways. These will be long, dead-end hydrant laterals that will achieve no natural water circulation and could lead to water quality issues with the residents who will be buying these properties. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 781-7208. Sincerely, W. Dan Gilmore, PE Utilities Engineer cc: Jerry Kenny, Darren Drake, Tom Baasch, Whitney McIlvaine CITY Of SAi'd Luigi (1J: EDA ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT November 14, 2001 Attachment 5 Mr. Dan Gillmore Utilities Division City of San Luis Obispo 879 Morro Street San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 Re: Tentative Tract 2420 - Bowden Ranch Subdivision Dear Dan: This is in response to your letter of October 9, 2001, regarding water supply calculations prepared by EDA for this project. We trust this response will address your issues on this project. We have checked our calculations with regard to the proposed water system and found them to be correct based on the information supplied by your department. If that information is flawed as you have suggested, please retest the hydrants to your satisfaction and provide the new test results for our review. Our calculations also show that even with a 40 foot head error in your tests the system will provide the required 1000 gpm flow at the proposed fire hydrants. Your second stated concern relates to system pressures recorded at fire hydrant K-11- 09 which has an elevation of 336'. The minimum pressure recorded was 74 psi which equates to a 20 psi service level of 460' which is the City's stated service limit elevation and the approximate elevation of the Urban Reserve Line. All of the proposed lots in this subdivision contain building areas where a two story residence could be built below this elevation. Finally, your concern over the available area for 11 water meter boxes is unfounded. We are enclosing a scale drawing of the end of the Lizzie Street cul-de-sac showing the required 16' driveway aprons and 11 Brooks 65S water meter boxes. The drawing clearly shows the boxes taking up only about one half of the available space at the end of the cul-de-sac. Please note that we have used the larger Brooks boxes and there is a 4" clear separation between the boxes. The area available at the end of woodland Court is greater than that on Lizzie street with only one driveway apron and 4 lots served. P L A N N I N G C I V I L E N G I N EE R I N G L A N D S U R V E Y I N G 1320 NIPOMO ST. • SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 • 805-549-8658 • FAX 805-549-8704 744 0AK ST . • PASO ROBLES , CA 93446 • 805-237-1033 • FAX 805-237-3797 Mr. Dan Gillmore Att November 14, 2001 aChment 5 page 2 The issues raised, although technical in nature, do not affect the design or configuration of the lots proposed. We look forward to working with you to iron out the details during the construction document phase of this project. Please contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely; ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES Q:2 Jeffrey J. Emrick, P.E., AIA encl cc Carol Florence, Oasis Associates DALTRSM51510OWtater sys.ag ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES 1320 NIPOMO ST. • SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 • 805-549-8658 • FAX 805-549-8704 744 0AK ST . 0 PASO ROBLES , CA 93446 0 805-237-1033 e FAX 805-237-379�4( 7Q Attach,.,ant 5 / <fTt=-:t4 • VWATIEfL%, t�E•r��.��c 21 22. NDS Of 4 C� DE �W')16 A-dachment 5 A COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP F_llubfished in 1995 to present',protect,and re.,,,,e Son Lub 06"Po�"hi4oric adobO April 19, 2001 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Ms. Whitney McIlvaine City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street APR z F San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 FAX 781-7173CO fOUNITY D . ENT� RE: Appendix 1, Bowden Ranch Development Plan. --_ Whitney, Several of the members of the Board of Friends of Las Casas de Adobe(FOCA) reviewed the history section of the environmental documents that were submitted with the application for the Bowden Ranch,Tract 2420. Even though there are a few interesting items such as the time line, we found the report to be lacking. • The author, on page 21 reports that the adobe was built in 1782 using Native American labor but the only references are newspaper articles. Newspaper articles,by themselves, are normally not considered to be a reliable source and for a variety of reasons, that date is very unlikely. ■ The names of John Kuden and Gene Reis are misspelled. • The pages on barbed wire, barns and cactus speak in very general terms but make little attempt to relate these items to the site. ■ The report makes no attempt to establish the significance of the various elements but rather lists what is obviously modem plastic pipe with the same weight the adobe. Similarly, the report makes no attempt to evaluate the effect of the development on the historic features. The proposed development will,no doubt,have an effect on the environment and use of the adobe. The Waal character of the neighborhood is likely to be degraded by the development.Things such as curbs, gutters and sidewalks are not part of the character that we feel is compatible with the adobe. The development should accommodate use of the adobe by the public. FOCA was planning on providing parking along the driveway for the adobe but that will be displaced by the development of a city street. Are there options for minimizing traffic and for keeping traffic as far away from the adobe as possible? The area has been and will continue to be a trailhead and the development,the city and FOCA will need to accommodate that. This area is a transition zone between the rural and urban settings but if carefully planned, the development can have a positive impact on the adobe and the trails and visa versa. Thank you, v� Robert S. Ves e y, PE Post Office Box 15114, San Luis Obispo, California 93406 edl-PAO