Date: October 24, 2005
TO: Honorable Mayor Tiegle-Doherty
FROM: Elizabeth S.R. Cullinan, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Public Hearing on the Draft Focused Environmental Impact (DFEIR) prepared for the purposes of annexing 2.62 acres of unincorporated San Mateo County land located on Winding Way (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 049-020-010, 049-141-660, 670, 680 and 690) to the City of San Carlos and subsequent development of this land for single family residential use. The subject parcels are located along Winding Way, in the DevonshireCanyon Area, adjacent to the southwestern limits of San Carlos.
Recommendation
The purpose of the October 24, 2005 public hearing is to provide the public an opportunity to present oral comments on the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (“DFEIR”) which the City prepared for the proposed development of the five above-referenced lots located on Winding Way (sometimes referred to herein as “the Project”).Staff recommends that the City Council receive information on the DFEIR from Staff and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) consultants, receive a presentation on the project by the applicant, and receive comments from interested members of the public on the project.Staff will agendize the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and consideration of other approvals for the Project (including a Tax Exchange Resolution and possibly selection of one of the proposed development options) for City Council consideration at a future date.
Background
The City Council previously approved prezoning and a proposal to annex the Project site on March 8, 2004.These approvals followed the City Council’s adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).The Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that all potential environmental impacts of the project would be mitigated to a level of insignificance.A copy of the staff report for the March 8, 2004 meeting discussing these approvals is attached for the Council’s information.(The decision of whether to actually approve annexation of the Project site is within the authority of the Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCO”) of San MateoCounty, and not the City.LAFCO has not yet acted upon the application to annex this site.)
On April 9, 2004, the Devonshire Canyon Open Space Alliance (DCOSA) filed a lawsuit (in the form of a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief) against the City challenging the City’s approval of the Project.The lawsuit named the Applicants as real parties in interest.The lawsuit contended that the Mitigated Negative Declaration did not comply with the requirements of CEQA, and that the Project was not consistent with the City’s General Plan.
While this lawsuit was pending, staff was made aware of new information regarding the presence of certain sensitive species on the Project site.Specifically, new site surveys disclosed the existence of the arcuate bush mallow plant and the dusky-footed woodrat.The Mitigated Negative Declaration had identified the potential existence of the woodrat and identified mitigation measures for the woodrat, but indicated that no woodrats had yet been found on the site.The Mitigated Negative Declaration did not discuss the bush mallow.
The City, DCOSA, and the Applicants agreed to settle the prior litigation.That settlement left intact the City Council’s prior approvals for the Project (the prezoning), and those approvals are still in effect.However, the settlement agreement required the following:
The owners’ development plan for the lots shall be modified in the following regards:
The extended portion of Winding Way will be narrowed to approximately 18 feet (but in no event any greater than 20 feet) in width, as approved by San Carlos in the exercise of such discretion as it possesses under law.
An access gate to prevent through traffic shall be installed at one end of the extension of Winding Way at a location to be approved by San Carlos and the South County Fire District.The gate shall allow for public, pedestrian access.
The owners will include a crushed gravel pedestrian path alongside the extension of Winding Way.The actual width of the walking path will be determined by the width of the pavement approved by San Carlos, but the owners shall not be required to extend the roadway into a riparian area or to cut a hillside and install retaining walls in order to maintain consistent width of the path.
San Carlos will prepare a focused Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) to evaluate the biological issues involving the woodrat and bush mallow and other sensitive or endangered species which its biological consultant determines may be present on the site.The owners will comply with the provisions of the mitigation plan adopted by San Carlos with respect to any development of the lots.
The City has prepared the DFEIR in order to comply with the settlement agreement.The DFEIR includes and incorporates by reference the earlier Mitigated Negative Declaration, and adds additional discussion of the bush mallow, the woodrat, and other issues.The City made the DFEIR available to the public on July 22, 2005, and initially established a public comment period lasting from July 22 until September 16, 2005.However, at the request of members of the public, the City extended the comment period until October 24, 2005, and scheduled the October 24, 2005 public hearing to provide the public with the opportunity to submit comments orally.
Site Description
The subject properties are located in unincorporated San MateoCounty (DevonshireCanyon area) adjacent to the City limits of the City of San Carlos. The annexation request includes five separately owned properties located on Winding Way (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 049-020-010, 049-141-660, 049-141-670, 049-141-680, and 049-141-690) off of Chesham Avenue, totaling 2.63 acres. The properties are undeveloped and range in size from 16,258 square feet to 34,570 square feet.
The sites are located on a west-facing slope, traversed twice by a switch back in the alignment of Winding Way. Winding Way is an existing 16-foot wide improved dirt and gravel road with an unlocked gate and key box located at both ends of the street. As part of the Hyde Park Estates subdivision, Winding Way was dedicated to the City of San Carlos as a 50-foot wide secondary emergency access road for the subdivision. The topography on the sites ranges from a 30% to 50% slope.
The project area is set in a gully, which is part of the Pulgas Creek watershed[1].An unnamed creek drains from the ridgeline through the bottom of this gully to Pulgas Creek, downstream from the site. Please refer to the DFEIR and the March 8, 2004 staff report for a more detailed description of the site, habitat and conditions therein.
The applicant has submitted two options for construction of the five homes:
Option 1, calls for three of the homes (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 049-140-660, 049-141-670, 049-141-680) to be constructed in an “uphill” style with driveway access facilitated by bridges, connecting to the western portion of Winding Way.The “driveway access bridges” would cross the unnamed creek, providing access to a lower level garage.The houses would be constructed into the side of the hill above the garage level.On APN 049-020-010, the house would also be constructed in an “uphill” style.In this instance, neither the house nor driveway cross or are located within 30 feet of the streambed.This option does not include work below the top of bank. The driveway access bridges would free span the creek. All houses must be setback from the creek a minimum of 25 feet. The house proposed on APN 049-141-690, would be a “downhill” style residence with the house constructed at the same level as the garage and the second floor below it.The house would not encroach on the area of the creek. (See Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration in Attachment 2).
Option 2 calls for the three houses on Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 049-141-660, APN 049-141-670, and APN 049-141-680 to be configured as “downhill” style dwelling units.The houses would be located above and away from the creek, taking access from the eastern portion of Winding Way.The residential plans for the two remaining parcels are the same as in Option 1. (Please see Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration in Attachment 2).
Grading quantities for Option 1 total approximately 4,010 cubic yards and for Option 2 total approximately 3,535 cubic yards as detailed in the following table.
| Approx. Grading Quantities in cubic yards |
| Option 1 | Option 2 |
Lots | 1,280 | 805 |
Road Improvement | 2,730 | 2,730 |
TOTAL | 4,010 | 3,535 |
The road grading and improvements for the project do not require the placement of any material into the creek itself. Installation of culverts at minor gully crossings will prevent hydrologic disconnection and preserve the flow levels in the creek. Grading on the site is expected to be a balance of cut and fill. Specifically, material taken from one area is placed in another to create the appropriate road bed. The project drawings as they relate to the road through the project area indicate that this material will be cut from the uphill side of the existing fire road.
The properties would connect to the sewer located at Chesham Avenue, which is within the Devonshire County Sanitation District and continues through the City’s sewer system.
Request
The applicant is requesting Certification of a Final Focused Environmental Impact Report (FFEIR) and Approval of a Tax Exchange Resolution for the future development of five lots, totaling approximately 2.63 acres, which are currently located in unincorporated San MateoCounty and proposed to be annexed to the City of San Carlos. The Council may also be asked to consider an agreement with the applicant formally selecting one of the development options.
Analysis
A. Environmental Background
Environmental Impact Report October 1986
In 1986 an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified for the upper Pulgas Creek Drainage Basin Assessment District which described the environmental effects of installing storm drainage improvements in an area approximately 500 acres in size known as the Upper Pulgas Drainage Basin. The proposed project area was part of that evaluation and assessments based on potential development. The report concluded, "The project area is subject to flooding and erosion problems." The objective of the improvements was to provide adequate drainage facilities within the project area to address peak storm runoff volumes and to control erosion to prevent further damage to existing property in the area. The project and improvements have substantially reduced flood hazards and erosion in the area.
Initial Study and negative Declaration April 2001
An initial Study and Negative Declaration were prepared in April 2001 for revisions to the General Plan Residential Annexation policies. This General Plan Amendment addressed the development potential in the Devonshire Canyon Area. The Study anticipated approximately 29 new homes, which included the five lots on Winding Way. Based on the information, the environmental document found that the prosed project would not have adverse environmental effects.
Future Development Potential in Devonshire Canyon
The City of San Carlos Planning Staff prepared a study entitled “Cumulative Impact Analysis for Development Potential in the Devonshire Canyon Area” in September 2003.That study concluded that if the remaining unincorporated undeveloped property in Devonshire Canyon were developed under the jurisdiction and regulations of San Mateo County, there could be up to 57[2] new homes built in that area. If all the remaining unincorporated area in DevonshireCanyon were to annex to the City of San Carlos, up to approximately 29 new homes could be built in that new area.The reduced development potential in the City versus the County is due to larger lot sizes required by the City.The five new homes proposed as part of the current Winding Way Annexation proposal are included in these totals. With the proposed project, it is anticipated that development would most likely occur over a 10 to 20 year time period in the Devonshire Canyon Area due to the City’s minimum lot size requirements, accessibility, and feasibility of development. Staff also researched developed properties in the County and the possibility to subdivide these properties once sewer is available to them. Staff determined that these properties are already connected to the sewer system and no additional sewer connections are available for these properties.
B. Environmental Review
Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan March 2004
As explained earlier, the City Council previously adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this Project in March, 2004.The Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that all project impacts could be mitigated to a level of insignificance.The City adopted a Mitigation Monitoring Plan to implement the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Key environmental issues identified, were as follows:
Three site visits were conducted by a qualified botanist on June 2, July 2, and July 29, 2003. Although there were no reported occurrences of sensitive plant species within the project area at that time, the Coastal sage scrub and annual grassland habitats were found to provide suitable areas for bent-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia lunaris), San Francisco Bay spine-flower (Chorizanthe cuspidate var cuspidate), San Francisco campion (Silene verecunda ssp. Verecunda), and Santa Cruz Manzanita (Arctostaphylos andersonii).
Only two sensitive animal species were found to have the potential to occur within the project area.If present, they could be affected by construction activities through the placement of structures within the stream or riparian corridor.None of these species were observed during the May 2003 preliminary field survey.The California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) is a Federally Threatened species and a California Department of Fish and Game fully-protected species of special concern.This species is highly aquatic in nature and prefers ponds and deep slow-moving streams for breeding habitat.The shallow stream of the project area does not contain suitable red-legged frog breeding habitat (pools).No red-legged frogs have been reported specifically from the project area and they are unlikely to use the site.The San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens) is a State species of special concern that is found in densely vegetated riparian corridors.At that time, the Natural Diversity Database (CNDBB) had reported a single occurrence of nesting San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats near Crystal Springs Reservoir.Construction of access roads through the riparian corridor could affect either of these species if they are present.
Implementation of Option 2 would not result in construction near the creek; therefore reducing biological impacts compared to Option 1.Development of the site would require removal of portions of the riparian communities if Option 1 is selected.The riparian corridor is considered a sensitive community by California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG).Construction of access roads (driveways) through the riparian corridor[3] could require removal of some of this vegetation.For Option 1, the location of the house on Lot APN 049-141-660 (the northerly most house) would encroach into the riparian community and the two other houses with driveway bridges could possibly encroach into the riparian community.[4]In order to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level, the houses would be located so that they do not encroach into the riparian community, thereby avoiding the impacts to the riparian habitats. During site design review, Staff will require appropriate setbacks, erosion control measures, and other best management practices to address potential creek habitat impacts from construction.
On October 14, 2003, EIP conducted a site visit and mapped the riparian corridor. (See attachment 2). For Option 1, the location of the house on Lot APN 049-141-660 (the northerly most house) would encroach into the riparian community and the other two other houses with driveway bridges could possibly encroach into the riparian community.[5]In order to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level, the houses would be located so that they do not encroach into the riparian community thereby, avoiding the impacts to the riparian habitats. As stated above Option 2 would not result in construction near the creek and, therefore, no impacts would occur.
The project site is located within the wildland fire hazard area as shown on the Community Safety Factors map on page CS-9 of the General Plan.As stated in the General Plan “Land use decisions which are likely to expose the public to a significant degree of hazard shall be analyzed through the environmental review process and when needed, measures will be required to mitigate hazard exposure through design criteria and standards enforcement”.Incorporation of mitigation measures such as improving Winding Way, installation of fire hydrants and fire sprinkler systems to the newly constructed homes, and vegetation management 100 feet from around the proposed structures would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.
It should be noted that vegetation management around the structures to accommodate fire safety requirements and the ability to meet erosion and sediment control measures can be met. Vegetation management involves pruning, thinning, and/or altering the vegetation.[6] This method does not clear cut the area and enables erosion and sediment control measures to be met with proper mitigations.
Management of vegetation for fire safety could result in the removal of riparian vegetation and are considered a potentially significant impact unless mitigated. Complete removal of vegetation shall not be allowed as this would increase erosion and sedimentation and result in the wholesale removal of riparian habitat. However, lower tree limbs can be pruned to prevent fuel laddering. This would preserve the integrity and function of the riparian canopy. Existing understory plants should be replaced with more fire safe species chosen and installed in consultation with the City and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Preference shall be given to California native species. Implementation of these measures would maximize fire safety while reducing impacts to the riparian corridor to a less-than-significant level.
Implementation of Option 2 would not result in construction near the creek and, therefore, no hydrological impacts would occur.Option 1 could potentially alter the course of the unnamed creek because foundations associated with the three driveway bridges may be placed in the creek bed.In order to avoid potential impacts to the creek, abutments, wing walls, and other facilities should be constructed above the high-water level of the creek.The high-water level should be determined using the 100-year storm event threshold.Implementation of this approach would result in less-than-significant impacts to the existing drainage, since bridges would free-span the creek.During site design review, Staff will require as part of the mitigation measures appropriate setbacks, erosion control measures, and other best management practices to address potential creek impacts from construction itself. ApplicableCity codes for grading and erosion control will be observed.Site grading will be restricted between October 15 and April 15.Other measures, such as siltation fences and filtering dewatering discharges through sediment traps, will be used to prevent runoff of sediments.
The existing drainage pattern of the site would be altered by the construction of new, impervious surfaces, including the roofs and flat surfaces of the five proposed houses, new paved driveways and driveway bridges, and the paving and widening of Winding Way.The Upper Pulgas Creek storm drainage improvement project, constructed in 1987, was designed to accommodate the storm flow from the complete development of the Upper Pulgas Creek drainage basin. The runoff from the project area was calculated to include the possible future development of the properties and was assessed accordingly.[7] The proposed project would not exceed the capacity of downstream drainage systems. In order to eliminate eroded material into the City’s retention basin located downstream from the project, erosion control measures must be installed.Given the above, impacts associated with additional runoff would be considered less-than-significant.
Staff is requiring the applicant’s engineer to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the runoff of the project will not exceed the capacity as considered by the Upper Pulgas Creek Assessment Drainage Basin Assessment District formed in 1987.
Since the proposed project would only slightly increase population, school enrollment and the demand for other governmental services would not be affected as a result of the proposed project. Police and Fire protection to the site could potentially be impacted unless Winding Way is improved to City standards.A mitigation measure is proposed as a condition of project approval to improve Winding Way from the end of the existing City standard improvements on Winding Way from Chesham Avenue to the eastern property line and connect to Wingate Road as shown on Option 2.
The Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed project were rendered insignificant by the Mitigation Monitoring Measures that append the Initial Study.
“Less than significant impacts”/environmental issues were identified:
In the case of the proposed Winding Way Annexation project, cumulative projects should include those other projects that have occurred or are reasonably foreseeable in the Devonshire Canyon Area and could together have an adverse effect on resources in the area.Staff has analyzed the full development potential impact of 57 new homes to adequately address cumulative impacts. Although this analysis represents potential San MateoCounty densities, Staff utilized a conservative assessment of cumulative environmental impacts. Potential areas of greatest concern, based on review of comment letters and the Initial Study include biological resources, local storm drainage, traffic, and emergency response.In communications with the San Mateo County Planning Staff, there are two foreseeable development proposals for the unincorporated lots in the Devonshire Canyon Area: one proposal to subdivide a 7.96-acre parcel into three home sites and a second proposal to subdivide a 9.36 acre parcel into three home sites. While individual property owners may make application to the County for development of their sites, the cumulative effect of individual properties in combination with the five-lot Winding Way annexation proposal would not create significant environmental effects.
Assuming that the undeveloped lands in the unincorporated area were to develop at the County’s minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, a total of 57 homes (including the five proposed as part of the project) could be built in the Devonshire Canyon Area, according to the City’s September 2003 analysis of development potential.Since the unincorporated areas outside the Devonshire County Sanitation District are not connected to publicly owned wastewater treatment plants, these individual home sites would need to be on septic systems.Taking into account the area’s steep topography and need for percolation tests to determine the adequacy of the home sites for septic systems, it is reasonable to expect that the total development of the Devonshire Canyon Area would be less than 57 units. Regardless of the absolute number of potential home sites, cumulative development in the Devonshire Canyon Area would either result in less-than-significant effects or measures would be imposed by the appropriate agencies that would reduce the effects to less than cumulatively considerable, as described below:
Cumulative development in the Devonshire Canyon Area would reduce the biodiversity of the area, but mitigation measures have been recommended for the proposed project to reduce the project’s contribution to less than cumulatively considerable.Specifically, the measures call for re-design of the project to avoid disturbance to the riparian vegetation and habitat along the unnamed drainage way that traverses the site and compliance with a tree protection plan to preserve heritage trees and to replace others to be removed.
In terms of stormwater runoff, the Upper Pulgas Creek storm drainage improvement project provided for adequate storm drainage facilities and capacities assuming development of the area.In addition, a condition of project approval is submittal of a plan to demonstrate that runoff from the site will not exceed the capacity as determined by the Upper Pulgas Creek Drainage Basin Assessment District formed in 1987. Thus, cumulative effects are addressed and the proposed project’s contribution is reduced to less than cumulatively considerable.
In terms of traffic, full development of the Devonshire Canyon Area under San MateoCounty’s jurisdiction could result in a maximum of 57 units.This number of units would generate an estimated 570 daily trips and a maximum 86 peak hour trips.The home sites are dispersed throughout the 600-acre Devonshire Canyon Area, but it appears that most vehicles would use Devonshire Boulevard to access major roadways to the east.Depending on the distribution of the traffic, it is assumed as many as two-thirds of the peak hour trips, or 57 additional trips, may use Devonshire Boulevard.Even at this number of trips, impacts on the roadway capacity are less than significant, since the road currently operates at LOS A.
The San Mateo County Public Works Director has commented on the adequacy of the County roads and has determined that the roads can accommodate the new development and any cumulative development (Please see Mitigated Negative Declaration in Attachment 2 including County of San Mateo letter dated February 13, 2004 and March 3, 2004).
Emergency response for fires and medical incidents is provided by the South County Fire Authority (SCFA).The SCFA imposes conditions of project approval on all development to ensure adequate access and availability of water for fire suppression.These measures, plus the recommended wildland fire safety measures for the proposed project, would reduce the emergency response effects of the Winding Way Annexation project to less than cumulatively considerable.
With respect to growth inducement, CEQA requires that local jurisdictions consider whether the proposed project would enable substantial additional development to occur.Improvements to access and extension of sewer services are commonly cited as examples that would permit new development to occur.The proposed project would result in the paving of Winding Way to City standards and connections to the existing sewer lines.
The extension of wastewater services may remove an existing obstacle to development (as noted above, it is not clear how many of the home sites could be developed with on-site septic systems).Assuming that the availability of wastewater services did pave the way for development to occur, access to the City’s wastewater lines would require annexation to the City and adherence to City development regulations.The City has a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet (compared to the County’s 5,000-square-foot minimum lot size) and restrictive hillside development standards.Based on these standards, the City has estimated that approximately 29 home sites could be developed within San Carlos.This amount of development is not considered substantial relative to the amount of growth projected for the City by ABAG or by the City’s own Housing Element.Furthermore, it has been shown that even if 57 dwelling units were to develop, this growth would not result in significant cumulative impacts.Accordingly, the amount of growth induced by the proposed project would not be expected to result in significant effects.[8]
Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (DFEIR)
Following City Council adoption of the 2004 Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation Monitoring Plan, new information regarding the presence of the arcuate bush mallow, listed with the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), and the dusky-footed woodrat, a California Species of Concern, became available.In light of this new information and the sensitivity of the biological resources on site, the City facilitated preparation of a DFEIR to update previous biological resources analyses for the project.
The City distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on June 10, 2005 announcing its intent to prepare and distribute an EIR on the proposed project.Comment letters in response to the NOP were received from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Native Plant Society.Staff incorporated comments from the State Clearinghouse into the DFEIR and sent the document to the State Clearinghouse on July 21, 2005.State law requires a 45 day public review period for Environmental Impact Reports.The DFEIR was produced for public review on July 22, 2005.Although not required by law, the public review period has been extended twice to accommodate public interest in web posting of the document and to allow additional opportunities to comment up to the date of the first City Council public hearing.Accordingly, San Carlos has provided a 95 day public review period on the DFEIR.
In addition to the items addressed in the adopted Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan, the DFEIR focuses on biological impacts.The potential presence of the dusky-footed woodrat was previously addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration.However, in spite of a data base search and site visits, the presence of the arcuate bush mallow, a CNPS List 1B plant, was not documented until after the City had adopted the 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring PlanThe United States Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS), considers arcuate bush mallow a species of “local concern” or “conservation importance.”In terms of biological impacts, the DFEIR analyzes Project Area Habitats, Riparian Habitat, Coastal Sage Scrub, Annual Grassland, and Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species and Habitats.The DFEIR highlights the following potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the project:
The development of the project site under either Option 1 or Option 2 would disturb the arcuate bush mallow, a sensitive plant species.
The proposed project would potentially have an adverse effect on the San Francisco collinsia, Western leatherwood, and Franciscan onion.
The proposed project could disturb the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, a State species of special concern.
If the Option 1 site plan were to be developed, the proposed project would result in disturbance of on-site wetlands and riparian habitat.
The disturbance of riparian habitat under Option 1 could affect wildlife movement within the riparian corridor.
Because no special-status bird species are known to nest on site, the removal of vegetation would not result in disturbance to sensitive bird species.Depending on the timing and species affected, vegetation removal could, however, result in a potential violation of Fish and Game Code Sections.
The proposed project could conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policies or regulations.
The DFEIR concludes that all potential project impacts could be mitigated through incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures.
The DFEIR analyzes three alternatives:the two variations of the proposed project (Option 1 and Option 2) and the No Project Alternative.The California Environmental Quality Act states that an EIR should include a range of reasonable alternatives to the project which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.Any reduced project alternative would not result in significant differences from the impacts identified for the proposed project which have been mitigated to less than significant levels.The DFEIR identifies Option 2 as the environmentally superior alternative since the proposed homes would be located away from the on-site riparian zone and would avoid disturbance of on-site riparian habitat.
Upon completion of the public comment period and City Council hearing on the DFEIR, a new Mitigation Monitoring Plan that addresses public comments and responses to public comments will be presented to the City Council along with a Final Focused Environmental Impact Report and Tax Exchange Resolution.
Budget
The proposal would result in the addition of five new homes within the City.Although this would result in additional property taxes, expenditures for public services for residential development generally exceed property tax revenues.However, financial impacts associated with the proposal are not anticipated to be significant due to the limited density associated with the proposal.
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL/DENIAL:____________
Attachments:
1. City Council Minutes-January 13, 2003
2. March 8, 2004 City Council Staff Report
3. City Council March 8, 2004 Minutes
4. Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report Dated July 2005 Prepared by EIP Associates (Available on line or upon request)
5. Public Comment letters
State Agencies
a. Terry Roberts, Director, State Clearinghouse, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
Individuals and Community Groups
b. Petition 90 signatures September 2005
Postcards
c. Lee Zeff | 9/1/2005 |
Alfred Peerle | 9/9/2005 |
d. Cindy Adams | 9/9/2005 |
Vivian Henduikeon | 9/12/2005 |
e. Sandra Staricha | 9/12/2005 |
Jung | 9/14/2005 |
f. Mary E. Lough | 9/15/2005 |
E-mails | |
g. Michael & Evelin
Sullivan | 9/10/2005 |
h. Kaye Bonney | 9/10/2005 |
i. Mike & Tracy Mcguiness | 9/11/2005 |
j. Ron Staricha | 9/11/2005 |
k. Drew Shell | 9/12/2005, 10/16/2005 |
l. Margaret Pye | 9/13/2005 |
m.Pat Berg | 9/13/2005 |
n. Bob Black | 9/14/2005 |
o. David McNellis | 9/14/2005 |
p. Erica Richter | 9/14/2005 |
q. Barbara Patterson | 9/14/2005 |
r. Sono Aibe | 9/14/2005 |
s. Mark Segal | 9/15/2005 |
t. Robert Coie | 9/15/2005 |
u. Jeff Iavecchia | 9/16/2005 |
v. Shelley Viviani | 9/16/2005 |
w. Steven L. Shray | 9/16/2005 |
Letters
x. Cindy Adams | 9/8/2005 |
y.Mike & Tracy
McGuinness | 9/11/2005 |
z. Heidi Skrenta | 9/12/2005 |
aa.Drew Shell | 9/12/2005 |
aa.Drew Shell | 9/16/2005 |
aa.Drew Shell | 9/16/2005 |
bb. Phillip McGuinness | 9/13/2005 |
cc. Patricia C. Potter | 9/13/2005 |
dd. Angela Mallett | 9/16/2005 |
ee. Juile A. Scherer | 9/16/2005 |
ff. Michael G. Colantuono | 9/16/2005 |
gg. Hugh Burroughs | 9/16/2005 |
hh. Diane Rahe | 9/16/2005 |
ii. Drew Shell “Response to the Winding Way Draft Focused EIR and
Annexation/Development Proposal,” September 2005
jj. Drew Shell, “CNPS Concerns Regarding Winding Way Draft Focused EIR and Annexation/Development Proposal”, September 2005
[1] Based on the USGS 7.5-minute Woodside Quadrangle, the headwaters of Pulgas Creek are located about a quarter mile in a straight line to the northwest of the annexation area. The headwaters are about 0.3 miles upstream on Pulgas Creek from its confluence with the creekthat flows through the annexation area.
[2] The hypothetical development potential identified for the Devonshire Canyon Area is helpful to assessing the maximum cumulative impact.
[3] Riparian Corridor or Riparian Area is defined according to the California Riparian Systems: Ecology, Conservation, and Productive Management (Warner, R.E. and K. Hendrix, 1984) as an area pertaining to the banks and other adjacent terrestrial environs of freshwater bodies, watercourses, estuaries, and surface-emergent aquifers, whose transported freshwaters provides soil moisture sufficiently in excess of that otherwise available through local precipitation to potentially support the growth of the mesic vegetation. Mesic vegetation is that vegetation which requires moist conditions for growth.
[4] EIP memo dated October 14, 2003 and Riparian Corridor Mapping for Options 1 and 2. The term “encroach” is used to discuss the relationship between the proposed building sites, driveways and the riparian area. The proposed building site may overlap the mapped riparian corridor.
[5]Id..
[6] Structural Fire Prevention Field Guide, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, April 2000
[7] Final Environmental Impact Report Upper Pulgas Drainage Basin Assessment District, November 21, 1986, Page 31, “The proposed drainage improvements have been designed to accommodate 25 to 100 year storm flow from future development”.
[8] EIP Associates
