HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-25-2017 PC Agenda Packet - Special MeetingCity of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Planning Commission
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made
available for public inspection in the Community Development, 919 Palm Street, during normal business hours.
Agenda
Planning Commission
Amended Agenda*
Thursday, May 25, 2017
6:00 p.m. SPECIAL MEETING Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
*This amended Agenda includes a clarification of the review of the San Luis Ranch project. †
† Business Item 1 (San Luis Ranch) of this Special Meeting of Thursday, May 25, 2017, is a
continued review of “Business Item 2” (San Luis Ranch) of the Regular Meeting on Wednesday,
May 24, 2017 – see Amended Agenda of Wednesday, May 24, 2017.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Stevenson
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE : Chair Stevenson
ROLL CALL : Commissioners Kim Bisheff, Scott Mann, Ronald Malak, Nicholas
Osterbur, Hemalata Dandekar, Vice-Chair John Fowler, and Chair Charles
Stevenson
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items.
PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Commission about items not on
the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their name and address.
Comments are limited to three minutes per person. Items raised at this time are generally referred
to staff, and, if action by the Commission is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting.
BUSINESS ITEMS
1. 1035 Madonna Road. SPEC/ANNX/ER-1502-2015: Review of the San Luis Ranch
Specific Plan project. Development plans for the site include up to 580 residential units,
200,000 square feet of commercial development, 150,000 square feet of office development,
a 200-room hotel, and portions of the site to remain for agriculture and open-space.
Requested entitlements include a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment/Pre-Zoning,
Development Plan/Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Annexation, and certification of a Final
Planning Commission Agenda May 25, 2017 Page 2
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). Project construction is planned in six phases. The
project also includes a Term Sheet/Development Agreement that would govern development
of the project site. Recommendations will be forwarded to City Council for consideration of
these required project entitlements; Land Use Element designated Specific Plan Area SP-2
(San Luis Ranch); Coastal Community Builders, applicant. (John Rickenbach)
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
1. STAFF
a. Agenda Forecast
ADJOURNMENT
The next meeting of the Planning Commission is a Special Meeting scheduled for Wednesday,
June 7, 2017 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
APPEALS: Any decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed to City Council
within 10 days of the action (Recommendations to City Council cannot be appealed since they are
not a final action.). Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission may file an appeal with
the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available at the Community Development Department office, City
Clerk’s office, or on the City’s website (www.slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $281, and
must accompany the appeal documentation.
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs, and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Public meeting to consider the San Luis Ranch project, including related entitlements
and the associated Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The project entitlements include a
Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Term Sheet, and
Annexation.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1035 Madonna Road BY: John Rickenbach, Contract Planner
Phone Number: 805-610-1109
Email: JFRickenbach@aol.com
FILE NUMBER: SPEC/ANNX/ER-1502-2015 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION: Take public testimony and provide input to City staff on the San Luis
Ranch Final EIR and related entitlements, including the Specific Plan, General Plan
Amendment/Pre-Zoning, and Development Plan/Vesting Tentative Tract Map.
SITE DATA
Applicant
Representative
General Plan
and Zoning
Site Area
Environmental
Status
Coastal Community Builders
Marshall Ochylski and Brian
Schwartz
Specific Plan Area (various land
use designations including—
residential, commercial, office,
open space and agriculture
consistent with the Land Use
Element)
131.3 acres
A Final EIR is now under public
review, but it has not yet been
certified by the City Council.
SUMMARY
Coastal Community Builders has proposed a project that includes several entitlements for the
development of approximately 70 acres of the 131.3-acre property. The project would include a
mixture of residential and non-residential uses, as well as the preservation of approximately 60
acres to remain in agricultural use and open space. The project site is currently outside the City, but
within its Sphere of Influence, and would require annexation for development. The project as
proposed is envisioned to implement the policies for development of the site as articulated in the
2014 Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) update, and be consistent with the broad
Meeting Date: May 24 & 25, 2017
Item Number: 1
PC 1-1
development parameters set forth in the LUCE for this designated specific plan location.
A Final EIR has been prepared for the project, and is available on the City’s website:
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/documents-
online/environmental-review-documents/-folder-1907
1.0 SITE INFORMATION
The site is comprised of approximately 131 contiguous acres in unincorporated San Luis Obispo
County, surrounded by areas within the City of San Luis Obispo, and within the City’s Sphere of
Influence, generally bounded by Madonna Road, Dalidio Drive and U.S. Highway 101. Dominant
features at the site are the predominantly flat landform seasonally planted with row crops, an
existing stand of eucalyptus trees in the southwest portion of the site, and the Dalidio farm home
in the northwest portion of the site.
Table 1: Site Information
Site Size ~131 acres
Present Use & Development Agriculture
Topography Flat
Access Madonna Road, Dalidio Drive and Froom Ranch Road
Surrounding Use/Zoning West: R-1 (low density residential)
North: PF, C/OS-40, R-1, C-R-PD (Laguna Lake Park and surrounding
open space, low density residential, and the U.S. post office)
East: PF, O-PD (U.S. Highway 101, the City’s wastewater treatment
plant and a drive-in theater)
South: C/OS-20, C-S, C-S-PD, C-T-SF, C-R (SLO City Farm, Target,
variety of commercial service uses, and auto dealerships)
2.0 PLANNING COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The Planning Commission’s role is to review and provide input on the Public Hearing Draft
Specific Plan and related entitlements, including the General Plan Amendment/Pre-Zoning and
Development Plan/Vesting Tentative Tract Map, annexation, as well as on the Final EIR, which
addresses these project entitlements. The Commission will make recommendations to the City
Council on certifying the Final EIR and approving the various project entitlements as conditioned
in the Resolution to be attached as part of the June 7th staff report.
3.0 PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL REVIEW
The Planning Commission has previously considered the project on five occasions, once during
the pre-application process, twice to review a preliminary version of the Specific Plan, and twice
during the Draft EIR public review period. The City Council has considered the project one time,
to authorize processing of the development application thereby initiating the overall planning
PC 1-2
process. These meetings, hearings, and workshops are summarized below:
Planning Commission
February 12, 2014. The Planning Commission held a pre-application review of materials
related to the project, providing direction to the project applicant that became the basis for
the August 2015 Draft Specific Plan, which was examined in the EIR for the project.
February 10, 2016. The Planning Commission received a presentation regarding an
overview of a Specific Plan, and provided conceptual input to the applicant regarding the
first four chapters of the plan, focusing on land use, neighborhood form, agriculture, open
space and parks. No formal action was taken at that time.
March 23, 2016. The Planning Commission received a presentation regarding an overview
of a Specific Plan, and provided conceptual input to the applicant regarding the remaining
chapters of the plan, focusing on circulation and infrastructure issues. No formal action
was taken at that time.
January 11, 2017. The Planning Commission held a public workshop on the Draft EIR,
taking public testimony on the document, and providing input for consideration in the Final
EIR.
January 25, 2017. The Planning Commission held a second public workshop on the Draft
EIR, taking public testimony on the document, and providing input for consideration in the
Final EIR.
City Council
April 1, 2014. Based in part on the Planning Commission’s recommendation of February
12, 2014, the City Council formally accepted the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan application
for processing and CEQA review.
4.0 PREVIOUS ADVISORY BODY REVIEW
The project has been considered before various City advisory bodies to consider specific aspects
of the proposed project that relate to their purview. The following summarizes the different
advisory bodies that have considered the project, when these reviews occurred, as well as the
purpose and outcome of these meetings:
Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC)
November 19, 2015. The BAC reviewed a preliminary version of the Specific Plan, and
provided comments on the bicycle planning provisions included in the document.
January 19, 2017. The BAC provided comments on the updated bicycle planning aspects
of the Specific Plan that responded to previous input received in November 2015. The
BAC conceptually concurred with the Specific Plan as presented. This review occurred
PC 1-3
during the public comment period of the Draft EIR, but the BAC did not have any
substantive comment that related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis.
Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC)
February 3, 2016. The PRC reviewed the proposed parks and recreation components of
the draft Specific Plan, and provided comments on these aspects of the project. As a result
of this review, the Specific Plan was modified to more clearly differentiate and describe
the various park facilities included in the project. The PRC also determined that any
shortfall in required onsite parks acreage would be most effectively addressed through
payment of in-lieu fees, which could be applied to areas that might more appropriately
serve the greater community.
Architectural Review Commission (ARC)
November 16, 2015. The Draft Specific Plan Guidelines (Chapter 3 of the Specific Plan)
were reviewed by the ARC. At that time, the ARC provided the applicant direction on the
structure and content of the design guidelines, architectural styles, and neighborhood form.
May 1, 2017. The applicant team addressed ARC concerns raised in November 2015 in an
updated version of the Design Guidelines. ARC provided additional comments to ensure
internal consistency of the text and photographic examples provided, as well as other key
direction to improve the long-term utility of the Design Guidelines. The applicant team is
revising the document, which is Chapter 3 of the Specific Plan, to address these concerns.
This chapter will be conceptually considered at an ARC workshop on May 22, then again
on June 5, when it will make a formal recommendation on this information to the City
Council.
Cultural Heritage Committee
January 23, 2017. The CHC conducted a public hearing to review the cultural resource
evaluation in the Draft EIR. The hearing provided an opportunity for members of the
Committee and the public to receive a summary presentation of the project as well as the
major findings of the Draft EIR related to cultural and historical resources. As a result of
CHC input, and because the project already proposed to construct a new barn in the project’s
proposed Agricultural Heritage and Learning Center using salvageable materials from the
historically significant main barn, Mitigation Measure CR-1(a) was modified for the Final
EIR to incorporate the main barn.
May 15, 2017. The CHC considered the applicant’s revised and updated approach to
addressing impacts to the historic San Luis Ranch complex, based on previous CHC input and
direction from the Final EIR. The CHC found the project consistent with the City’s Historic
Preservation Ordinance and historic preservation policies of the General Plan.
PC 1-4
Airport Land Use Commission
Because the project site is within the airport review area, it required Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC) review, and a determination of consistency with applicable Airport Land Use Plan
(ALUP) policies. To that end, the ALUC considered the project on the following dates:
February 15, 2017. The ALUC continued the consideration of the item to its March 29,
2017 meeting, in order to allow the applicant to update the airport safety provisions of the
Specific Plan to achieve consistency with the ALUP.
March 29, 2017. The ALUC reviewed the project as updated, and provided additional
direction to the applicant to address potential ALUP inconsistency issues.
April 19, 2017. The ALUC reviewed the project, and determined that the project was
consistent with the ALUP, with conditions related to relocating 27 dwelling units that
would have otherwise been in a more restrictive airport safety zone, and by requiring a
portion of the designated commercial area be restricted from having developed structures
(see Attachment 1 for a list of these conditions). The applicant subsequently updated the
Specific Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract map to address these changes, which is the
version of the project currently being considered by the Planning Commission. These
changes did not affect the analysis or conclusions of the Final EIR.
5.0 CEQA PROCESS
5.1 Determination to Prepare an EIR
Early on, the City determined that the project would require the preparation of a Project EIR.
In 2014, the City Council approved a preliminary workscope for preparation of an EIR to
evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project and authorized staff to proceed with
sending out a Request for Proposals (RFP) for qualified consultants. City staff prepared an
Initial Study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which documents
and analyzes potential environmental issue areas and highlights workscope issues that needed
to be further analyzed in an EIR. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) to prepare an EIR was sent
to and posted by the State Clearinghouse on October 26, 2015. The Initial Study, NOP and
responses to the NOP are included as Appendix A of the Final EIR.
5.2 EIR Scope/Type
The Draft EIR incorporated the Initial Study and expanded on the discussion of issues included
in that document. CEQA compliance for the San Luis Ranch project is in the form on a Project
EIR that tiers from the Final Program EIR prepared for the 2014 Land Use and Circulation
Element (LUCE) Update. While the LUCE EIR did not include site-specific analyses for the
San Luis Ranch site for every issue (and where it did it was not an in-depth analysis), it many
cases did identify a series of programmatic (i.e., cumulative) impacts and provide mitigation
measures to adequately address those impacts. Some of these mitigation measures now apply
PC 1-5
Citywide, and some are now applicable specifically to the San Luis Ranch site. The EIR
summarizes those applicable mitigation measures from the LUCE EIR as well as additional
mitigation needed to address project specific impacts.
5.3 EIR Processing Requirements and Preparation of the Final EIR
Under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a 45-day public
review period of the Draft EIR is required. The required public review period for the San Luis
Ranch Draft EIR began December 9, 2016, and was originally set to end on January 23, 2017.
The comment period was subsequently extended to January 30, 2017. CEQA does not require
that a public meeting be held during the public review period, but does encourage it. The
Planning Commission held two public hearings to solicit input on the Draft EIR, on January
11 and January 25, 2017.
Portions of the Draft EIR related to the project’s energy impacts were recirculated for 45 days,
from March 3 through April 17, 2017. The City has determined that a restructured discussion
relating to energy impacts should be incorporated into the Draft EIR and recirculated for public
review and comment. The Recirculated Portions of the Draft EIR include revisions to the
portions of the Draft EIR specifically regarding: Section 5.0, Other CEQA-Required
Discussions, for readability, clarity, and consolidation of information previously included in
the text and appendices. The portions of the Draft EIR that were modified included pages
within Section 5.4, Energy Use and Conservation. No substantive comments related to this
topic requiring modifications to the Draft EIR were received during the recirculation period.
The Final EIR is a compilation of the Draft EIR, responses to comments to the Draft EIR, and
any changes made as a result of those comments. In some cases, revisions were made to the
Draft EIR to clarify information, data, or intent, or to make minor typographical corrections or
minor working changes. Any changes made to the text of the Draft EIR to are clearly noted in
the Final EIR as changes from the Draft EIR.
Although changes were made to the Final EIR, none of these changes represent significant new
information, substantive new analysis, an adverse change of severity related to the significance
of a given impact, or additional mitigation measures. Several mitigation measures in the Draft
EIR were revised as a result of these responses to comments, in order to clarify or improve
their effectiveness.
5.4 Final EIR Conclusions
The Final EIR concludes that the project will result in significant and unavoidable impacts to:
Air Quality – consistency with the Clean Air Plan; cumulative impacts related to air
quality.
Cultural Resources – impacts to the existing historic onsite agricultural structures,
known as the San Luis Ranch Complex, as well as cumulative impacts related to
PC 1-6
cultural resources.
Land Use – policies to protect historic resources and provisions related to parkland, as
well as policies to achieve of multimodal objectives.
Noise – short-term construction noise.
Transportation – project and cumulative impacts to intersection capacities at
Madonna Road/Dalidio Drive and Los Osos Valley Road/Froom Ranch Way; impacts
to the Higuera Street segment between Prado and Madonna Road; cumulative impacts
to the U.S. 101 segment between Los Osos Valley Road and Madonna Road.
The EIR also finds that there will be significant impacts that can be mitigated to less than
significant in the categories of agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural
resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise,
recreation, and transportation. Impacts related to aesthetics, greenhouse gas emissions, water
resources, as well as certain issues related to agricultural resources, air quality, hazards, hydrology
and water quality, land use, noise, population and housing were found to be less than significant.
Tables ES-1 through ES-3 at the beginning of the Final EIR summarize the project’s impacts and
mitigation measures.
The Executive Summary of the Final EIR is included as Attachment 2. The Final EIR is included
in its entirety as a digital attachment to this staff report, available at the following website:
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/documents-
online/environmental-review-documents/-folder-1907
The Final EIR must be certified before or concurrent with an action to approve the proposed project
entitlements.
6.0 GENERAL PLAN GUIDANCE AND POLICY CONSISTENCY
The San Luis Ranch (Dalidio) Specific Plan Area was one of three Specific Plan areas designated
for development when the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements update which was
adopted by the City Council in December 2014. The project is intended to be consistent with policy
direction for the area included in the General Plan, specifically Land Use Element Policy 8.1.4,
which identifies the San Luis Ranch area as a Special Focus Area (SP-2), subject to policies for
the development of a specific plan and certain broad development parameters and principles. For
clarity, the entire policy is attached to this staff report within the summary of relevant General Plan
policies (Attachment 3).
On balance, the project is intended to be consistent with all other General Plan policies, including
those in the Circulation, Safety, Conservation and Open Space, and Water and Wastewater
elements. An evaluation of the project’s consistency with General Plan policies is discussed at
length in Section 4.9 of the Final EIR, and also included in this staff report as Attachment 3. In
short, the analysis found that the project is consistent with all General Plan policies with prescribed
PC 1-7
mitigation measures included in the Final EIR, with the exception of the following, where a finding
of “potentially inconsistent” was made:
Land Use Element Policy 1.10.4 (Design Standards)
Land Use Element Policy 8.1.4 (5.8-acre park requirement)
Conservation and Open Space Element 3.3.2 (Demolitions)
Circulation Element Policy 6.1.2 (Multimodal Design Objectives)
The following discusses each policy in turn, relative to making a consistency determination.
Policy 1.10.4: Design Standards. The City shall require cluster development to: D. Preserve
historic or archaeological resources.
Policy 3.3.2: Demolitions. Historically or architecturally significant buildings shall not be
demolished or substantially changed in outward appearance, unless doing so is necessary to
remove a threat to health and safety and other means to eliminate or reduce the threat to
acceptable levels are infeasible.
Analysis: As described in EIR Section 4.5 Cultural Resources, existing structures on the
site are individually eligible for historic designation. The project includes the adaptive
reuse and relocation of the existing main residence and the historic former spectators’
barn/viewing stand to new locations on the site. Mitigation Measure CR-1(a) would reduce
impacts to these historic resources to the maximum extent feasible.
On May 15, 2017, the Cultural Heritage Committee considered these policies in its review
of impacts to cultural resources on the site, especially to the San Luis Ranch Complex, and
determined that the proposed plan was consistent with applicable policies, because the
adaptive reuse and relocation of structures furthered the goal of promoting the agricultural
heritage of the site more effectively than leaving than in their current dilapidated state, out
of locational context relative to nearby agriculture.
Demolition of the historic main barn, which is part of the San Luis Ranch Complex, would
conflict with Conservation and Open Space Element Policies 3.3.1 and 3.3.2. Salvageable
materials from the main barn are proposed to be reused to the greatest extent possible.
Mitigation Measures CR-1(b) and CR-1(c) would reduce significant direct impacts to the
remainder of the historically significant San Luis Ranch Complex to the maximum extent
feasible. However, the potential impact to these historic resources would remain significant
and unavoidable.
Land Use Element Policy 8.1.4. (Prescribes that 5.8 acres of parkland be included in the
Specific Plan)
Analysis: The proposed Specific Plan includes 2.8 acres of formal parkland, which is less
than the 5.8 acres required by policy. On February 3, 2016, the Parks and Recreation
PC 1-8
Commission (PRC) reviewed the proposed parks and recreation components of the Specific
Plan. As a result of this review, the Specific Plan was modified to more clearly differentiate
and describe the various park facilities included in the project. The PRC also determined
that any shortfall in required onsite parks acreage would be most effectively addressed
through payment of in-lieu fees, which could be applied to areas that might more
appropriately serve the greater community. For that reason, the Specific Plan may be
determined to be consistent with this aspect of Policy 8.1.4.
Policy 6.1.2: Multimodal Level of Service (LOS) Objectives, Service Standards, and
Significance Criteria.
Analysis: As discussed in EIR Section 4.12 Transportation and Circulation, traffic
conditions for automobile, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit LOS were evaluated under
project conditions near term (2023) and cumulative (2035) conditions. This was a
significant new undertaking to review LOS for all transportation modes, consistent with
the mode-shift objectives contained in the LUCE. Mitigation Measures have been included
to reduce potential impacts to regional vehicle and multimodal traffic to the maximum
extent feasible. However, impacts associated with multimodal level of service standards at
several study area intersections and roadway segments under Existing Plus Project, Near-
Term Plus Project, and Cumulative Plus Project conditions were found to remain
significant and unavoidable with mitigation. These include:
Madonna Road & Dalidio Drive intersection;
Los Osos Valley Road & Froom Ranch Way intersection;
Higuera Street (certain roadway segments); and
U.S. 101 mainline segments at Los Osos Valley Road and Madonna Road.
Nevertheless, the project includes a robust multimodal circulation system, designed to
promote a pedestrian and bicycle-oriented community with parks, open space, and
commercial uses situated within walking distance from residential areas. A network of
interconnected walking and biking paths is included. The Specific Plan completes a key
component of the Bob Jones Trail, which connects San Luis Obispo and Avila Beach.
Additionally, a central transit stop would provide access to SLO Transit and an alternative
to the automobile. Although multimodal standards may not be fully achieved, the Specific
Plan addresses the issue to the extent feasible, so a policy consistency determination could
be made.
7.0 PROJECT SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
7.1 Project Description Summary
The project is the development of a major new City neighborhood, which will be governed by
a Specific Plan. General Plan Amendment, subdivision, annexation, and other entitlements are
necessary to allow development of the San Luis Ranch area (formerly referred to as the Dalidio
property) as identified in the City’s General Plan. The project includes a mix of residential,
PC 1-9
commercial, and office uses while preserving nearly half of the site as open space and agriculture
on a 131.3-acre property. The intent is for the project to be consistent with the development
parameters described in the City’s 2014 Land Use Element, which envisions up to 500
residential units, 200,000 square feet of commercial uses, 150,000 square feet of office, 200
hotel rooms, at least 5.8 acres of parks, with a goal of preserving 50% of the site in agriculture
and open space.
Section 2.0 of the Final EIR fully describes the project details, the key highlights of which are
included below. Note that since the EIR Project Description was prepared for the Draft EIR,
various City advisory bodies have provided important input that have resulted in minor changes
to the project to address one or another public concern or environmental impact. In addition,
the Draft EIR itself provided a forum for public review. Based on responses to that document,
certain mitigation measures were modified, which in turn resulted in minor modifications to
the project intended to more directly address some of these impacts. Finally, the Airport Land
Use Commission in determining that the project is consistent with its Airport Land Use Plan,
required additional project modifications to make this finding. Specifically, this resulted in a
slightly smaller development footprint to ensure public safety associated with airport
operations. This also resulted in a slightly lesser amount of residential buildout potential than
originally contemplated in the Draft EIR. Overall, these project modifications would result in
lesser impacts than described in the Draft and Final EIR, because they are specifically intended
to address one or another impact identified through the CEQA process.
The following summarizes the major modifications to the Specific Plan based on direction
from various advisory bodies and input received from the public:
Planning Commission
In order to have a broader mix of densities so there can be a greater variety of product
and affordability, the plan was revised from NG-1 (which encompassed the single
family and small lot areas) to NG 10 and NG 23, which are now separate zones. The
NG-23 zone reflects a higher density to allow a variety of very small lot products. The
SP illustrates front and rear yard loaded units, both attached and detached.
Cul-de-sacs have been avoided to the extent possible. The plan has been revised to
have only 2 cul-de-sacs in the single family, each with a connection to Froom Ranch.
There is one cul-de-sac in the multifamily, with a pedestrian connection to the rest of
the project.
Road and infrastructure phasing and timing specifically the overpass and interchange
has been updated.
PC 1-10
Bicycle Advisory Committee
The committee preferred the development of a crossing of Highway 101 at Prado Road
even if it is for bicycle only for overall bicycling facility network connectivity. The
Prado Road overcrossing will contain bike paths on both sides of the bridge.
Parks and Recreation Commission
In order to incorporate additional passive recreational opportunities (i.e. trails) on-site,
the site contains a 6’ wide trail that follows the San Luis Channel and Perfumo Creek.
It winds through sections of preserved area for monarch butterflies.
The Specific Plan has been revised from a Park/Open Space zoning designation to just
Open Space. As a result, the Open Space area will have a less manicured and more
natural look and feel.
Cultural Heritage Committee
The conceptual Agricultural Heritage Center site plan revised to more accurately
convey the number and location of buildings.
The updated plan provides more detail with regards to the relocation and rehabilitation
of historic structures.
Architectural Review Commission
Revisions to design guidelines based on Commission input currently being made,
however not incorporated into this version. Revisions will be presented at May 21st
ARC hearing.
Airport Land Use Commission (to ensure consistency with safety and density policies):
Delineation of 200’ no build zone affecting commercial areas
A change of approximately 3 acres of residential NG-23 zoning to General
Commercial
27 units removed from Sb-1 zone with 8 units relocated to the S-2 zone
ALUC findings of consistency have been incorporated into Appendix C of the Specific
Plan
PC 1-11
Draft Environmental Impact Report
The Specific Plan now contains key mitigation measures inserted into the body of the
document.
All of the mitigation measures from the EIR are incorporated into Appendix B of the
Specific Plan.
If the project is approved by the City, the Specific Plan area would require annexation to the
City of San Luis Obispo. The project is within the City’s Sphere of Influence and Urban
Reserve Line, and is designed to be consistent with both City and Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCo) policies, including the requirement that the annexation be compatible
with the City’s General Plan and supportable by the City’s infrastructure.
There are five major project components, the key elements of which are summarized in the
next sections staff report, and included in their entirety as attachments to the staff report:
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
General Plan Amendment/Pre-Zoning
Development Plan/Vesting Tentative Tract Map
Term Sheet/Development Agreement
Annexation
7.2 San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
A specific plan is a tool for the systematic implementation of a general plan. It effectively
establishes a link between implementing policies of the general plan and the individual
development proposals in a defined area.
A specific plan may be as general as setting forth broad policy concepts, or as detailed as
providing direction to every facet of development from the type, location and intensity of uses
to the design and capacity of infrastructure; from the resources used to finance public
improvements to the design guidelines of a subdivision.
To an extent, the range of issues that is contained in a specific plan is left to the discretion of
the decision-making body. However, all specific plans, whether prepared by a general law city
or county, must comply with Sections 65450 - 65457 of the Government Code. These
provisions require that a specific plan be consistent with the adopted general plan of the
jurisdiction within which it is located. In turn, all subsequent subdivision and development, all
public works projects and zoning regulations must be consistent with the specific plan.
As with a general plan, the authority for adoption of the specific plan is vested with the local
legislative body pursuant to §65453(a). However, unlike the general plan, which is required to
be adopted by resolution (§65356), two options are available for the adoption of a specific
plan: 1) adoption by resolution, which is designed to be policy driven, or 2) adoption by
PC 1-12
ordinance, which is regulatory by design. In the case of the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan, the
intent is to adopt the document by both resolution and ordinance, since it encompasses both
regulatory and design features. The adoption of a specific plan is a legislative act similar to
adoption of a general plan or zoning ordinance. Adoption of a Specific Plan for the area is a
prerequisite for annexation of the property.
The San Luis Ranch Specific Plan is based on the legal authorit y described above. It is a tool
that implements the City’s General Plan, and provides more detailed planning direction,
specifically with regard to Land Use Element Policy 8.1.4, and provides the legislative (policy)
framework for Special Focus Area 2 (SP-2) as identified in the General Plan. It also functions
as the zoning code for future development within the area. It is intended to be, and must be,
consistent with the General Plan. The San Luis Ranch Specific Plan provides a comprehensive
land use program to guide future public and private development in the planning area in
conformance with the requirements set forth in the California Government Code Sections
65450 through 65457.
Functionally, the Specific Plan provides a bridge between the City’s General Plan and detailed
plans for future development projects within the plan area. It directs all facets of future
development within the area, including:
Designation of land uses;
Designation of required access & circulation features;
Location and sizing of infrastructure;
Phasing of development;
Financing methods for public improvements; and
Establishing standards of development.
Key aspects of the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan are summarized. As previously described,
the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan that is provided for the Planning Commission’s review is
substantially different from the document that was first submitted to the City for review.
Throughout the process, the applicant and staff have made modifications to the Specific Plan
to incorporate input from members of the public, City advisory bodies, the results of
environmental studies, the conclusions of the EIR, and the decisions of the Airport Land Use
Commission.
Land Use Designations and Pattern
As shown in Figure 1, the Specific Plan area is organized into six land use designations, which
are equivalent to zoning within the area. These include Neighborhood General 1 (NG-10),
Neighborhood General 2 (NG-23), Neighborhood General 3 (NG-30), Neighborhood
Commercial (NC), Open Space (OS), and Agriculture (AG). The applicable densities and
development standards associated with each of these zones are described in detail below. Table
2 lists the proposed San Luis Ranch Specific Plan zones, acreages, and maximum buildout
potential within each zone of the Specific Plan Area.
PC 1-13
Table 2. Planned San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Area Development
Type Specific Plan Zone % of Site Units Acreage
Planned Development 1
Low-Medium Density Residential NG-10 16.4% 200 units 21.5 acres
Medium Density Residential NG-23 5.5% 100 units 7.3 acres
High Density Residential NG-30 8.4% 246 units 11.0 acres
Affordable Housing Density Bonus 2 34 units n/a
Commercial NC 9.0% 150,000 SF 11.9 acres
Office NC 3.2% 100,000 SF 4.2 acres
Hotel and Conference Center NC 2.7% 200 rooms 3.5 acres
Public Parks 2.1% 2.8 acres
Roads 6.8% 9.0 acres
Agricultural and Open Space
Agriculture AG 39.8% 52.3 acres
Internal Open Spaces OS 5.9% 7.8 acres
1. Planned Development area is based on net site area of approximately 122.5 acres. The gross site area is approximately 131.4 acres, less
approximately 8.9 acres of right-of-way associated with regional roadway improvements.
2. The project includes up to 34 deed-restricted affordable units on site. Per Section 17.090.040(d) of the City’s Affordable Housing
Incentives, the included affordable housing allows for a 20% density bonus.
Figure 1. Proposed Land Use Designations/Zoning
PC 1-14
The development concept within each land use included in the specific plan is summarized
below.
Residential
The project includes a mix of 580 low-medium, medium, and high density residences that
would be located primarily on the northwestern and central portion of the project site. Housing
would range from detached single-family units to attached multi-family dwellings, and are
described in detail Chapter 3 of the Specific Plan. The low-medium density residential zone
(NG-10) would allow for residential units at a density of up to 10 units per acre with a height
limit of 35 feet. Residential products envisioned for this zone include traditional single-family
and small-lot residential. The medium-density residential zone (NG-23) would allow for
residential units at a density of up to 23 units per acre with a height limit of 35 feet. Residential
products envisioned for this zone include detached townhomes, attached townhomes, and
multi-family structures such as apartments or condos. The high-density multi-family
residential zone (NG-30) would allow for residential units at a density of up to 30 units per
acre with a height limit of 40 feet. Residential products envisioned for this zone include
detached townhomes, attached townhomes, and multi-family structures such as apartments or
condos. The neighborhoods would be connected with a local street and trail system, and would
contain recreational areas. Internal circulation would include an emphasis on pedestrian and
bicycle circulation, with night lighting designed to meet “dark sky” standards.
Commercial
The project includes 150,000 square feet of commercial development, 100,000 square feet of
office development, and a 200-room hotel with allowable building heights up to a 50-foot
maximum. The commercial and hotel components are proposed on the area of land fronting
the extended Prado Road/Dalidio Drive and Froom Ranch Way. Commercial uses proposed
for the project may include retail anchors, neighborhood retail, restaurants, offices, and a hotel.
Agriculture
The project would preserve approximately 52.3 acres of the site in agriculture adjacent the San
Luis Obispo City Farm. The project would also preserve approximately 7.8 acres of the site in
open space. Collectively, this would comprise 45.7 percent of the net site acreage (when
acreage set aside for the future Prado Road interchange or overpass is discounted). The project
also includes a commitment to procure an off-site agricultural conservation easement/deed
restriction to comply with the City’s General Plan Land Use Element Policy 1.13.8 and Land
Use Element Policy 8.1.4, which require that future development on the San Luis Ranch
property dedicate one half of the total land or easements for open space use.
As part of the proposed agricultural uses, the project also includes an Agricultural Heritage
Facilities & Learning Center, which would be located along the southeast side of Froom Ranch
Way, southwest of the proposed commercial land use. The Agricultural Heritage Facilities &
Learning Center would be intended as an educational center for local residents and an
agricultural tourism destination. See Section 7.2 for an analysis of the adequacy of the Specific
Plan’s approach to addressing issues related to agricultural resources.
PC 1-15
Open Space
The proposed open space would be located on the northwestern portion of the project site along
Prefumo Creek, as well as along Cerro San Luis Channel, which is a permanent surface
drainage that traverses the property from east to west. The open space areas would also include
a link in the Bob Jones Regional Trail.
Development Summary
Table 3 summarizes the generalized product types associated with each zone, and the
maximum lot coverage and building heights associated with each. Please refer to Chapter 3 of
the Specific Plan for a more complete discussion of development potential, setbacks and other
design characteristics. Note that the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) will likely
update the design standards included in Chapter 3 during its June 5, 2017 meeting. These
recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration.
Table 3: Summary of the proposed lot sizes, lot coverage, and building heights
Zone
Product Type Lot Sizes/Lot
Coverage
Max Building
Height
Neighborhood General 10 (NG-10) Traditional Single Family 3,200 SF min 35’
Neighborhood General 23 (NG-23) Small Lot Front Loaded 2,400 SF min 35’
Neighborhood General 23 (NG-23) Small Lot Alley Loaded 2,400 SF min 35’
Neighborhood General 30 (NG-30) Detached Townhome 1,000 SF min 40’
Neighborhood General 30 (NG-30) Attached Townhome 1,000 SF min 40’
Neighborhood General 30 (NG-30) Multi-Family 1,000 SF min 40’
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Commercial, Office and Hotel 80% max 20’ min; 50’ max
Open Space (OS) None
Agriculture (A) Ag Learning Center 3,000 SF max
Market/Farm Stand 3,000 SF max
Ag Processing Center 10,000 SF max
Food Services 5,000 SF max
Ag Accessory Structures * 1,500 SF max
per structure
35’
* up to a total of 10,000 SF in structures; historical structures may go to 45’
Circulation
The proposed specific plan was conceived with the intent to implement the goals included in
the LUCE, and was developed concurrently with the LUCE as it was adopted. Among the
four core principles underlying the plan, the following relates to circulation:
4. Create a Multimodal Community Seamlessly Integrated into the Existing Circulation
System
PC 1-16
The San Luis Ranch Specific Plan includes the following circulation-related goal, consistent
with the policy framework of adopted General Plan:
Goal 6: A community seamlessly integrated into the existing circulation system.
As stated in the Specific Plan, development is intended to provide the following circulation-
related community benefits:
Connection from Laguna Lake to the Bob Jones Bike Trail;
San Luis Ranch Trailhead and Fitness Loop;
State of the art bicycle trails, including three Class IV paths, adding function and
safety to the entire area;
Pedestrian-oriented community encouraging walking;
Varied residential and commercial components encouraging lower usage of
automobiles;
More efficient transit-friendly transportation network emphasizing neighborhood
connectivity;
Reduces regional commuter traffic by enabling people to live where they work; and
Reduces greenhouse gases by eliminating many single-occupancy vehicle trips.
Chapter 6 of the draft Specific Plan describes the multimodal circulation framework to support
future development within the plan area. Figure 2 shows the overall multimodal circulation
plan, which is described more fully on pages 6-2 and 6-3 of the Specific Plan.
Key roadway improvements are described in Section 6.7 of the Specific Plan, and include:
Prado Road connection. The construction of an overcrossing from the San Luis Ranch
site across U.S. Highway 101 via an overpass will connect to the existing section of
Prado Road on the east side of the freeway. Phased construction of full interchange is
required per mitigation measures T-1(c) and T-8 (d-f), which is discussed in the phasing
plan of the Specific Plan.
Froom Ranch Way connection. The Specific Plan will provide a connection to Froom
Ranch Way to enable access from Los Osos Valley Road to San Luis Ranch and Prado
Road. It also includes a new 2-lane bridge over Prefumo Creek to connect the Froom
Ranch Way extension on the San Luis Ranch site to the existing roadway section
located south of the creek.
Dalidio Road improvements. Dalidio Drive will require widening to its planned 4-lane
arterial width from this point easterly through the Specific Plan Area. Additionally, the
intersection at Madonna Road and Dalidio Drive will be expanded to accommodate
added traffic.
PC 1-17
Madonna Road improvements. A right-in and right-out connection with acceleration
and deceleration lanes will be provided. The additional traffic will require
modifications to the Dalidio/Madonna Road intersection to implement dual westbound
left turns.
Emergency Access easement. The development will include an offer of dedication for
a 20’ Emergency Access Easement between Froom Ranch Way and Calle Joaquin, and
shall not bifurcate on-site or neighboring agricultural lands.
Roundabouts. A multi-lane roundabout will be added on Dalidio Drive when
appropriate.
Figure 2. Proposed Multimodal Circulation Plan
PC 1-18
Table 4 summarizes the standards associated with new roadways in the area, which are shown
in cross section on pages 6-12 through 6-15 of the draft Specific Plan. These are intended to
be consistent with Circulation Element requirements and city standards.
Table 4. Summary of Key Roadway Design Considerations
Facility ROW
width
Travel
Lanes
Other Amenities
Residential Collector – Froom Ranch Way 77’ 2 11’ travel lanes; 6’6” Class I bike path; 14’ central
median; parkways; 89-foot ag buffer
Collector Street – Dalidio Drive/Prado Rd 80’ 4 11’ travel lanes; two 5’ Class I bike lanes; 12’
median/turn lane; separate 7’ sidewalks
Local Residential Street 46’ 2 10’ travel lanes; 6’ sidewalk in parkway median; 7’
parking on either side
Alley 20’ 2 20’ width with no center line
Chapter 6 of the Specific Plan also describes pedestrian, bicycle and dog-friendly circulation
components in more depth, including amenities and key design features associated with each.
Conceptually, these systems are designed to work in concert with one another, and provide
connectivity to existing systems offsite.
1. Transit. The Specific Plan calls for transit connections to the area from elsewhere in
the City, and proposes a transit center within the area. The location of the transit center
will be coordinated with SLO Transit and RTA (if applicable), as described on page 3-
39 and 6-4 of the Specific Plan.
2. Bicycle and Pedestrian Amenities. The Specific Plan would include a network of Class
I and Class II bike facilities that would connect to other locations in the City. Key
amenities and facilities are described on pages 6-5 through 6-9 of the Specific Plan.
Two key features of the bicycle plan are a potential connection through the site to the
Bob Jones Trail at Calle Joaquin, and the Prado West Bicycle Connection from
Madonna Road along Dalidio Drive to Prado Road. Both improvements are consistent
with the City’s 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan. The Prado connection, however,
would only be planned as far as the freeway, until an overpass is constructed to allow
its continuation. As conceived in the draft Specific Plan, development in the area
would only be responsible for its fair share of improvements within the Specific Plan
area.
3. Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. The Specific Plan calls for a variety of
strategies intended to slow vehicular speeds and promote safety within a multimodal
circulation framework. These include narrow drive lanes, speed and warning signs,
turn restriction signs, roundabouts and speed humps. These proposed features are
described more fully on page 6-10 of the Specific Plan. However, their location and
potential use within the area have yet to be determined.
PC 1-19
Infrastructure Framework
Chapter 7 of the draft Specific Plan describes the infrastructure framework needed to support
future development within the plan area. Key infrastructure is descibed below.
The proposed project will provide the needed utilities infrastructure to provide City services to
the site, including:
1. Domestic Water. The Specific Plan calls connections to existing City supplies via 12-
inch lines serving the site, as shown on Figure 7.1 (page 7-4) of the Specific Plan. The
plan would also require water conservation measures be included in new development,
notably:
Drought-tolerant landscaping;
Use of recycled water for exterior landscaped areas;
Low-flow water fixtures and water-efficient heating appliances
Interior use of gray water to the maximum extent allowed by law;
Onsite rainwater harvesting, including water storage cisterns
2. With proposed conservation measures in place, projected domestic water demand from
new development would be 167 acre feet per year (AFY), or 0.149 million gallons per
day (MGD), as shown on Table 7-2 (page 7-3) of the plan. Although this appears
consistent with projections made as part of the LUCE update, a formal Water Supply
Assessment (WSA) has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of SB 610. This
information is analyzed in the EIR for the project.
It should be noted that remaining agricultural uses are projected to use up to 228 AFY.
According to the Specific Plan, domestic water use is likely to be less than what the
existing agricultural demand of the area that would be converted to non-agricultural
use. This concept will be investigated in the EIR.
3. Recycled Water. The Specific Plan calls connections to an existing 14-inch City
recycled water line in Madonna Road via 6 -inch lines serving the site, as shown on
Figure 7.2 (page 7-5) of the Specific Plan. The potential application of recycled water
is described in the previous paragraphs.
4. Sewer System. In the draft Specific Plan, the applicant proposes connections to the
Laguna Lift Station across Highway 101 via 8-inch lines that convey wastewater
generated from the site, as shown on Figure 7.3 (page 7-7) of the Specific Plan.
Preliminary review of this concept by the City’s Utilities Department indicates this
proposed configuration is not acceptable to the City and will need to be modified, in
the final design plans of the project.
PC 1-20
5. Drainage. San Luis Ranch is located in a designated 100-year floodplain (1%
probability of occurrence per year). The overall general flow of surface water is from
northeast to southwest, along the Cerro San Luis Drainage Channel and along the west
side of the 101 freeway, across the agricultural fields in a generally widening surface
flow path, finally draining into Prefumo Creek (see Figure 7.4 of the Specific Plan;
page 7-10). While the risk of potential flooding is not severe, the Specific Plan still
accounts for these floodplain conditions and plans accordingly for accommodation of
floodwaters. The Specific Plan’s floodplain management strategy includes both
preventative and corrective measures to reduce these flood-associated risks.
When fully developed and under normal conditions, San Luis Ranch will manage
natural resources responsibly by not increasing runoff as it currently exists, by:
Limiting 2-year post-development peak runoff to the 2-year pre-development
runoff;
Limiting 10-year post-development runoff to the 10-year pre-development
runoff
Limiting 50-year post-development runoff to a maximum increase of 5% over
pre-development as described in the City’s Waterways Management Plan.
Figure 7.6 in the Specific Plan (page 7-14) shows specific details regarding drainage
and location of detention and retention basins, as well as stormwater treatment areas.
Figure 7.5 (page 7-12) shows grading within the Plan Area, specifically noting areas of
cut and fill, and general flow direction of potential floodwaters post-development.
Development within the Specific Plan Area is intended to conform to stormwater
management requirements of the City of San Luis Obispo, including new standards for
Low Impact Development (LID) set forth by the State Regional Water Quality Control
Board, through the use of bio swales, detention and retention basins, cisterns, and other
low impact methods to recharge the aquifer onsite.
6. Dry utilities (electricity, gas, telecommunications). Existing utilities companies that
serve the City, including PG&E and Southern California Gas Company will provide
electrical and gas services to the site. This is described in more depth on page 7-16 of
the Specific Plan.
7. Other Public Services. Services related to police, fire, and schools are described on
pages 7-18 and 7-19 of the Specific Plan.
Project Phasing
The project would be constructed in six phases. Phases 1, 2, and 3 would consist of residential
development; construction is planned to begin in 2018 and would be completed in 2021. Phases
4, 5, and 6 would consist of non-residential buildout and construction is expected to begin in
2018 and would be completed in 2024. Figure 3 shows the location of proposed phasing in
PC 1-21
the context of the Specific Plan. This figure illustrates the relative timing of proposed
development and infrastructure that will be built under the Specific Plan. It should be noted
that market forces will largely dictate the actual timing of development.
1. Phasing of Key Land Use and Circulation Features. Figure 3 and Table 5 summarize
the proposed phasing of key land use and circulation features within the Plan area,
which are described more fully on pages 7-20 and 7-21 of the Specific Plan.
Table 5. Proposed Phasing of Key Land Use and Circulation Features
Figure 3. Proposed
Specific Plan Phasing
PC 1-22
2. Residential Phasing. Table 6 shows the proposed residential phasing by unit count, as
described in Chapter 7 of the Specific Plan. Projected timing is based on the phasing
map shown in Figure 3. It should be recognized that actual timing will be determined
to a large extent by market conditions and other related factors out of the applicant’s
control.
3. Non-Residential Phasing. Table 7 shows the proposed non-residential phasing by
square footage, as described in Chapter 7 of the Specific Plan. Projected timing is
based on the phasing map shown in Figure 3. It should be recognized that actual timing
will be determined to a large extent by market conditions and other related factors out
of the applicant’s control.
Table 6. Proposed Phasing of Residential Development
Table 7. Proposed Phasing of Non-Residential Development
PC 1-23
4. Phasing of Major Infrastructure. Table 8 summarizes the proposed phasing of key
infrastructure within the Plan area, which is described more fully in Chapter 7 of the
Specific Plan. The phasing projections shown in the Specific Plan and summarized in
this staff report were used as the basis for estimated costs, which in turn were used to
estimate fees associated with future development. Cost estimates and fee calculations
are included in Chapter 7 of the Specific Plan.
Table 8. Proposed Phasing of Major Infrastructure
PC 1-24
Project Financing Strategy for Major Infrastructure
Pages 7-23 through 7-28 within Chapter 7 of the draft Specific Plan describe the conceptual
financing strategy for needed major improvements within the Specific Plan area, based on
a Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP), described in Section 7.8.1 of the Specific Plan.
At this point, the cost and timing are still preliminary, and will depend on market and other
factors. But in general, the following funding mechanisms are proposed in the Specific
Plan:
Primary Funding Mechanisms
o Development Impact Fees
o Community Facilities District (CFD)
Ancillary Funding Mechanisms
o City and County Tax Exchange
o Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD)
o Developer Financing
o Landscape and Lighting District
o Homeowner Association Fees
These are described more fully in Section 7.8 of the Specific Plan. In general, San Luis
Ranch development will pay for needed infrastructure upfront and be reimbursed for
portions beyond its fair share (to be determined), or it will pay its fair share up front to
contribute to the eventual construction of a needed improvement. The final infrastructure
financing strategy will be based on fiscal and economic studies that examine the proposed
improvements and timing, and refine the financing and fair share mechanisms needed to
deliver a given infrastructure project.
7.3 General Plan Amendment/Pre-Zoning
In order to implement the Specific Plan, a General Plan Amendment will be needed. The
amendment is intended to address the following:
Update the City’s Land Use Map to reflect the development pattern included in the
Specific Plan;
Update the City’s Circulation Map to reflect the circulation system included in the
Specific Plan;
Update the relevant portions of the General Plan to update statistical data related to
land use acreage and long-term buildout potential.
The Specific Plan land use designations also form the basis for pre-zoning the site. This
information will be forwarded to LAFCo as the basis for long-term development in the City.
Once annexed, the Specific Plan will constitute the zoning for the site, and the City’s zoning
map will be updated accordingly.
PC 1-25
A specific plan is a tool for the systematic implementation of a general plan. It effectively
establishes a link between implementing policies of the general plan and the individual
development proposals in a defined area. A specific plan may be as general as setting forth
broad policy concepts, or as detailed as providing direction to every facet of development
7.4 Development Plan/Vesting Tentative Tract Map
The project includes a Development Plan/Vesting Tentative Tract Map (Attachment 4), which
addresses future residential development within the Specific Plan. The map includes details
that go well beyond those included in the Specific Plan, including information on lot locations,
roadways, drainage, grading, and other information typically associated with Tentative Maps.
The Tentative Map would facilitate development within the areas it covers. It is intended to be
consistent with the Specific Plan - implementing its policies, zoning standards, and Design
Guidelines. The Map also includes details regarding proposed roadways and circulation
improvements.
A future Tract Map (or Maps) would be required for the commercial phases (Phases 4-6) of
the project prior to approval of development within those portions of the Specific Plan.
7.5 Term Sheet/Development Agreement
In April 2014, the City Council authorized City staff to begin a process for the City to enter
into a Development Agreement with the project applicant. A Development Agreement is a
legal tool that allows public agencies to gain public improvements beyond what would either
be required through a typical planning process or the CEQA process to address identified
impacts related to a project. A Development Agreement typically includes the payment of fees
needed to help implement such improvements. In exchange, a project applicant is provided
assurances related to future development, often with respect to timing. A Development
Agreement cannot be implemented unless the necessary underlying planning entitlements are
first approved, in this case, a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment/Pre-Zoning, and Vesting
Tentative Tract Map. The site must also first be annexed to the City before its provisions
become effective.
City staff is working with the applicant on a term sheet that will become the basis for the
Development Agreement. The Development Agreement would not change the development
parameters included in the Specific Plan, but would fine-tune their implementation, building
on the Conditions of Approval associated with the Vesting Tentative Tract Map. Typically, a
Planning Commission does not review the terms of the Development Agreement, which are
more appropriately considered as business items, and thus approved by the City Council.
Although not completed for the May 24th or 25th Planning Commission hearings, the term sheet
will be available for the June 7th special meeting, and must be included in the City Council’s
agenda packet when it considers possible approval of the Development Agreement.
PC 1-26
8.0 ANALYSIS OF KEY PROJECT ISSUES
8.1 Agricultural Preservation
Land Use Element Policy 8.1.4 requires that 50% of the net site area (which is the total site
area less 1.8 acres dedicated for right of way associated with a possible future Prado Road
interchange improvement) be left in agriculture or open space. The City Council may consider
allowing a portion of required open space to be met through off-site dedication provided three
requirements are met: 1) a substantial multiplier for the amount of open space is provided for
the off-site property exchanged to meet the on-site requirement; 2) off-site land is of similar
agricultural and visual value to the community; and 3) off-site land is protected through an
easement, dedication or fee title in perpetuity for agriculture/open space. The City Council
may, based on Planning Commission’s recommendation, determine whether these
requirements are met.
As described in Section 2.1.2 and Table 2-2 of the Specific Plan, the project site would
maintain 52.3 acres of prime agriculture and 7.8 acres of designated open space, generally
associated with riparian and creek areas.
Table 9 summarizes the General Plan’s agriculture and opens space requirements, and the
extent to which the project intends to meet these requirements onsite:
As shown in Table 9, the Specific Plan requires 54.5 acres of agriculture to meet its
requirements onsite, based on the fact there are currently 109 acres of prime agricultural soils
on the site. Since the applicant proposes only 52.3 acres onsite, there is a 2.2 -acre shortfall,
which the applicant proposes to meet through an offsite dedication.
Similarly, the Specific Plan requires 10.3 acres of open space to meet its requirements onsite,
based on the fact there are currently 20.6 acres of open space on the site. Since the applicant
Table 9. Agriculture and Open Space Requirements and Provisions
PC 1-27
proposes only 7.8 acres onsite, there is a 2.5-acre shortfall, which the applicant proposes to
meet through an offsite dedication.
Another significant agriculturally-related feature is the proposed Agricultural Heritage
Facilities and Learning Center, which is intended to perpetuate the City’s ag heritage and
integrate the site’s historical agricultural practices into the neighborhood. Additionally, the
San Luis Obispo General Plan Land Use Element (Policy 3.6.1) indicates that historic
resources and educational/cultural facilities shall be emphasized for not only the local
community, but for the continuation of a thriving tourism economy as well. The Agricultural
Heritage Facilities and Learning Center is intended to offer access to healthy food, create a
connection to the land, and provide a community gathering place. This is consistent with
several General Plan Land Use Element policies, notably Policy 3.6.1 and 10.2, which
recognize and promote the City’s agricultural heritage.
8.2 Housing Affordability and Density Bonus Provisions
Affordable housing (below market-rate) is an important complement to the area’s workforce
and other market rate housing. Accordingly, the City’s Municipal Code (Chapter 17.91) and
General Plan Housing Element (Goal 2, Appendix N: Table 2 and Table 2A) include
inclusionary housing requirements for new developments (see Table 5.1 of the Specific Plan).
Further, the City’s Municipal Code (Chapter 17.90) and General Plan Housing Element
(Section 3.30) provide incentives for affordable housing construction.
The San Luis Ranch Specific Plan proposes 500 residential units per the City’s Land Use and
Circulation Element (LUCE) policies, as well as 80 additional units obtained through state
bonus density law. A total of 580 units are being proposed, with the City’s inclusionary
residential housing requirements being met within the first 500 units. The provision of
affordable housing to meet the Inclusionary Housing Requirement allows the applicant to
request a density bonus through the City’s Affordable Housing Incentive Ordinance, which is
consistent with State law.
The affordable housing located within the Specific Plan area will provide 34 units on site for
very low, low, and moderate income households. Of the 34 units, 26 will be very-low income
units, which qualifies the project for a 20% state density bonus. Deed-restricted, NG-10 and
NG-23 zoned affordable units will be located throughout these portions of the Specific Plan
area. Each of the 12 integrated affordable units will be located in one of the quadrants in each
of the unit type areas.
City staff has analyzed the provisions related to affordable housing and the application of
density bonuses, based on City requirements, and has determined that these provisions are
consistent with applicable requirements.
Please refer to Section 5.2.2 of the Specific Plan for additional discussion of affordable
housing and density bonus provisions as they relate to the project.
PC 1-28
8.3 Timing and Necessity of Prado Road Improvements
A full access interchange at U.S. 101 and Prado Road has been a component of the San Luis
Obispo County Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and City Circulation Element for several
decades. Environmental review and approval of programs, services, development and projects
which have since been implemented have been in part predicated on a full access interchange
at U.S. 101/Prado Road. Programmatic (policy-level) analysis conducted for the San Luis
Ranch Specific Plan Area as part of the Land Use and Circulation Element Update identified
that without a full access interchange at U.S. 101/Prado Road under buildout conditions, City
streets and intersections would operate at unacceptable levels of service. While there are
existing deficiencies in the City that would be addressed by the Prado Road
Overcrossing/Interchange, the project is not responsible for mitigating existing transportation
deficiencies. The project would be responsible for addressing transportation impacts that
would result from, or be exacerbated by, project development.
The San Luis Ranch Specific Plan does not include any improvements related to either a Prado
Road overpass or interchange, but accommodates the potential development of either facility,
when these are needed. The project proposes to dedicate the necessary right-of-way and
financially participate in the overpass or interchange project in accordance with an equitable
share analysis. The Multimodal Transportation Impact Study (Appendix L) was developed, in
part, to identify if and when implementation of the Prado Road overpass or interchange would
be necessary to achieve acceptable levels of service on City roadways and intersections, in
consideration of vehicle trips generated by the project, in combination with existing and
anticipated development in the City.
As described in Final EIR Section 4.12, Transportation, project-generated traffic would result
in potentially significant transportation impacts at eight project-area intersections and thirteen
project-area roadway segments by Phase 2 of the project. These transportation impacts would
be reduced, and acceptable levels of service achieved, by installing the Prado Road
Overcrossing and Northbound U.S. 101 Ramps.
Under cumulative conditions, based on the City’s General Plan buildout as included in the
City’s Travel Demand Model, project-generated traffic would result in potentially significant
transportation impacts at seven project-area intersections and nine project-area roadway
segments. These cumulative transportation impacts would be reduced and acceptable levels of
service achieved by construction of the Southbound U.S. 101 Ramps at the Prado Road
Overcrossing. Therefore, the Draft EIR and the Multimodal Transportation Impact Study
(Appendix L) identify a full interchange at Prado Road as the most feasible long-term option
for mitigation of several project-related and cumulative traffic impacts that result from
development in the project region.
While project impacts at some of these study area intersections and roadways may be reduced
through implementation of other circulation improvements, the Prado Road
Overcrossing/Interchange is an anticipated transportation improvement in the San Luis Obispo
County RTP and the City’s Circulation Element. Implementing alternative mitigation for
PC 1-29
facilities in-lieu of installing the Prado Road Overcrossing/Interchange would require
substantial additional right-of-way acquisition in several locations that would be costly and
potentially physically infeasible, including potential relocations of off-site structures. One
example of this is at the intersection of South Higuera Street and Madonna Road.
The potential residual environmental impacts of the Prado Road Overcrossing/Interchange
mitigation are discussed in Final EIR Section 4.12.4(d), Residual Impacts Associated with Off-
Site Improvements. This analysis evaluates a reasonable worst-case for future development
associated with this mitigation, which includes a four-lane overpass that would connect Prado
Road on the east side of U.S. 101 with the proposed Prado Road Extension (Dalidio Drive) on
the west side of U.S. 101, including reconstructed northbound ramps on the east side of U.S.
101 and a new southbound ramp system located primarily within the San Luis Ranch Specific
Plan area west of U.S. 101. In addition to the environmental analysis of the residual impacts
of this mitigation, the potential environmental effects of the final design of the Prado Road
Overcrossing/ Interchange would be evaluated at a project level of detail by the City through
the required State and federal (if applicable) environmental documentation for that project,
including evaluation of various alternatives.
Policy 9.2.2 of the Circulation Element requires the sponsors of development projects that
contribute to the need for the Prado Road Overcrossing/Interchange to prepare or fund the
preparation of a Project Study Report (PSR) for the interchange project. A PSR is an
engineering report prepared cooperatively by Caltrans and local and regional agencies for
projects on the State highway system, with the purpose of documenting agreement on the
scope, schedule and estimated cost of a project so the project can be considered for inclusion
in a future programming document such as the State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP). The PSR for the Prado Road Overcrossing/Interchange is currently being undertaken
in compliance with Section 501.3 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, in parallel with
the review of the San Luis Ranch Project. As the timing, features, design, and specific area of
disturbance of the Prado Road/U.S. 101 project comes into greater focus through preparation
of the PSR, subsequent CEQA review of the impacts of the improvement may be required.
Although the final design of the Prado Road Overcrossing/Interchange is not yet available, the
improvement has been deemed physically feasible by the City due to th e multitude of
geometric design options available, including auxiliary lanes, grade separated ramps, and
collector-distributor roads. The San Luis Ranch project applicant has proposed, and would be
required, to dedicate right-of way sufficient to accommodate the ultimate configuration of the
required improvements.
As described in Section 4.56.010, Transportation Impact Fees, of the City’s Municipal Code,
in order to implement the goals and objectives of the City’s General Plan Circulation Element,
the Short Range Transit Plan, and the Bikeway Element of the San Luis Obispo County
Regional Transportation Plan, and to provide adequate transportation facilities to serve new
development in the City of San Luis Obispo and to mitigate the impacts of that new
development, certain public facilities and improvements must be implemented. The San Luis
Obispo City Council has determined that transportation impact fees are needed in order to
finance these facilities and improvements and to pay for new development’s fair share of the
PC 1-30
construction or purchase costs of these facilities and improvements. As stated in the Final EIR,
the project applicant would be required to pay their fair share of improvement cost allocation
for the Prado Road Overcrossing/Interchange as identified in EIR Table 4.12-19.
The final map conditions for the project will require the City and the developer, as part of the
development agreement, to establish a funding mechanism capable of delivering construction
of the Prado Road Overcrossing with Northbound U.S. 101 Ramps Improvements by Phase 2,
independent of further funding approvals and authorizations. The Development Agreement for
the project will prescribe the specific details of the required funding mechanism. The City will
be responsible for implementing the funding program, completing project study and
engineering, acquiring the necessary permits and approvals, and for construction of this
improvement. The developer agrees payment of its “fair share” of anticipated construction
costs of the Prado Road Overcrossing with Northbound U.S. 101 Ramps Improvements and
the offer to dedicate the right of way for the final design of the Southbound U.S. 101 Ramps
prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 2.
The Final EIR specifies the required actions on the part of the project applicant, the City of
San Luis Obispo, and Caltrans to comply with the Prado Road Overcrossing/Interchange
mitigation. The Final EIR concludes that changes or alterations pursuant to the required
mitigation measures that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans and not the
lead agency can and should be adopted by Caltrans, pursuant to Section 15091(a)(2) of the
State CEQA Guidelines. As described above, the City has determined that the Prado Road
Overcrossing/Interchange mitigation is physically and economically feasible, although these
improvements would require review by Caltrans that is beyond the City’s control. Therefore,
the Final EIR concludes that impacts that would be mitigated by the Prado Road
Overcrossing/Interchange mitigation are less than significant with implementation of this
mitigation.
8.4 Airport Land Use Plan Consistency
Because a portion of the Specific Plan area lies within restrictive safety zones associated with
the San Luis Obispo County Airport, it was subject to a consistency determination by the
Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) relative to the adopted Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP).
On April 19, 2017, the ALUC found that proposed development within the Specific Plan was
consistent with the ALUP, subject to conditions. The key condition was that the Specific Plan
and Tract Map needed to be modified to relocate certain areas of proposed development away
from more restrictive safety areas. The Specific Plan land use plan and Tract Map currently
under consideration are consistent with ALUC’s direction. Please see Attachment 1 for a
summary of findings and conditions set forth by the ALUC in their consistency determination.
9.0 NEXT STEPS
If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Specific Plan and related entitlements to
the City Council, these are the next steps in the process:
PC 1-31
City Council Considers Project Approval. The City Council will review the Planning
Commission recommendations, and consider project approval. If approved, the City
Council will forward a request for annexation to the Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCo).
Annexation. LAFCo will consider the City’s application for annexing the project area into
the City.
Project Development. Once annexed, the City’s approved project entitlements will become
effective, including development Agreement provisions.
10.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Airport Land Use Commission Consistency Findings and Conditions
2. Final EIR Executive Summary
3. Policy Consistency Analysis (from Final EIR, Section 4.9)
4. Development Plan/Vesting Tentative Tract Map
The San Luis Ranch Final EIR is available for review online at the following location:
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/documents-
online/environmental-review-documents/-folder-1907
The San Luis Ranch Specific Plan is available for review online at the following location:
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/planning-
zoning/specific-area-plans/san-luis-ranch
PC 1-32
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
Chairman: Roger Oxborrow
Commissioners: Bill Borgsmiller
Michael Cripe
John Eichler
Craig Piper
Erich Schaefer
Allen Settle
County of San Luis Obispo ▪ 976 Osos St., Rm 300 ▪ San Luis Obispo California 93408 ▪ (805) 781-5600
Email: planning@co.slo.ca.us ▪ Fax (805) 781-1242 ▪ Website: http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Planning
NOTICE OF AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ACTION
ALUC 2017-002
HEARING DATE: April 19, 2017
RECOMMENDATION TO: City of San Luis Obispo
SUBJECT: A mandatory referral by the City of San Luis Obispo (City) for a determination
of consistency or inconsistency with the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) for the
San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (Airport) for proposed amendments to
the City’s General Plan, the City Zoning Map, the City Airport Compatible Open
Space (ACOS) Plan, And Vesting Tentative Map to implement the San Luis
Ranch Development. The San Luis Ranch Specific Plan encompasses
approximately 131 acres generally bounded by Madonna Road, Dalidio Drive,
US Highway 101, and the San Luis Obispo City Farm. The Project is located in
ALUP Aviation Safety Areas S-1b and S-2. (Continued from March 29, 2017)
On April 19, 2017, the Airport Land Use Commission determined the above referenced project
is Consistent with the San Luis Obispo Regional Airport Land Use Plan, and referred it back to
the County of San Luis Obispo, Brian LeVeille, Project Manager, on the basis the Findings /
Conditions in the staff report.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (805) 781-5718.
Sincerely,
Nicole Retana, Secretary
Airport Land Use Commission
(Planning Department Use Only)
Date: May 1, 2017
Enclosed: X Airport Land Use Commission Staff Report
PC 1-33
Attachment 1
County of San Luis Obispo ▪ 976 Osos St., Rm 300 ▪ San Luis Obispo California 93408 ▪ (805) 781-5600
Email: planning@co.slo.ca.us ▪ Fax (805) 781-1242 ▪ Website: http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Planning
FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION:
Applicability of ALUP Section 2.7
a) The Updated Amendments represent “unique circumstances” as described in
Section 2.7 of the ALUP because:
1. The Project site has existing entitlements under the San Luis Obispo County
General Plan and Land Use Ordinances pursuant to Measure J (2004) – “An
Initiative Petition to Amend the County General Plan and Land Use Ordinances
to Allow for Development of the Dalidio Ranch Project.” The development
allowed by Measure J is subject solely to “State Law, General Plan provisions
applicable to the Property and the following: the provisions of the Dalidio Ranch
zoning district […]; grading and building standards of Title 19 […] applicable to all
development in […] [the] County; Title 18 of the County Code, entitled ‘Public
Facilities Fees;’ and Title 19 of the County Code, entitled ‘Street Address
Ordinance’” (Measure J at p. 5). The development allowed by Measure J is
inconsistent with the maximum non-residential density allowed in the ALUP.
However, given that the development was approved by initiative, it was not and
is not subject to the referral requirements contained within the State
Aeronautics Act pursuant to Citizens for Planning Responsibly v. County of San Luis
Obispo (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 357.
2. The Project site is located in the vicinity of residential and commercial uses,
including such uses within the S1-b Safety Area, which have greater densities
than the Project. By way of example, several mobile home parks have densities
in the range of 8-10 units per acre.
3. The Project is a clustered development, designed to minimize inconsistency
and enhance safety, including a significant 52.7-acre ACOS and a 5.5-acre, 200-
foot x 1,200-foot “no-build” zone aligned with the extended centerline of Runway
11-29 through the S-1b Safety Area.
4. The Project includes other safety design features, such as a 50-foot site-wide
height limit.
b) The Updated Amendments represent a “small-scale individual project” as described
in Section 2.7 because:
PC 1-34
Attachment 1
County of San Luis Obispo ▪ 976 Osos St., Rm 300 ▪ San Luis Obispo California 93408 ▪ (805) 781-5600
Email: planning@co.slo.ca.us ▪ Fax (805) 781-1242 ▪ Website: http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Planning
1. Subject to the conditions set forth below and use of the updated noise
contours, all non-residential uses proposed within the S-1b Safety Area are
consistent with strict application of the ALUP.
2. The total acreage proposed for residential use within the S-1b Safety Area in
a manner inconsistent with the strict application of the ALUP density restrictions
is 7.9 acres, and thus the area of inconsistency is of limited scope or extent when
compared to the total acreage of the Project site.
3. The area of inconsistency within the S-1b Safety Area is immediately adjacent
to Safety Area S-2.
c) The Updated Amendments apply only to the property occupied by the referred
individual project, i.e. to the Project site.
d) The Updated Amendments contain provisions sufficient to ensure that no
development other than the exact project referred to and considered by the ALUC,
i.e. the Project, may be established within the referral area
Deviation from Strict Application of Specific Noise and Safety Policies under Authority
of Section 2.7 of the ALUP
e) Safety. Notwithstanding that the allowable residential density within the S-1b Safety
Area exceeds the maximum residential density set forth in Table 7 of the ALUP, the
Updated Amendments are consistent with the objective of the safety policies of the
ALUP as described in Section 4.4.1 (i.e. “to minimize the risks to the safety and
property of persons on the ground associated with potential aircraft accidents and
to enhance the chances for survival of the occupants involved in an accident which
takes place beyond the immediate runway environment”) and are consistent with
the identified effective approaches to accomplishing this objective based on the
following:
1. The Project includes a significant 52.7-acre ACOS and a 5.5-acre, 200-foot x
1,200-foot “no-build” zone aligned with the extended centerline of Runway 11-29
through the S-1b Safety Area.
2. The Project has been modified to relocate the 27 townhomes originally
located nearest to the Runway 11-29 centerline from the S-1b Safety Area to the
S-2 Safety Area.
3. The residential units within Safety Area S-1b are clustered in the area of the
Safety Area that is furthest from the Airport along the S-2 Safety Area boundary.
PC 1-35
Attachment 1
County of San Luis Obispo ▪ 976 Osos St., Rm 300 ▪ San Luis Obispo California 93408 ▪ (805) 781-5600
Email: planning@co.slo.ca.us ▪ Fax (805) 781-1242 ▪ Website: http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Planning
f) Noise. Notwithstanding that there are residential land uses within the projected 55
dB CNEL contour as identified in the ALUP, the Updated Amendments are consistent
with the objectives of the noise policies of the ALUP as described in Section 4.3.1 (i.e.
“to minimize the number of people exposed to infrequent and/or high levels of
airport noise or to frequent and/or high cumulative noise levels of which airport
noise is one component”) because all residential land uses are located outside of
the projected 55 dB CNEL contour as identified in the updated noise contours
prepared by RS&H at the direction of the ALUC in 2015 that reflect more current
information regarding Airport operations. In addition, the Applicant commissioned
a noise study performed by 45dB.com (consultant) which showed a maximum
overflight noise of 52 dB CNEL. Lastly, the Applicant has committed to design and
construction measures and disclosure processes that exceed the standard
requirements, including interior noise reduction through additional construction
techniques, physical noise barriers through the careful placement of buildings, and
enhanced buyer and renter disclosures and notifications with an augmented
noticing process with renter education.
Consistencies based on Strict Application of the ALUP Policies
g) Noise. Except as set forth in Finding (f), the Updated Amendments are consistent
with the strict application of the Specific Land Use Policies for Noise within the ALUP
because (1) all of the proposed development will be located within the 55-60 dB
CNEL contour, (2) none of the development (aside from the residential uses
discussed above) constitute extremely noise sensitive land uses and (3) all
moderately noise sensitive land uses must meet the requirements for mitigation of
interior noise levels specified in Table 4 and Section 4.3.3 of the ALUP.
h) Safety. Except as set forth in Finding (e), the Updated Amendments are consistent
with strict application of the Specific Land Use Policies for Safety within the ALUP.
Specifically, with respect to Safety Area S-2, both the allowable commercial density
(329 people versus 703.5 maximum) and residential density (467 units versus 666
maximum) are under the maximum densities set forth in Table 7 of the ALUP. With
respect to commercial density within the S-1b Safety Area, the Project has been
modified and conditioned consistent with the letter from the City dated April 7, 2017
not to permit more than 75 persons per acre. In addition, the Amendments would
not result in a greater building coverage than permitted by Table 7 of the ALUP or in
high intensity or special function land uses.
i) Airspace Protection. The Updated Amendments are consistent with the Specific
Land Use Policies for Airspace Protection because the Applicant has proposed
regulations that limit the height of structures on the site to 50 feet to the highest
architectural feature. The Updated Amendments will not permit any structure,
landscaping, glare, apparatus, or other feature, whether temporary or permanent in
PC 1-36
Attachment 1
County of San Luis Obispo ▪ 976 Osos St., Rm 300 ▪ San Luis Obispo California 93408 ▪ (805) 781-5600
Email: planning@co.slo.ca.us ▪ Fax (805) 781-1242 ▪ Website: http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Planning
nature to constitute an obstruction to air navigation or a hazard to air navigation, as
conditioned.
j) Overflight. The Updated Amendments are consistent with the Specific Land Use
Policies for Overflight because the Project has been conditioned to record avigation
easements for each property developed within the Project site prior to the issuance
of any building permit or minor use permit; and all owners, potential purchasers,
occupants (whether as owners or renters), and potential occupants (whether as
owners or renters) will receive full and accurate disclosure concerning the noise,
safety, or overflight impacts associated with Airport operations prior to entering any
contractual obligation to purchase, lease, rent, or otherwise occupy any property or
properties within the Airport Area.
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF DETAILED AREA PLAN APPROVAL:
a) The Detailed Area Plan is contained within the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan and has
been referred to the ALUC for a mandatory determination of consistency.
b) The maximum residential density and nonresidential density are indicated in the
Detailed Area Plan and no building, use, or occupancy permit will be issued for any
development which exceeds the established maximum densities of development.
c) The residential and nonresidential densities allowed within the Detailed Area Plan
are in conformance with the maximum density of use as set forth in the ALUP or as
authorized by the ALUC under the authority of Section 2.7 of the ALUP as more
specifically described above, and no special function or high intensity land uses are
proposed.
d) All development within the Detailed Area Plan conforms to the noise policies as set
forth in the ALUP or as authorized by the ALUC through the authority of Section 2.7
of the ALUP as more specifically described above.
e) All development within the Detailed Area Plan conforms to the Airspace Protection
and Overflight Policies of the ALUP.
PC 1-37
Attachment 1
County of San Luis Obispo ▪ 976 Osos St., Rm 300 ▪ San Luis Obispo California 93408 ▪ (805) 781-5600
Email: planning@co.slo.ca.us ▪ Fax (805) 781-1242 ▪ Website: http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Planning
ALUC CONDITIONS
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
1. Consistent with its letter dated April 7, 2017, the City shall require the Applicant to
revise the Amendments and all other entitlements associated with the Project to
reflect the modifications to the Project (Updated Amendments) more specifically set
forth below and shall prepare conditions of approval to ensure that all applicable
ALUP policies and aviation related development restrictions are enforced
(Conditions of Approval).
2. The Updated Amendments shall apply only to the property occupied by the referred
individual project, i.e. to the Project site.
3. The Updated Amendments shall contain provisions sufficient to ensure that no
development other than the exact project referred to and considered by the ALUC,
i.e. the Project, may be established within the referral area
4. The Updated Amendments and Conditions of Approval shall limit non-residential
density for the portion of the Project site within the S-1b Safety Area to 75 persons
per acre. For purposes of this condition, non-residential density shall include all
commercial and office areas, as well as the Agricultural Heritage Facility and Family
Center within the proposed ACOS shown on the Project plans.
5. Non-residential density for the portion of the Project site within the S-2 Safety Area
shall be limited to 150 persons per acre.
6. The Updated Amendments and Conditions of Approval shall limit the number of
residential units allowed on the portion of the Project site within the S-1b Safety
Area to 88 units.
7. The residential density for the portion of the Project site within the S-2 Safety Area
shall be limited to 15 units per acre.
8. The maximum height limit of structures on the site shall be 50 feet to the highest
architectural feature.
9. The Updated Amendments and Conditions of Approval shall provide for a 200-foot
by 1,200-foot “no build” zone within the S-1b Safety Area that shall remain free of
structures except for infrastructure associated with any future planned highway
interchange with Highway 101. The “no build” zone may be used for parking areas
with no lighting or landscaping that exceeds 8 feet in height. All drive aisles in the
“no build zone” will be parallel with the centerline of the airport runway.
PC 1-38
Attachment 1
County of San Luis Obispo ▪ 976 Osos St., Rm 300 ▪ San Luis Obispo California 93408 ▪ (805) 781-5600
Email: planning@co.slo.ca.us ▪ Fax (805) 781-1242 ▪ Website: http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Planning
10. No structure, landscaping, apparatus, or other feature, whether temporary or
permanent in nature shall constitute an obstruction to air navigation or a hazard to
air navigation, as defined by the ALUP.
11. Any use is prohibited that may entail characteristics which would potentially
interfere with the takeoff, landing, or maneuvering of aircraft at the Airport,
including:
PC 1-39
Attachment 1
County of San Luis Obispo ▪ 976 Osos St., Rm 300 ▪ San Luis Obispo California 93408 ▪ (805) 781-5600
Email: planning@co.slo.ca.us ▪ Fax (805) 781-1242 ▪ Website: http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Planning
· creation of electrical interference with navigation signals or radio
communication
between the aircraft and airport;
· lighting which is difficult to distinguish from airport lighting;
· glare in the eyes of pilots using the airport;
· uses which attract birds and create bird strike hazards;
· uses which produce visually significant quantities of smoke; and
· uses which entail a risk of physical injury to operators or passengers of
aircraft (e.g., exterior laser light demonstrations or shows).
12. Avigation easements shall be recorded for each property developed within the
Project site prior to the issuance of any building permit or conditional use permit.
13. All owners, potential purchasers, occupants (whether as owners or renters), and
potential occupants (whether as owners or renters) shall receive full and accurate
disclosure concerning the noise, safety, or overflight impacts associated with airport
operations prior to entering any contractual obligation to purchase, lease, rent, or
otherwise occupy any property or properties within the airport area.
14. To the best of the applicant’s ability, they will comply with their proposed enhanced
disclosure and notification plan.
PC 1-40
Attachment 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This section summarizes the characteristics of the proposed San Luis Ranch Project, alternatives
to the project, as well as environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and residual impacts
associated with the project.
PROJECT SYNOPSIS
Lead Agency
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Contact:
Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
John Rickenbach, AICP, Project Manager
Project Proponent
Coastal Community Builders
c/o Marshall Ochylski (Project Representative)
979 Osos, Suite F7
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
P.O. Box 13
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
Project Description
The San Luis Ranch Project consists of a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment/Pre-Zoning,
and Development Plan/Vesting Tentative Tract Map for a 131-acre project site, including
annexation of the site into the City of San Luis Obispo. It would also address a Development
Agreement/Memorandum of Understanding, which provides a mechanism for project
implementation. The project is intended to be consistent with the development parameters
described in the City’s Land Use and Circulation Element (adopted in December 2014). The
project includes construction of up to 580 residential units, 150,000 square feet of commercial
development, 100,000 square feet of office development, and a 200-room hotel, with a portion of
the site preserved for agriculture and open space uses. The project is planned to be constructed
in six phases, beginning in 2017.
The specific location and characteristics of the project are described in greater detail in Section
2.0, Project Description.
ALTERNATIVES
As required by Section 15126(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, this EIR examines a range of
reasonable alternatives to the project that could feasibly achieve similar objectives. This
includes the following four alternatives:
PC 1-41
Attachment 2
• Alternative 1: No Project, No Development
• Alternative 2: No Project, Measure J Entitlements
• Alternative 3: Historical Resource Preservation
• Alternative 4: 50% On-Site Agriculture/Open Space
Alternative 1 assumes that the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan is not adopted, that none of the
proposed entitlements are implemented, including annexation to the City, and that no further
development would occur on the project site.
Alternative 2 also assumes that the Specific Plan is not adopted and that none of the proposed
entitlements are implemented, including annexation to the City. However, this alternative
represents a project that would be processed by San Luis Obispo County, and considers what
would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future based on current plans and
consistency with available infrastructure and community services. There are existing
entitlements on the project site for development in the County from the voter-approved
initiative known as “Measure J,” which include 60 multi-family dwelling units, 560,000 square
feet of regional commercial and outdoor sales areas, 198,000 square feet of office space, a 150-
room hotel and ancillary facilities. Because the Measure J entitlements would leave the project
site under the jurisdiction of the County, but surrounded entirely by the City limit, these
entitlements would also require the use of private water from onsite wells and an onsite
wastewater treatment facility. Since this alternative (Alternative 2) assumes that the project site
would be developed under an existing entitlement, this alternative would not require
environmental review under CEQA.
Alternative 3 would preserve the San Luis Ranch Complex, as well as associated eucalyptus
trees, located in the northwest portion of the project site would be retained, and assumes that
the proposed multi-family residential development would be relocated and integrated into the
proposed single-family residential development area on the central portion of the project site.
By preserving the San Luis Ranch Complex, this alternative would avoid the project’s
significant and unavoidable impact to historic resources. In addition, this alternative would
also reduce other potential environmental impacts to air quality, GHG emissions, noise,
biological resources, land use/policy consistency, and hydrology and water quality, while
resulting in slightly increased impacts to transportation.
Alternative 4 would retain 50 percent of the net site acreage as on-site agricultural and open
space uses to be consistent on-site with the City’s General Plan Land Use Element Policy 8.1.4.f.
This alternative would retain the portion of land designated for commercial uses (NC)
southeast of Froom Ranch Way and southwest of Prado Road in agriculture. This alternative
would reduce the portion of the site available for residential and commercial development on
the project site.
The No Project, No Development Alternative (Alternative 1) would have the fewest
environmental impacts. However, since this is a “No Project” alternative, CEQA requires that a
separate alternative also be identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Because
Alternative 3 would avoid the significant and unavoidable impact to historic resources
identified for the project, as well as reducing other potential environmental effects due to the
preservation of the eucalyptus grove in the northwest portion of the project site along Madonna
Road, and due to the reduced overall development footprint this alternative is identified as the
environmentally superior alternative over other alternatives.
PC 1-42
Attachment 2
The complete alternatives analysis is included in Section 6.0, Alternatives.
AREAS OF CONCERN
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15123(b)(2), this EIR acknowledges the areas of
controversy and issues to be resolved which are known to the City of San Luis Obispo or were
raised during the scoping process. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was prepared and circulated
for a 30-day public review period that began on October 26, 2015 and ended November 24,
2015. Several comment letters from public agencies and members of the public were received in
response to the NOP. The NOP and Initial Study, and NOP comment letters are included in
Appendix A of this EIR.
Primary environmental areas of concern raised by the commenting agencies and public include:
AREA OF CONCERN EIR SECTION
Access to U.S. Highway 101 Section 4.12: Transportation
Drainage characteristics, hydrology, flooding, and other impacts
associated with the area floodplain
Section 4.8: Hydrology and Water
Quality
Aviation Safety and airport/aviation hazards Section 4.7: Hazards,
Section 4.9: Land Use/Policy
Consistency
Construction equipment regulation and permit requirements associated
with air pollution emissions
Section 4.3: Air Quality
Existing structure demolition and potential to encounter asbestos
containing materials
Section 4.7: Hazards
Naturally occurring asbestos exposure Section 4.3: Air Quality
Operational permit requirements associated with air pollutant emissions Section 4.3: Air Quality
Long-term and short-term air quality impacts Section 4.3: Air Quality
Impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions Section 4.6: Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Alternatives to the project Section 6.0: Alternatives
Routing plans relative to access to site and nearby land uses Section 4.12: Transportation
Residential displacement Section 4.9: Land Use/Policy
Consistency,
Section 4.14: Issues Addressed in
the Initial Study
FINAL EIR ERRATA
In accordance with Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines, Draft EIR was circulated for a
52-day public review period that began December 9, 2016 and concluded on January 31, 2017.
Each written and verbal comment that the City received is included in Section 8.0, Responses to
Comments. Responses to these comments have been prepared to address the environmental
concerns raised by the commenters and to indicate where and how the Draft EIR addresses
pertinent environmental issues. The Draft EIR and responses to comments collectively comprise
the Final EIR for the project.
The responses to comments summarize the comment and direct the commenter to the section of
the Draft EIR that addresses their comment. In some cases, revisions have been made to the
PC 1-43
Attachment 2
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-4
Draft EIR to clarify information, data, or intent, or to make minor typographical corrections or
minor working changes. Any changes made to the text of the Draft EIR to are noted in the Final
EIR as changes from the Draft EIR. Where a comment results in a change to the Draft EIR text, a
notation is made in the response indicating that the text is revised. Changes in the Draft EIR text
are signified by strikeouts where text is removed and by underline font where text is added. If
text is added where the font is already bold or underlined, additions are noted using underlined
bold font. Mitigation measures in the Draft EIR that were revised as part of the responses to
comments are listed below. Revisions to these mitigation measures are also shown in Table ES-
1, applicable sections of the Draft EIR, and in Section 8.0, Responses to Comments.
AG-1. Agricultural Conservation.
AQ-2(a). Fugitive Dust Control Measures.
AQ-2(b). Standard Control Measures for Construction Equipment.
AQ-2(e). Construction Activity Management Plan.
AQ-3(a). Standard Operational Mitigation Measures.
BIO-1(e). Steelhead Impact Avoidance and Minimization.
BIO-1(f). Great Blue Heron and Monarch Butterfly Impact Avoidance and Minimization.
BIO-2(b). Tree Replacement.
CR-1(a). Historical Structure Relocation and Reconstruction Plan.
HAZ-5(a). Groundwater Assessment for Contamination at Untested Wells.
HAZ-5(b). Groundwater Remediation.
HWQ-3(a). Stormwater Quality Treatment Controls.
N-4(b). Parking Lot/Loading Dock Orientation and Noise Barrier.
N-5(a). Interior Noise Reduction.
N-5(c). Froom Ranch Way Noise Barrier.
N-5(d). U.S. Highway 101 Noise Barrier at Hotel.
In addition, a portion of the Draft EIR was recirculated for a 45-day public review period that
began March 3, 2017 and concluded on April 17, 2017. The portion of the Draft EIR that was
recirculated (“Recirculated Portions”) was Section 5.0, Other CEQA-Related Discussions, which
was revised to include an updated discussion of energy use and conservation related to the
project. This recirculation also included the relevant portions of Appendix D as originally
contained in the Draft EIR. As a result of this new discussion, no new significant impacts or
mitigation measures were identified. Pursuant to Section 15088.5(c) of the State CEQA
Guidelines, if the revisions subject to recirculation are limited to a few portions of the Draft EIR,
the lead agency need only recirculate the portions that have been modified. Section 8.0,
PC 1-44
Attachment 2
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-5
Responses to Comments, includes responses to all comments received on the recirculated portions
of the Draft EIR during the additional public review period. None of the comment received in
response to the recirculated portions of the Draft EIR required revisions to the Draft EIR.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Tables ES-1 through ES-3 provide a summary of the potential environmental impacts of the
project. The mitigation measures associated with each impact, which are to be implemented in
order to reduce the environmental impacts to the maximum extent feasible, are also
summarized therein. In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, the tables identify the
following types of potential impacts associated with the project:
Class I, Significant and Unavoidable: An impact that cannot be reduced to below the
threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an
impact requires a ‘Statement of Overriding Considerations’ to be issued if the project is
approved per §15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Class II, Significant but Mitigable: An impact that can be reduced to below the threshold
level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact
requires ‘Findings’ to be made under §15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Class III, Not Significant: An impact that may be adverse, but does not exceed the
threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation
measures that could further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily
available and easily achievable.
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The project would result in twelve significant and unavoidable (Class I) impacts. Issue areas
with Class I impacts include air quality (Clean Air Plan consistency and cumulative air quality
impacts), cultural resources (historic resources and cumulative historic resources), land
use/policy consistency (General Plan policy consistency), noise (construction noise), and
transportation (existing and near-term intersection operations, existing and near-term lane
capacities, existing and near-term segment operations, cumulative intersection operations,
cumulative lane capacities, and cumulative segment operations).
PC 1-45
Attachment 2
Table ES-1
Class I, Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
AIR QUALITY
Impact AQ-1. The project would
be inconsistent with the
SLOAPCD 2001 Clean Air Plan
because it would result in an
increase in vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) that would
exceed the rate of population
growth. This impact would be
Class I, significant and
unavoidable.
AQ-1. Encourage Telecommuting. The project applicant or developers of
individual projects within the Specific Plan Area shall include provisions to
encourage employers within the proposed commercial, office, and hotel
components of the project to implement telecommuting programs and include
teleconferencing capabilities, such as web cams or satellite linkage, which will allow
employees to attend meetings remotely without requiring them to travel out of the
area.
Mitigation is not available that
would reduce projected VMT such
that the project’s vehicle trip rate
increase would not exceed
population growth in the region.
Therefore, impacts related to
consistency with the 2001 CAP
would remain significant and
unavoidable.
Cumulative Air Quality
Impacts. The project is
inconsistent with the 2001 CAP
and would exceed SLOAPCD
construction and operational
thresholds. As such, cumulative
impacts on air quality would be
Class I, significant and
unavoidable.
No additional mitigation is available to address cumulative air quality impacts. Cumulative air quality impacts
would remain significant and
unavoidable.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact CR-1. The project would
result in the relocation,
demolition, and removal of
structures on the San Luis
Ranch property which are
individually identified as historic
resources. In addition, the
project would eliminate the San
Luis Ranch Complex, which is
eligible for listing as a historic
resource. Relocation,
demolition, and/or removal of
these historic resources would
permanently alter the historic
context of the project site and
on-site structures. This impact
CR-1(a). Historical Structure Relocation and Reconstruction Plan. In order to
implement Specific Plan Policy 2.5, a relocation and reconstruction plan for the
former spectator’s barn/viewing stand, and main residence, and main barn shall be
developed by a qualified historic architect. The plan shall include a
structural/architectural report documenting existing integrity and conditions and
include detailed treatment methods and measures to ensure that historic integrity is
retained and that all identified character defining features will be preserved.
CR-1(b). Archival Documentation of Historic Buildings. The applicant shall
provide archival documentation of the San Luis Ranch Complex in as-built and as-
found condition in the form of an Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Level II
documentation. The documentation shall comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation (NPS 1990), and shall
include large-format photographic recordation, detailed historic narrative report, and
compilation of historic research. The documentation shall be completed by a
qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s
The removal and/or demolition of
the historically significant main barn
and the relocation, demolition, and
removal of other structures in the
San Luis Ranch Complex would
change the historic context of the
San Luis Ranch property.
Furthermore, mitigation would not
avoid the removal of the main barn,
despite the proposed reuse of
salvageable materials from the
structure to the greatest extent
possible in the construction of a
new barn in the project’s proposed
Agricultural Heritage and Learning
Center. Therefore, the potential
PC 1-46
Attachment 2
Table ES-1
Class I, Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
would be Class I, significant and
unavoidable.
Professional Qualification Standards for History and/or Architectural History (NPS
1983). The original archival-quality documentation shall be offered as donated
material to the History Center of San Luis Obispo County. Archival copies of the
documentation shall also be submitted to the San Luis Obispo County Library.
CR-1(c). Informational Display of Historic Resources. A retrospective interpretive
display detailing the history of the San Luis Ranch Complex and the project site, its
significance, and its important details and features shall be developed by the
applicant. The information should be incorporated into a publicly-accessed building
on the project site, such as the proposed Agricultural Heritage Facilities and
Learning Center, or a publicly-accessed outdoor location. The display shall include
images and details from the HABS documentation described in Mitigation Measure
CR-1(b) and any collected research pertaining to the historic property. The content
shall be prepared by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for History and/or
Architectural History (NPS 1983).
impact to the San Luis Ranch
Complex and the main barn
individually would remain significant
and unavoidable despite
implementation of the required
mitigation.
Cumulative Cultural
Resources Impacts. The
project would result in a
significant and unavoidable
impact associated with the
removal, relocation, or
reconstruction of individually
historic structures that are part
of the historically significant San
Luis Ranch Complex. As such,
the project would contribute to
the cumulative loss of historic
resources in the City. Therefore,
the project would result in a
Class I, significant and
unavoidable, cumulative impact
to historical resources.
No additional mitigation is available to address cumulative cultural resources
impacts.
Cumulative cultural resources
impacts would remain significant
and unavoidable.
LAND USE
Impact LU-1. The project would
be potentially inconsistent with
adopted City policies in the
General Plan designed to
The following Mitigation Measures would apply to this impact:
• Section 4.1, Aesthetics: AES-1(a) and AES-1(b)
• Section 4.2, Agricultural Resources: AG-1, AG-3
• Section 4.4, Biological Resources: BIO-1(a) through BIO-1(h) and BIO-2(a)
Specific Plan conflicts with Land
Use Element Policy 1.10.4 (Design
Standards), Land Use Element
Policy 8.1.4 (SP-2, San Luis Ranch
PC 1-47
Attachment 2
Table ES-1
Class I, Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
protect historical resources, and
ensure provision of parkland.
This would be a Class I,
significant and unavoidable,
impact.
through BIO-2(c)
• Section 4.5, Cultural Resources: CR-1(a) through CR-1(c)
• Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials: HAZ-4, HAZ-5(a), HAZ-5(b),
HAZ-6
• Section 4.10, Noise: N-1(a) through N-1(g), N-4(a), N-4(b), N-5(a) through N-
5(d)
• Section 4.12, Transportation and Circulation: T-1(a) through T-1(i), T-2(a)
through T-2(j), T-3(a) through T-3(d), T-4, T-5, T-6, T-7, T-8(a) through T-8(g),
T-9(a) through T-9(m), T-10(a) through T-10(c)
• Section 4.14, Issues Addressed in the Initial Study: GEO-1, GEO-3
(Dalidio) Specific Plan Area), and
Conservation and Open Space
Element Policy 3.3.2 (Demolitions)
would remain potentially
inconsistent. The City
acknowledges the importance and
breadth of the potential
inconsistencies associated with the
Specific Plan by finding them to be
Class I, significant and unavoidable
impacts.
NOISE
Impact N-1. Temporary
construction activity would
create noise that could exceed
City of San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code regulations.
Mitigation is available to address
construction noise, but it may
not be feasible to reduce the
impact to less than the
applicable threshold. Impacts
would be Class I, significant and
unavoidable.
N-1(a). Construction Vehicle Travel Route. Construction vehicles and haul trucks
shall utilize roadways which avoid residential neighborhoods and sensitive
receptors where possible. The applicant shall submit a proposed construction
vehicle and hauling route for City review and approval prior to grading/building
permit issuance. The approved construction vehicle and hauling route shall be used
for soil hauling trips prior to construction as well as for the duration of construction.
N-1(b). Construction Activity Timing. Except for emergency repair of public
service utilities, or where an exception is issued by the Community Development
Department, no operation of tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair,
alteration, or demolition work shall occur daily between the hours of 7:00 PM and
7:00 AM, or any time on Sundays, holidays, or after sunset, such that the sound
creates a noise disturbance that exceeds 75 dBA for single family residential, 80
dBA for multi-family residential, and 85 dBA for mixed residential/commercial land
uses across a residential or commercial property line.
N-1(c). Construction Equipment Best Management Practices (BMPs). For all
construction activity at the project site, noise attenuation techniques shall be
employed to ensure that noise levels are maintained within levels allowed by the
City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Title 9, Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control). Such
techniques shall include:
• Sound blankets on noise-generating equipment.
• Stationary construction equipment that generates noise levels above 65 dBA at
the project boundaries shall be shielded with barriers that meet a sound
transmission class (a rating of how well noise barriers attenuate sound) of 25.
• All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be
Mitigation Measures N-1(a) through
N-1(g) require implementation of
noise reduction devices and
techniques during construction, and
would reduce noise associated with
on- and off-site construction activity
to the maximum extent feasible.
Noise from trucks can reach up to
88 dBA at 50 feet from the source.
Although Mitigation Measure N-1(a)
would reduce impacts from haul
trucks by requiring the haul route to
avoid residential areas and noise
sensitive uses where possible, haul
truck noise would continue to
exceed the 75 dBA threshold for
intermittent noise. Therefore, noise
impacts from haul trucks would be
minimized, but not eliminated. As a
result, temporary noise impacts
associated with off-site construction
activity would be significant and
unavoidable.
PC 1-48
Attachment 2
Table ES-1
Class I, Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
equipped with factory-recommended mufflers.
• For stationary equipment, the applicant shall designate equipment areas with
appropriate acoustic shielding on building and grading plans. Equipment and
shielding shall be installed prior to construction and remain in the designated
location throughout construction activities.
• Electrical power shall be used to power air compressors and similar power
tools.
• The movement of construction-related vehicles, with the exception of
passenger vehicles, along roadways adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be
limited to the hours between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday.
No movement of heavy equipment shall occur on Sundays or official holidays
(e.g., Thanksgiving, Labor Day).
• Temporary sound barriers shall be constructed between construction sites and
affected uses.
TRANSPORTATION
Impact T-1. Under Existing and
Near-Term Plus Project
conditions nine study area
intersections would operate at
unacceptable automobile,
bicycle, or pedestrian LOS
based on adopted multimodal
level of service standards during
AM and PM peak hours.
Mitigation would reduce impacts
at seven of these intersections
to an acceptable level. However,
impacts at the Madonna Road &
Dalidio Drive and Los Osos
Valley Road & Froom Ranch
Way intersections would be
Class I, significant and
unavoidable.
T-1(a) Intersection #1: Madonna Road & Los Osos Valley Road.
• City optimize signal timing to accommodate increased project volumes
(ongoing)
T-1(b) Intersection #3: Madonna Road & Dalidio Drive/Prado Road.
• Extend existing westbound left turn lane on Madonna Road to Dalidio
Drive/Prado Road to 310’ (Phase 1)
• Install 2nd westbound 310’ left turn lane on Madonna Road to Dalidio
Drive/Prado Road (Phase 1)
• Install eastbound 250’ right turn pocket on Madonna Road to Dalidio
Drive/Prado Road (Phase 1)
• Install 2nd northbound left shared with through-lane on Prado Road/Dalidio
Drive to Madonna Road (Phase 1)
• Prohibit westbound U-turns on Madonna Road (Phase 1)
• Provide split phase operations & optimize signal timing (Phase 1)
T-1(c) Intersection #5: Madonna Road & U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps.
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass-Only, Phase 2)
T-1(d) Intersection #8: Higuera Street & South Street.
• Optimize Signal Timing
Potential right-of-way constraints at
Madonna Road & Dalidio Drive and
Los Osos Valley Road & Froom
Ranch Way may reduce the
feasibility of mitigation at these
intersections. Accordingly, some of
the potential impacts associated
with multimodal level of service
standards identified for Existing and
Near-Term Plus Project conditions
may not be feasibly mitigated to a
less than significant level. As a
result, impacts associated with
multimodal level of service
standards at these intersections
under Existing and Near-Term Plus
Project conditions would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Implementation of mitigation
measures that require off-site
improvements would generally not
result in significant residual
PC 1-49
Attachment 2
Table ES-1
Class I, Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
T-1(e) Intersection #9: Los Osos Valley Road & Froom Ranch Way.
• Install dedicated 230’ right turn lane on Los Osos Valley Road northbound
Froom Ranch Way approach to northbound Froom Ranch Way Los Osos
Valley Road (with Froom Ranch Way bridge construction)
• Extend right turn lane on Los Osos Valley Road southbound Froom Ranch Way
approach to southbound Froom Ranch Way Los Osos Valley Road to 110’
(with Froom Ranch Way bridge construction)
• Install 2nd southbound left turn lane on Froom Ranch Way approach to
eastbound Los Osos Valley Road (with Froom Ranch Way bridge construction)
T-1(f) Intersection #10: Los Osos Valley Road & Auto Park Way.
• Signalization (Phase 1)
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass Only, Phase 2)
T-1(g) Intersection #16: S. Higuera Street & Tank Farm Road.
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass Only Phase 2)
• Extend northbound right turn pocket to 230’ and channelize movement (Phase
1)
T-1(h) Intersection #21: Prado Road/Dalidio Drive & Froom Ranch Way.
• Install multilane roundabout control (when connection is constructed)
T-1(i) Intersection #25: Prado Road/Dalidio Drive & SC Project Driveway.
• Install multilane roundabout control or restricted access (when connection is
constructed)
impacts, as these improvements
would occur within existing roadway
rights-of-way, or within urbanized
paved/landscaped areas
immediately adjacent to existing
roadway rights-of-way. The primary
exception to this is the Prado
Road/U.S 101
overpass/interchange. During
construction of the overpass,
northbound ramps, and southbound
ramps, potential issue areas that
may be temporarily affected would
include air quality, cultural
resources, hazards and hazardous
materials, water quality, noise and
transportation. Construction-related
environmental impacts would be
mitigated through compliance with
City and Caltrans permitting and
construction monitoring
requirements and standard
SLOAPCD dust and diesel
emission control measures. Long-
term impacts of the Prado
Road/U.S. 101
overpass/interchange would include
potential obstruction of scenic
views, loss of prime agricultural
land west of U.S. 101, and land use
impacts associated with acquisition
of additional right-of-way.
Impact T-2. Under Existing and
Near-Term Plus Project
conditions, the volume of traffic
at 19 study area intersections
would exceed lane capacities.
Mitigation would reduce impacts
at 18 of these intersections to an
T-2(a) Intersection #1: Madonna Road & Los Osos Valley Road.
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass Only, Phase 2)
T-2(b) Intersection #2: Madonna Road & Oceanaire Drive.
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass Only, Phase 2)
T-2(c) Intersection #5: Madonna Road & U.S. 101 S.B Ramps.
Potential right-of-way constraints at
Los Osos Valley Road & Froom
Ranch Way may reduce the
feasibility of mitigation at this
intersection. Accordingly, some of
the potential impacts associated
with lane capacities identified for
PC 1-50
Attachment 2
Table ES-1
Class I, Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
acceptable level. However,
impacts at the Los Osos Valley
Road & Froom Ranch Way
intersection would be Class I,
significant and unavoidable.
• Extend northbound Madonna Road left turn lane to 150’ (Phase 1)
T-2(d) Intersection #6: Madonna Road & U.S. 101 Northbound Ramps.
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass Only, Phase 2)
T-2(e) Intersection #7: Madonna Road & Higuera Street.
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass Plus U.S. 101 northbound ramps,
Phase 2)
T-2(f) Intersection #9: Los Osos Valley Road & Froom Ranch Way.
• Install dedicated 230’ right turn lane on Los Osos Valley Road approach to
northbound Froom Ranch Way (with Froom Ranch Way bridge construction)
• Extend right turn lane on Los Osos Valley Road approach to southbound
Froom Ranch Way to 110’ (with Froom Ranch Way Bridge construction)
• Install 2nd southbound left turn lane on Froom Ranch Way approach to
eastbound Los Osos Valley Road (with Froom Ranch Way bridge construction)
T-2(g) Intersection #12: Los Osos Valley Road & U.S. 101 Southbound
Ramps.
• Extend off-ramp left turn pocket to 320’ (Phase 1)
T-2(h) Intersection #13: Los Osos Valley Road & U.S. 101 Northbound
Ramps.
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass Only, Phase 2)
T-2(i) Intersection #14: Los Osos Valley Road & Higuera Street.
• Extend eastbound right turn lane to 180’ (Phase 1)
T-2(j) Intersection #18: Prado Road & Higuera Street.
• Install 2nd U.S. 101 northbound left turn lane (Phase 1)
• Extend westbound right turn pocket to 400’ (Phase 1)
Existing and Near-Term Plus
Project conditions may not be
feasibly mitigated to a less than
significant level. As a result,
impacts to lane capacities at this
intersection under Existing and
Near-Term Plus Project conditions
would remain significant and
unavoidable.
Implementation of mitigation
measures that require off-site
improvements would generally not
result in significant residual
impacts, as these improvements
would occur within existing roadway
rights-of-way, or within urbanized
paved/landscaped areas
immediately adjacent to existing
roadway rights-of-way. The primary
exception to this is the Prado
Road/U.S 101
overpass/interchange. During
construction of the overpass,
northbound ramps, and southbound
ramps, potential issue areas that
may be temporarily affected would
include air quality, cultural
resources, hazards and hazardous
materials, water quality, noise and
transportation. Construction-related
environmental impacts would be
mitigated through compliance with
City and Caltrans permitting and
construction monitoring
requirements and standard
SLOAPCD dust and diesel
emission control measures. Long-
term impacts of the Prado
Road/U.S. 101
PC 1-51
Attachment 2
Table ES-1
Class I, Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
overpass/interchange would include
potential obstruction of scenic
views, loss of prime agricultural
land west of U.S. 101, and land use
impacts associated with acquisition
of additional right-of-way.
Impact T-3. Under Existing and
Near-Term conditions four study
area segment groups would
operate at unacceptable
automobile, bicycle, pedestrian,
and transit LOS based on
adopted multimodal level of
service standards during AM
and PM peak hours. Mitigation
would reduce impacts at three of
these segment groups to an
acceptable level. However,
impacts at Higuera Street
roadway segments would be
Class I, significant and
unavoidable
T-3(a) Segments #1 - #6: Madonna Road (Los Osos Valley Road to Higuera
Street)
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass Only, Phase 2)
• Fund assessment of decreasing transit headways to 25 min
• Construct parallel Class I multiuse paths or bike boulevard (Phase 1)
T-3(b) Segments #7 - #8: Higuera Street (Madonna Road to Prado Road)
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass and U.S. 101 northbound ramps,
Phase 2)
• Construct parallel Class I multiuse paths or bike boulevard (Phase 1)
T-3(c) Segments #13 - #17: Los Osos Valley Road (Madonna Road to
Higuera Street)
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass and U.S. 101 northbound ramps,
Phase 2)
• Construct parallel Class I multiuse paths or bike boulevard (Phase 3)
T-3(d) Segments #18 - #20: Dalidio Drive/Prado Road (Froom Ranch Way to
Higuera Street)
• Construct parallel Class I multiuse paths or bike boulevard (when Prado Road
is constructed/improved)
Implementation of the identified
mitigation measures would improve
LOS at all impacted study area
roadway segments to acceptable
levels, and impacts on these
facilities under Existing and Near-
Term Plus Project conditions would
be less than significant after
mitigation. However, potential right-
of-way constraints along Higuera
Street (Segments #7 and #8) may
reduce the feasibility of mitigation
along these segments. Accordingly,
some of the potential impacts
associated with multimodal level of
service standards identified for
Existing and Near-Term Plus
Project conditions may not be
feasibly mitigated to a less than
significant level. As a result,
impacts associated with multimodal
level of service standards at these
roadway segments under Existing
and Near-Term Plus Project
conditions would remain significant
and unavoidable.
Implementation of mitigation
measures that require off-site
improvements would generally not
result in significant residual
impacts, as these improvements
would occur within existing roadway
PC 1-52
Attachment 2
Table ES-1
Class I, Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
rights-of-way, or within urbanized
paved/landscaped areas
immediately adjacent to existing
roadway rights-of-way. The primary
exception to this is the Prado
Road/U.S 101
overpass/interchange. During
construction of the overpass,
northbound ramps, and southbound
ramps, potential issue areas that
may be temporarily affected would
include air quality, cultural
resources, hazards and hazardous
materials, water quality, noise and
transportation. Construction-related
environmental impacts would be
mitigated through compliance with
City and Caltrans permitting and
construction monitoring
requirements and standard
SLOAPCD dust and diesel
emission control measures. Long-
term impacts of the Prado
Road/U.S. 101
overpass/interchange would include
potential obstruction of scenic
views, loss of prime agricultural
land west of U.S. 101, and land use
impacts associated with acquisition
of additional right-of-way.
Impact T-8. Under Cumulative
Plus Project conditions nine
study area intersections would
operate at unacceptable
automobile, bicycle, or
pedestrian LOS based on
adopted multimodal level of
service standards during AM
and PM peak hours. Mitigation
T-8(a). Intersection #3: Madonna Road & Dalidio Drive/Prado Road.
• Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measure T-1[b])
T-8(b). Intersection #9: Los Osos Valley Road & Froom Ranch Way.
• Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measure T-
1[e]/Mitigation Measure T-2[f])
T-8(c). Intersection #10: Los Osos Valley Road & Auto Park Way.
• Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measure T-1[f])
Potential right-of-way constraints at
Madonna Road & Dalidio Drive and
Los Osos Valley Road & Froom
Ranch Way may reduce the
feasibility of mitigation at these
intersections. Accordingly, some of
the potential impacts associated
with multimodal level of service
standards identified for Cumulative
PC 1-53
Attachment 2
Table ES-1
Class I, Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
would reduce impacts at seven
of these intersections to an
acceptable level. However,
impacts at the Madonna Road &
Dalidio Drive and Los Osos
Valley Road & Froom Ranch
Way intersections would be
Class I, significant and
unavoidable.
T-8(d). Intersection #12: Los Osos Valley Road & U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps.
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and
southbound ramps)
T-8(e). Intersection #13: Los Osos Valley Road & U.S. 101 Northbound Ramps.
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and
southbound ramps)
T-8(f). Intersection #14: Los Osos Valley Road & S. Higuera Street.
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and
southbound ramps)
T-8(g). Intersection #16: S. Higuera Street & Tank Farm Road.
• Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measure T-1[f])
Plus Project conditions may not be
feasibly mitigated to a less than
significant level. As a result,
impacts associated with multimodal
level of service standards at these
intersections under Cumulative
Plus Project conditions would
remain significant and unavoidable.
Implementation of mitigation
measures that require off-site
improvements would generally not
result in significant residual
impacts, as these improvements
would occur within existing roadway
rights-of-way, or within urbanized
paved/landscaped areas
immediately adjacent to existing
roadway rights-of-way. The primary
exception to this is the Prado
Road/U.S 101
overpass/interchange. During
construction of the overpass,
northbound ramps, and southbound
ramps, potential issue areas that
may be temporarily affected would
include air quality, cultural
resources, hazards and hazardous
materials, water quality, noise and
transportation. Construction-related
environmental impacts would be
mitigated through compliance with
City and Caltrans permitting and
construction monitoring
requirements and standard
SLOAPCD dust and diesel
emission control measures. Long-
term impacts of the Prado
Road/U.S. 101
overpass/interchange would include
PC 1-54
Attachment 2
Table ES-1
Class I, Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
potential obstruction of scenic
views, loss of prime agricultural
land west of U.S. 101, and land use
impacts associated with acquisition
of additional right-of-way.
Impact T-9. Under Cumulative
Plus Project conditions, the
volume of traffic at 18 study area
intersections would exceed lane
capacities. Mitigation would
reduce impacts at 18 of these
intersections to an acceptable
level. Mitigation would reduce
impacts at 17 of these
intersections to an acceptable
level. However, impacts at the
Madonna Road & Dalidio Drive
and Los Osos Valley Road &
Froom Ranch Way intersections
would be Class I, significant and
unavoidable.
T-9(a). Intersection #1: Madonna Road & Los Osos Valley Road.
• Extend northbound right turn pocket on Los Osos Valley Road to 295’
• Extend southbound left turn pocket on Madonna Road to 395’
T-9(b). Intersection #2: Madonna Road & Oceanaire Drive.
• Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measure T-1[b])
• Extend westbound right turn land on Madonna Road to 200’
T-9(c). Intersection #3: Madonna Road & Dalidio Drive.
• Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measure T-1[b])
T-9(d). Intersection #4: Madonna Road & El Mercado.
• Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measures T-1[b])
T-9(e). Intersection #5: Madonna Road & U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps.
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and
southbound ramps)
T-9(f). Intersection #6: Madonna Road & U.S. 101 Northbound Ramps.
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and
southbound ramps)
T-9(g). Intersection #8: Higuera Street & South Street.
• Extend northbound Higuera Street left turn pocket to 120’
• Extend eastbound South Street right turn pocket to 100’
T-9(h). Intersection #9: Los Osos Valley Road & Froom Ranch Way.
• Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measure T-
1[d]/Mitigation Measure T-2[f])
T-9(i). Intersection #11: Los Osos Valley Road & Calle Joaquin.
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and
Potential right-of-way constraints at
Madonna Road & Dalidio Drive and
Los Osos Valley Road & Froom
Ranch Way may reduce the
feasibility of mitigation at these
intersections. Accordingly, some of
the potential impacts associated
with lane capacities identified for
Cumulative Plus Project conditions
may not be feasibly mitigated to a
less than significant level. As a
result, impacts to lane capacities at
these intersections under
Cumulative Plus Project conditions
would remain significant and
unavoidable.
Implementation of mitigation
measures that require off-site
improvements would generally not
result in significant residual
impacts, as these improvements
would occur within existing roadway
rights-of-way, or within urbanized
paved/landscaped areas
immediately adjacent to existing
roadway rights-of-way. The primary
exception to this is the Prado
Road/U.S 101
overpass/interchange. During
construction of the overpass,
northbound ramps, and southbound
ramps, potential issue areas that
may be temporarily affected would
PC 1-55
Attachment 2
Table ES-1
Class I, Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
southbound ramps)
T-9(j). Intersection #12: Los Osos Valley Road & U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps.
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and
southbound ramps)
T-9(k). Intersection #14: Los Osos Valley Road & S. Higuera Street.
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and
southbound ramps)
T-9(l). Intersection #16: S. Higuera Street & Tank Farm Road.
• Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measure T-1[g])
T-9(m). Intersection #18: Higuera Street & Prado Road.
• Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measure T-2[j])
include air quality, cultural
resources, hazards and hazardous
materials, water quality, noise and
transportation. Construction-related
environmental impacts would be
mitigated through compliance with
City and Caltrans permitting and
construction monitoring
requirements and standard
SLOAPCD dust and diesel
emission control measures. Long-
term impacts of the Prado
Road/U.S. 101
overpass/interchange would include
potential obstruction of scenic
views, loss of prime agricultural
land west of U.S. 101, and land use
impacts associated with acquisition
of additional right-of-way.
Impact T-10. Under Cumulative
Plus Project conditions five
study area segment groups, as
well as mainline segments of
U.S. 101, would operate at
unacceptable automobile,
bicycle, pedestrian, and transit
LOS based on adopted
multimodal level of service
standards during AM and PM
peak hours. Mitigation would
reduce impacts at each of the
five study area segment groups
to an acceptable level. However,
impacts at the mainline
segments of U.S. 101 at Los
Osos Valley Road and Madonna
Road would be Class I,
significant and unavoidable.
T-10(a). Segments #1 - #6: Madonna Road (Higuera Street to Los Osos Valley
Road).
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and
southbound ramps)
T-10(b). Segments #15 - #16: Los Osos Valley Road (Calle Joaquin to U.S. 101
Northbound Ramps).
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and
southbound ramps)
T-10(c). Segment #24: Prado Road/Dalidio Drive (Project Driveway to Froom
Ranch Way).
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and
southbound ramps)
Potential impacts identified for the
northbound and southbound lanes
of the mainline segments of U.S.
101 at Los Osos Valley Road and
Madonna Road under Cumulative
Plus Project conditions would not
be mitigated to a less than
significant level. As a result,
impacts under Cumulative Plus
Project conditions would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Implementation of mitigation
measures that require off-site
improvements would generally not
result in significant residual
impacts, as these improvements
would occur within existing roadway
rights-of-way, or within urbanized
paved/landscaped areas
PC 1-56
Attachment 2
Table ES-1
Class I, Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
immediately adjacent to existing
roadway rights-of-way. The primary
exception to this is the Prado
Road/U.S 101
overpass/interchange. During
construction of the overpass,
northbound ramps, and southbound
ramps, potential issue areas that
may be temporarily affected would
include air quality, cultural
resources, hazards and hazardous
materials, water quality, noise and
transportation. Construction-related
environmental impacts would be
mitigated through compliance with
City and Caltrans permitting and
construction monitoring
requirements and standard
SLOAPCD dust and diesel
emission control measures. Long-
term impacts of the Prado
Road/U.S. 101
overpass/interchange would include
potential obstruction of scenic
views, loss of prime agricultural
land west of U.S. 101, and land use
impacts associated with acquisition
of additional right-of-way.
PC 1-57
Attachment 2
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact AG-1. The project would
result in the direct conversion of
59.356 acres of Prime
Farmland, as mapped by the
FMMP, to non-agricultural uses.
Therefore, impacts would be
Class II, significant but
mitigable.
AG-1. Agricultural Conservation. Prior to issuance of any grading permits the
project proponent shall provide that for every one (1) acre of Important Farmland
(Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland) on the
site that is permanently converted to non-agricultural use as a result of project
development, one (1) acre of land of comparable agricultural productivity shall be
preserved in perpetuity. The land dedicated to agriculture pursuant to this measure
shall be of size, location and configuration appropriate to maintain a viable, working
agricultural operation. The acreage required to meet the 1:1 ratio may be met by the
off-site agricultural conservation easement/deed restriction proposed by the project
applicant, as long as this land meets the conditions outlined in this measure. Said
mitigation shall be satisfied by the applicant through:
1) Granting a perpetual conservation easement(s), deed restriction(s), or
other farmland conservation mechanism(s) to the City or qualifying entity
which has been approved by the City, such as the Land Conservancy of
San Luis Obispo, for the purpose of permanently preserving agricultural
land. The required easement(s) area or deed restriction(s) shall therefore
total a minimum of 59.356 acres of Prime Farmland. The land covered by
said on- and/or off-site easement(s) or deed restriction(s) shall be located
within or contiguous to the City’s Urban Reserve Line or Greenbelt subject
to review and approval of the City’s Natural Resources Manager; or
2) Making an in-lieu payment to a qualifying entity which has been approved
by the City, such as the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo, to be
applied toward the future purchase of a minimum of 59.356 acres of Prime
Farmland in San Luis Obispo County, together with an endowment amount
as may be required. The payment amount shall be determined by the
qualifying entity or a licensed appraiser; or
3) Making an in-lieu payment to a qualifying entity which has been approved
by the City and that is organized for conservation purposes, to be applied
toward a future perpetual conservation easement, deed restriction, or other
farmland conservation mechanism to preserve a minimum of 59.356 acres
of Prime Farmland in San Luis Obispo County. The amount of the payment
shall be determined by the qualifying entity or a licensed appraiser; or
4) Any combination of the above.
W ith implementation of Mitigation
Measure AG-1, this impact would
be reduced to a less than
significant level.
Impact AG-3. The project would
include development of
commercial and residential uses
adjacent to agricultural uses on
AG-3(a). Agricultural Conflict Avoidance Measures. The following language shall
be added to Section 4.2.1, Agricultural Buffer, of the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan:
Agricultural buffers will include City-approved measures to reduce availability of
W ith implementation of Mitigation
Measures AG-3(a) through AG-3(c)
this impact would be reduced to a
less than significant level.
PC 1-58
Attachment 2
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
the project site. This may result
in conflict with existing or future
urban and agricultural zoning
and uses and adversely affect
the long-term viability of the
remaining agricultural uses
onsite and at the adjacent SLO
City Farm. However, with
implementation of agricultural
buffers, and compliance with
standard APCD dust control
measures and City policies, this
impact would be Class II,
significant but mitigable.
public access to agricultural cultivation areas adjacent to the project site (e.g.,
fencing, signs, etc.). Future residents will be notified of agricultural buffers as
part of purchase or lease agreements.
AG-3(b). Agricultural Fencing. The project applicant shall coordinate with the City
to fund installation of fencing and signs along Froom Ranch Way and Dalidio
Drive/Prado Road to minimize potential for increases in trespass and vandalism of
adjacent agricultural areas.
AG-3(c). Buffer Landscaping. To reduce the potential for noise, dust, and
pesticide drift to affect future residents on the project site, the project applicant shall
ensure that project landscape plans include planting of a windrow of trees and
shrubs within the agricultural buffer along Froom Ranch Way at a sufficient density
to buffer the site from surrounding agricultural operations.
AIR QUALITY
Impact AQ-2. Construction of
the project would generate
temporary increases in localized
air pollutant emissions.
Construction emissions of ROG,
NOX, and DPM would exceed
SLOAPCD construction
thresholds. Impacts would be
Class II, less than significant
with mitigation incorporated.
AQ-2(a). Fugitive Dust Control Measures. Construction projects shall implement
the following dust control measures so as to reduce PM10 emissions in accordance
with SLOAPCD requirements.
• Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible;
• Water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used during construction in sufficient
quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering
frequency shall be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed
(non-potable) water or a SLOAPCD-approved dust suppressant shall be used
whenever possible;, to reduce the amount of potable water used for dust
control;
• All dirt stock pile areas shall be sprayed daily as needed;
• Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project
revegetation and landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible
following completion of any soil disturbing activities;
• Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than
one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-
invasive grass seed and watered until vegetation is established;
• All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using
approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in
advance by the SLOAPCD;
• All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as
soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used;
According to the SLOAPCD CEQA
Air Quality Handbook, if estimated
construction emissions are
expected to exceed either of the
SLOAPCD Quarterly Tier 2
thresholds of significance after the
standard and BACT measures are
factored into the estimation, then an
SLOAPCD approved Construction
Activity Management Plan (CAMP)
and offsite mitigation need to be
implemented in order to reduce
potential air quality impacts to a
less than significant level. If
construction emissions do not
exceed Tier 2 thresholds with
implementation of standard and
BACT measures, SLOAPCD
considers emissions less than
significant, even if Tier 1 thresholds
continue to be exceeded. Table
4.3-7 shows mitigated construction
emissions with implementation of
PC 1-59
Attachment 2
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
• Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any
unpaved surface at the construction site;
• All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or
shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance
between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle
Code Section 23114;
• Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto
streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site;
• Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto
adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water shall be used
where feasible;
• All of these fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and
building plans; and
• The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the
fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as
necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below 20
percent opacity, and to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall
include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The
name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the
SLOAPCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or
demolition.
AQ-2(b). Standard Control Measures for Construction Equipment. The following
standard air quality mitigation measures shall be implemented during construction
activities at the project site:
• Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer’s
specifications;
• Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment with ARB certified
motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for sue off-road);
• Use diesel construction equipment meeting ARB’s Tier 2 certified engines or
cleaner off-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State Off-Road
Regulation;
• Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the ARB’s 2007 or cleaner
certification standard for on-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with
the State On-Road Regulation;
• Construction or trucking companies with fleets that do not have engines in their
fleet that meet the engine standards identified in the above two measures (e.g.
captive or NOX exempt area fleets) may be eligible by proving alternative
compliance;
Tier 3 off-road engine compliance
and level 2 diesel particulate filters
required by Mitigation Measure AQ-
2(c), as well as low VOC-emission
paint required by Mitigation
Measure AQ-2(d). As shown
therein, with implementation of
Mitigation Measures AQ-2(c) and
AQ-2(d) construction emissions
would not exceed either of the
SLOAPCD Quarterly Tier 2
thresholds of significance.
Therefore, implementation of a
CAMP and offsite mitigation is not
required and impacts would be less
than significant with mitigation.
PC 1-60
Attachment 2
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
• On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the
California Code of Regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled
commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than
10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California
and non-California based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that
drivers of said vehicles:
1. Shall not idle the vehicle's primary diesel engine for greater than 5-minutes
at any location, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and,
2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a
heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during
sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any
location when within 1,000 feet of a restricted area, except as noted in
Subsection (d) of the regulation.
• Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5-minute idling restriction
identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board's In-Use
Off-Road Diesel regulation.
• All on and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than 5 minutes.
Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and or job sites to
remind drivers and operators of the 5 minute idling limit;
• In addition to the state required diesel idling requirements, the project applicant
shall comply with these more restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to
nearby sensitive receptors:
1. Signs that specify the no idling areas shall be posted and enforced at the
site.
2. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted;
3. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of
sensitive receptors;
4. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended;
• Electrify equipment when feasible;
• Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where
feasible; and
• Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible, such as
compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane or
biodiesel.
AQ-2(c). Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for Construction
Equipment. The following BACT for diesel-fueled construction equipment shall be
implemented during construction activities at the project site, where feasible:
• Further reducing emissions by expanding use of Tier 3 and Tier 4 off-road and
PC 1-61
Attachment 2
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
2010 on-road compliant engines where feasible;
• Repowering equipment with the cleanest engines available; and
• Installing California Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies, such as level 2
diesel particulate filters. These strategies are listed at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm
AQ-2(d). Architectural Coating. To reduce ROG and NOX levels during the
architectural coating phase, low or no VOC-emission paint shall be used with levels
of 50 g/L or less.
AQ-2(e). Construction Activity Management Plan. Emissions reduction measures
and construction practices required to comply with Mitigation Measures AQ-2(a)
through AQ-2(d) shall be documented in a Construction Activity Management Plan
(CAMP) and submitted to SLOAPCD for review and approval at least three months
before the start of construction. The CAMP shall include a Dust Control
Management Plan, tabulation of on and off-road construction equipment (age,
horse-power and miles and/or hours of operation), construction truck trip schedule,
construction work-day period, and construction phasing. If implementation of the
Standard Mitigation and Best Available Control Technology measures cannot bring
the project below the Tier 1 threshold (2.5 tons of NOX+ROG per quarter), off-site
mitigation shall be implemented in coordination with SLOAPCD to reduce NOX and
ROG emissions to below the Tier 1 threshold.
Impact AQ-3. Operation of the
project would generate air
pollutant emissions on an
ongoing daily and annual basis.
The project’s daily emissions
would exceed SLOAPCD daily
emissions thresholds, but would
not exceed annual thresholds.
Implementation of SLOAPCD’s
standard mitigation measures
and off-site mitigation would
reduce emissions to a less than
significant level. Impacts would
be Class II, less than significant
with mitigation incorporated.
AQ-3(a). Standard Operational Mitigation Measures. Prior to issuance of grading
permits, the applicant shall define and incorporate into the San Luis Ranch Specific
Plan standard emission reduction measures from the SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality
Handbook to reduce emissions to below daily threshold levels. Emission reduction
measures may shall include, but would not be limited to:
• Prohibit residential wood burning appliances;
• Install a ‘Park and Ride’ lot with bike lockers in a location of need defined by
SLOCOG;
• Trusses for south-facing portions of roofs shall be designed to handle dead
weight loads of standard solar-heated water and photovoltaic panels. Roof
design shall include sufficient south facing roof surface, based on structures
size and use, to accommodate adequate solar panels. For south facing roof
pitches, the closest standard roof pitch to the ideal average solar exposure
shall be used;
• Increase the building energy rating by 20 percent above 2013 Title 24
requirements (used in the California Emissions Estimator Model) or consistent
Implementation of the measures
identified in Mitigation Measure AQ-
3(a) and AQ-3(b) would reduce
impacts to regional air quality. For
informational purposes, Table 4.3-
11 and Table 4.3-12 show
anticipated project emissions with
incorporation of measures
achieving a 20 percent exceedance
of Title 24 requirements and a
prohibition on residential wood
burning devices, which are
quantifiable in CalEEMod. As
shown in Table 4.3-11 and Table
4.3-12, implementation of these
measures alone would not reduce
daily operational emissions of
PC 1-62
Attachment 2
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
with 2016 Title 24 requirements, whichever is stricter. Measures used to reach
the 20 percent rating cannot be double counted;
• Design building to include roof overhangs that are sufficient to block the high
summer sun, but not the lower winter sun, from penetrating south facing
windows (passive solar design);
• Utilize high efficiency gas or solar water heaters;
• Install door sweeps and weather stripping (if more efficient doors and windows
are not available);
• Install energy-reducing programmable thermostats;
• Participate in and implement available energy-efficient rebate programs
including air conditioning, gas heating, refrigeration, and lighting programs;
• Use roofing material with a solar reflectance values meeting the U.S. EPA/DOE
Energy Star® rating to reduce summer cooling needs.
• Utilize onsite renewable energy systems (e.g., solar, wind, geothermal, low-
impact hydro, biomass and bio-gas); and
• Provide and require the use of battery powered or electric landscape
maintenance equipment for new development;
• Provide a display case or kiosk displaying transportation information in a
prominent area accessible to employees or residents;
• Provide neighborhood electric vehicles/ car share program;
• Provide bicycle-share program;.
• Provide bicycle lockers for ‘Park and Ride’ lots;
• Provide vanpool, shuttle, mini bus service (alternative fueled preferred);
• Provide free-access telework terminals and/or wi-fi access in multi-family
projects.
In addition, the proposed hotel component of the Specific Plan shall participate in
the SLO Car Free Program, provide incentives to car-free travelers, and promote
the program in their communication tools.
AQ-3(b). Off-Site Mitigation. If implementation of standard emission reduction
measures from the SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook described in Mitigation
Measure AQ-3(a) is insufficient to reduce emissions to below daily threshold levels,
then the applicant shall coordinate with SLOAPCD to provide funding for off-site
emission reduction measures to reduce emissions to below daily threshold levels. In
accordance with SLOAPCD methodology, the excess emissions shall be multiplied
by the cost effectiveness of mitigation as defined in the State’s current Carl Moyer
Incentive Program Guidelines to determine the annual off-site mitigation amount.
This amount shall then be extrapolated over the life of the project to determine total
ROG, NOX, DPM, or dust to below
SLOAPCD’s daily significance
thresholds. However, with
implementation of Mitigation
Measures AQ-3(a), Standard
Operational Mitigation Measures,
and AQ-3(b), Off-Site Mitigation,
annual emissions would be reduced
below SLOAPCD’s annual
operational thresholds. Therefore,
long-term operational impacts
would be less than significant.
PC 1-63
Attachment 2
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
off-site mitigation. Off-site emission reduction measures may include, but would not
be limited to:
• Developing or improving park-and-ride lots;
• Retrofitting existing homes in the project area with SLOAPCD-approved wood
combustion devices;
• Retrofitting existing homes in the project area with energy-efficient devices;
• Constructing satellite worksites;
• Funding a program to buy and scrap older, higher emission passenger and
heavy-duty vehicles;
• Replacing/re-powering transit buses;
• Replacing/re-powering heavy-duty diesel school vehicles (i.e. bus, passenger
or maintenance vehicles);
• Funding an electric lawn and garden equipment exchange program;
• Retrofitting or re-powering heavy-duty construction equipment, or on-road
vehicles;
• Re-powering marine vessels;
• Re-powering or contributing to funding clean diesel locomotive main or auxiliary
engines;
• Installing bicycle racks on transit buses;
• Purchasing particulate filters or oxidation catalysts for local school buses,
transit buses or construction fleets;
• Installing or contributing to funding alternative fueling infrastructure (i.e. fueling
stations for CNG, LPG, conductive and inductive electric vehicle charging, etc.);
• Funding expansion of existing transit services;
• Funding public transit bus shelters;
• Subsidizing vanpool programs;
• Subsidizing transportation alternative incentive programs;
• Contributing to funding of new bike lanes;
• Installing bicycle storage facilities; and
• Providing assistance in the implementation of projects that are identified in City
or County Bicycle Master Plans.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact BIO-1. Implementation
of the project could have a
substantial adverse effect on
candidate, sensitive, or special
status species that may occur
BIO-1(a). Best Management Practices. The applicant shall ensure the following
general wildlife Best Management Practices (BMPs) are required for construction
activity within the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Area:
• No pets or firearms shall be allowed at the project site during construction
activities.
Implementation of BIO-1(a) through
BIO-1(h) would reduce impacts to
listed, candidate or special-status
plant and wildlife species to a less
than significant level and ensure
PC 1-64
Attachment 2
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
on the project site. Impacts
would be Class II, potentially
significant but mitigable.
• All trash that may attract predators must be properly contained and removed
from the work site. All such debris and waste shall be picked up daily and
properly disposed of at an appropriate site.
• All refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles shall occur
at least 100 feet from Prefumo Creek and in a location where a spill would not
drain toward aquatic habitat. A plan must be in place for prompt and effective
response to any accidental spills prior to the onset of work activities. All
workers shall be informed of the appropriate measures to take should an
accidental spill occur.
• Pallets or secondary containment areas for chemicals, drums, or bagged
materials shall be provided. Should material spills occur, materials and/or
contaminants shall be cleaned from the project site and recycled or disposed of
to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
• Prior to construction activities in areas adjacent to Prefumo Creek and Cerro
San Luis Channel, the drainage features shall be fenced with orange
construction fencing and signed to prohibit entry of construction equipment and
personnel unless authorized by the City. Fencing should be located a minimum
of 20 feet from the edge of the riparian canopy or top of bank and shall be
maintained throughout the construction period for each phase of development.
Once all phases of construction in this area are complete, the fencing may be
removed.
• To control sedimentation during and after project implementation, appropriate
erosion control BMPs (e.g., use of coir rolls, jute netting, etc.) shall be
implemented to minimize adverse effects on Prefumo Creek. No plastic
monofilament netting shall be utilized on site.
• Construction equipment shall be inspected at the beginning of each day to
ensure that wildlife species have not climbed into wheel wells or under tracks
since the equipment was last parked. Any sensitive wildlife species found
during inspections shall be gently encouraged to leave the area by a qualified
biological monitor or otherwise trained personnel.
• All vehicles and equipment shall be in good working condition and free of leaks.
• Environmentally Sensitive Areas shall be delineated by a qualified biologist
prior to construction to confine access routes and construction areas.
• Construction work shall be restricted to daylight hours (7:00 AM to 7:00 PM) to
avoid impacts to nocturnal and crepuscular (dawn and dusk activity period)
species. No construction night lighting shall be permitted within 100 yards of
the top of the Prefumo Creek bank.
• Concrete truck and tool washout shall be limited to locations designated by a
qualified biologist such that no runoff will reach Prefumo Creek or Cerro San
that the project would comply with
COSE Policies 7.3.1, Protect Listed
Species, and 7.3.2, Species of
Local Concern.
PC 1-65
Attachment 2
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
Luis Channel.
• All open trenches shall be constructed with appropriate exit ramps to allow
species that accidentally fall into a trench to escape. Trenches will remain open
for the shortest period necessary to complete required work.
• Existing facilities and disturbed areas shall be used to the extent possible to
minimize the amount of disturbance and all new access roads other than the
Froom Ranch Way Bridge shall be cited to avoid high quality habitat and
minimize habitat fragmentation.
• In the event that construction must occur within the creek or creek setback, a
biological monitor shall be present during all such activities with the authority to
stop or redirect work as needed to protect biological resources.
BIO-1(b). Worker Environmental Awareness Program Training. Prior to the
initiation of construction activities (including staging and mobilization), the applicant
shall ensure all personnel associated with project construction attend a Worker
Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training.
• The training shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, to aid workers in
recognizing special status resources that may occur in the project area. The
specifics of this program shall include identification of the sensitive species and
habitats, a description of the regulatory status and general ecological
characteristics of sensitive resources, and review of the limits of construction
and avoidance measures required to reduce impacts to biological resources
within the work area. A fact sheet conveying this information shall also be
prepared for distribution to all contractors, their employers, and other personnel
involved with construction of the project. All employees shall sign a form
provided by the trainer documenting they have attended the WEAP and
understand the information presented to them.
BIO-1(c) . Western Pond Turtle and Two-Striped Garter Snake Impact
Avoidance and Minimization. The applicant shall ensure the following actions are
implemented to avoid and minimize potential impacts to western pond turtle and
two-striped garter snake (these reptiles utilize similar habitats; therefore,
implementation of the proposed measures for western pond turtle are also suitable
and appropriate for two-striped garter snake):
• A qualified biologist(s) shall conduct a pre-construction survey within 24 hours
prior to the onset of work activities within and around areas that may serve as
potential western pond turtle habitat. If this species is found and the individuals
are likely to be injured or killed by work activities, the approved biologist shall
be allowed sufficient time to move them from the project site before work
PC 1-66
Attachment 2
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
activities begin. The biologist(s) must relocate the any western pond turtle the
shortest distance possible to a location that contains suitable habitat that is not
likely to be affected by activities associated with the project.
• Access routes, staging, and construction areas shall be limited to the minimum
area necessary to achieve the project goal and minimize potential impacts to
western pond turtle habitat including locating access routes and construction
staging areas outside of wetlands and riparian areas to the maximum extent
practicable.
BIO-1(d) . California Red-legged Frog, Western spadefoot, and Coast Range Newt
Impact Avoidance and Minimization. The applicant shall implement the following to
avoid and minimize potential impacts to CRLF. Because coast range newt and
western spadefoot are amphibians that utilize similar habitats to CRLF,
implementation of the following measures provided for CRLF shall be implemented
for these species as well.
• Only USFWS-approved biologists shall participate in activities associated with
the capture, handling, and monitoring of CRLF.
• Ground disturbance shall not begin until written approval is received from the
USFWS that the biologist is qualified to conduct the work. If the USFWS does
not authorize the relocation of CRLF occurring within the project site, CRLF
found within the project site shall be avoided with a 100-foot buffer and no
activities shall occur within that buffer until the CRLF has left the project site on
its own.
• Areas of the project site that lie within 100 feet upland from riparian or
jurisdictional areas shall be surrounded by a solid temporary exclusion fence
(such as silt fencing) that shall extend at least three feet above the ground and
be buried into the ground at least 6 inches to exclude CRLF from the project
site. Plastic monofilament netting or other similar material will not be used. The
location of the fencing shall be determined by a qualified biologist. The fence
shall remain in place throughout construction activities. Installation of the
exclusion fencing shall be monitored by a qualified biologist to ensure that it is
installed correctly.
• During new grading activities in habitats within 100 feet upland from riparian or
jurisdictional areas, a qualified biologist shall be on-site to recover any
spadefoot toads that may be excavated/unearthed with native material or found
under vegetation. If the animals are in good health, they shall be immediately
relocated to a designated release area. If they are injured, the animals shall be
turned over to an approved wildlife rehabilitator until they are in a condition to
be released into the designated release area.
PC 1-67
Attachment 2
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
• To ensure that diseases are not conveyed between work sites by the approved
biologist, the fieldwork code of practice developed by the Declining Amphibian
Populations Task Force shall be followed at all times.
BIO-1(e) . Steelhead Impact Avoidance and Minimization. The applicant shall
ensure the following actions are undertaken to avoid and minimize potential impacts
to steelhead:
• Before any activities begin on the project, a qualified biologist will conduct a
training session for all construction personnel. At a minimum, the training will
include a description of the steelhead and its habitat, the specific measures
that are being implemented to conserve this species for the project, and the
boundaries within which the project may be accomplished. Brochures, books,
and briefings may be used in the training session, provided that a qualified
person is on hand to answer any questions.
• During the duration of project activities, all trash that may attract predators will
be properly contained and secured, promptly removed from the work site, and
disposed of regularly. Following construction, all trash and construction debris
will be removed from the work areas.
• All refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles will occur at
least 100 feet from riparian habitat or bodies of water and in a location where a
potential spill would not drain directly toward aquatic habitat (e.g., on a slope
that drains away from the water source). The monitor shall ensure that
contamination of suitable habitat does not occur during such operations. Prior
to the onset of work activities, a plan must be in place for prompt and effective
response to any accidental spills. All workers shall be informed of the
importance of preventing spills and of the appropriate measures to take should
an accidental spill occur.
• The number of access routes, size of staging areas, and the total area used for
construction activities shall be limited to the minimum area necessary to
achieve the project goals.
• The City will only permit work within the immediate vicinity of Prefumo Creek for
times of the year when potential impacts to steelhead would be minimal. Work
shall be restricted during the wet season (October 15 through April 30) and
should ideally occur during the late summer and early fall during the driest
portion of the year; however, water may still be present during construction. If
work is proposed in the streambed and water is present during construction, a
diversion will be required to dewater the work area and the following avoidance
and minimization measures will apply:
(1) Upstream and downstream passage for fish, including juvenile
PC 1-68
Attachment 2
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
steelhead, shall be provided through or around the construction site at
all times construction is occurring within the Prefumo Creek streambed.
(2) A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey and be
present onsite during the diversion installation and dewatering process
to capture and relocate any trapped steelhead and/or other fish. Upon
approval from the NMFS, the biologist(s) must relocate these individuals
the shortest distance possible to a location that contains suitable habitat
that is not likely to be affected by activities associated with the project.
(3) Dewatering operations shall employ a five millimeter mesh screen
fastened to the intake hose to exclude fish and other wildlife species
from the pump.
(4) Steelhead shall be excluded from the construction zone with block nets
installed upstream and downstream the of the bridge construction zone.
The distance upstream and downstream for block net installation will
depend on the type of construction activities occurring in the streambed.
• To control sedimentation during and after project implementation, the following
BMPs shall be implemented. If the BMPs are somehow ineffective, consultation
with the City and appropriate resource agencies will be undertaken, and all
attempts to remedy the situation will commence immediately.
(1) It shall be the owner’s/contractor’s responsibility to maintain control of
the entire construction operations and to keep the entire site in
compliance.
(2) The owner/contractor shall be responsible for monitoring erosion and
sediment control measures (including but not limited to fiber rolls, inlet
protections, silt fences, and gravel bags) prior, during and after storm
events, monitoring includes maintaining a file documenting onsite
inspections, problems encountered, corrective actions, and notes and a
map of remedial implementation measures.
(3) Erosion shall be controlled by covering stockpiled construction materials
(i.e. soil, spoils, aggregate, fly-ash, stucco, hydrated lime, etc.) All earth
stockpiles over 2.0 cubic yards that are not actively being used, shall be
covered with a tarp consistent with the applicable construction general
permit, or through other means of erosion control approved by the City
(e.g., and ringedsurrounding with straw bales or silt fencing). The site
shall be maintained to minimize sediment-laden runoff to any storm
drainage system including existing drainage swales and/or sand
watercourses.
(a) Construction operations shall be carried out in such a manner that
erosion and water pollution will be minimized.
PC 1-69
Attachment 2
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
(b) State and local laws concerning pollution abatement shall be
complied with.
(c) If grading operations are expected to denude slopes, the slopes
shall be protected with erosion control measures immediately
following grading on the slopes.
(4) Specifically, in order to prevent sedimentation and debris from entering
Prefumo Creek during construction, silt fencing shall be installed along
the top of the banks on the west side of the channel prior to the onset of
construction activities.
• The project biologist will monitor construction activities, in stream habitat, and
overall performance of BMPs and sediment controls for the purpose of
identifying and reconciling any condition that could adversely affect steelhead
or their habitat. The biologist will halt work if necessary and will recommend
site-specific measures to avoid adverse effects to steelhead and their habitat.
• Equipment will be checked daily for leaks prior to the initiation of construction
activities. A spill kit will be placed near the creek and will remain readily
available during construction in the event that any contaminant is accidentally
released.
• In addition to these avoidance and minimization measures, Mitigation Measure
BIO-2(a) would also ensure that potential temporary and permanent indirect
impacts to steelhead from the project are reduced as much as practicable.
BIO-1(f). Great Blue Heron and Monarch Butterfly Impact Avoidance and
Minimization. The applicant shall ensure the following actions are undertaken to
avoid and minimize potential impacts to overwintering monarch butterflies and
nesting great blue herons.
• Tree trimming/removal and construction activities that affect eucalyptus trees
near or within the monarch overwintering grove or active great blue heron nests
identified in the San Luis Ranch Monarch Trees Inspection Memo, Results of
2015 and 2016 San Luis Ranch Heron Rookery Surveys Memo, and San Luis
Ranch – Prefumo Creek Widening Biological Constraints Memo prepared by
Althouse and Meade (Appendix F), shall not be conducted during the monarch
butterfly overwintering season from October 1 through March 31 if monarch
butterflies are present, or while great blue heron nests are active from February
1 to August 31. If construction activities must be conducted during these
periods, a qualified biologist shall conduct overwintering monarch surveys
and/or nesting great blue heron surveys within one week of habitat disturbance.
If surveys do not locate clustering monarchs or nesting great blue herons,
construction activities may be conducted. If clustering monarchs and/or nesting
PC 1-70
Attachment 2
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
great blue herons are located, no construction activities shall occur within 100
feet of the edge of the overwintering grove and/or active nest(s) until the
qualified biologist determines that no more monarchs are overwintering in the
grove or the nest(s) are no longer active.
• A qualified biologist shall prepare and implement a habitat enhancement plan
prior to issuance of grading permits to enhance and restore overwintering and
nesting habitat that is to be preserved. The habitat enhancement plan shall
include native shrubs and trees such as Monterey Cypress (Hesperocyparis
macrocarpa) that may support heron roosting and monarch butterfly
overwintering. As eucalyptus trees senesce, they shall be replaced with native
species. Native trees and shrubs shall also be used to supplement gaps in
canopy or act as windbreaks.
• Create new offsite nesting habitat for great blue herons to mitigate for removal
of onsite nesting habitat. With a qualified biologist present, the current rookery
may be moved to a suitable offsite location where the same great blue herons
can resume nesting, following methods detailed in Crouch et al. (2002). It
should be noted that creating offsite nesting habitat for great blue herons is
experimental and that the relocation techniques described in Crouch et al.
(2002) were used to relocate black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax
nycticorax). In addition, an agreement with the City will be required prior to
implementation of the offsite strategy on their property. The methods detailed in
Crouch et al. (2002) include:
(a) This entails at least one year of pre-construction monitoring of the
rookery, where the timing of rookery activities will be noted: arrival of
breeding adults, egg laying, hatching, and fledging. During this time,
audio recordings of adults and juveniles shall be made.
(b) Following the completion of the nesting season in late summer, a
certified arborist specializing in the translocation of trees will examine
the mature trees onsite and work with the City’s Natural Resources
Manager to determine whether or not it is feasible to relocate the mature
trees containing nests the mature trees containing nests shall be boxed
and moved across Madonna Road to a suitable location at Laguna Lake
Open Space.
(c) Prior to the start of the next nesting season (based on timing of adult
arrival in previous years), nesting adults will be recruited to the new
location via decoys and playback of vocalizations. The new location will
be monitored regularly by a qualified biologist for the following three
breeding seasons.
BIO-1(g). Nesting Birds Impact Avoidance and Minimization. The applicant shall
PC 1-71
Attachment 2
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
ensure the following actions are undertaken to avoid and minimize potential impacts
to nesting birds:
• For construction activities occurring during the nesting season (generally
February 1 to September 15), surveys for nesting birds covered by the
California Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to vegetation
removal. The surveys shall include the disturbance area plus a 500-foot buffer
around the site. If active nests are located, all construction work shall be
conducted outside a buffer zone from the nest to be determined by the qualified
biologist. The buffer shall be a minimum of 50 feet for non-raptor bird species
and at least 300 feet for raptor species. Larger buffers may be required
depending upon the status of the nest and the construction activities occurring
in the vicinity of the nest. The buffer area(s) shall be closed to all construction
personnel and equipment until the adults and young are no longer reliant on the
nest site. A qualified biologist shall confirm that breeding/nesting is completed
and young have fledged the nest prior to removal of the buffer.
• If feasible, removal of vegetation within suitable nesting bird habitats will be
scheduled to occur in the fall and winter (between September 1 and February
14), after fledging and before the initiation of the nesting season.
BIO-1(h) . Roosting Bats Impact Avoidance and Minimization. The applicant
shall ensure the following actions are undertaken to avoid and minimize potential
impacts to roosting bats:
• Prior to issuance of grading permits, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey
of existing structures within the project site to determine if roosting bats are
present. The survey shall be conducted during the non-breeding season
(November through March). The biologist shall have access to all interior attics,
as needed. If a colony of bats is found roosting in any structure, further surveys
shall be conducted sufficient to determine the species present and the type of
roost (day, night, maternity, etc.) If the bats are not part of an active maternity
colony, passive exclusion measures may be implemented in close coordination
with CDFW. These exclusion measures must include one-way valves that allow
bats to exit the structure but are designed so that the bats may not re-enter the
structure.
• If a bat colony is excluded from the project site, appropriate alternate bat
habitat as determined by a qualified biologist shall be installed on the project
site or at an approved location offsite.
• Prior to removal of any trees over 20 inches diameter-at-breast-height (DBH), a
survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if any of the
PC 1-72
Attachment 2
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
trees proposed for removal or trimming harbor sensitive bat species or
maternal bat colonies. If a non-maternal roost is found, the qualified biologist, in
close coordination with CDFW shall install one-way valves or other appropriate
passive relocation method. For each occupied roost removed, one bat box shall
be installed in similar habitat and should have similar cavity or crevices
properties to those which are removed, including access, ventilation,
dimensions, height above ground, and thermal conditions. Maternal bat
colonies may not be disturbed.
Impact BIO-2. Implementation
of the project would have a
substantial adverse effect on
sensitive habitats, including
riparian areas. Impacts would be
Class II, potentially significant
but mitigable.
BIO-2(a). Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. A Habitat Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan (HMMP) shall be prepared which will provide a minimum 2:1 ratio
(replaced: removed) for temporary and permanent impacts to riparian habitat. The
HMMP will identify the specific mitigation sites and it will be implemented
immediately following project completion. The HMMP shall include, at a minimum,
the following components:
• Description of the project/impact site (i.e. location, responsible parties, areas to
be impacted by habitat type);
• Goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation project [type(s) and area(s) of habitat to
be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved; specific functions and
values of habitat type(s) to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or
preserved];
• Description of the proposed compensatory mitigation site (location and size,
ownership status, existing functions and values of the compensatory mitigation
site);
• Implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation site (rationale for
expecting implementation success, responsible parties, schedule, site
preparation, planting plan [including plant species to be used, container sizes,
seeding rates, etc.]);
• Maintenance activities during the monitoring period, including weed removal
and irrigation as appropriate (activities, responsible parties, schedule);
• Monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation site, including no less than
quarterly monitoring for the first year (performance standards, target functions
and values, target acreages to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or
preserved, annual monitoring reports);
• Success criteria based on the goals and measurable objectives; said criteria to
be, at a minimum, at least 80 percent survival of container plants and 80
percent relative cover by vegetation type;
• An adaptive management program and remedial measures to address negative
impacts to restoration efforts;
Implementation of Mitigation
Measures BIO-1(a), BIO-2(a), BIO-
2(b), BIO-2(c), and BIO-3 would
reduce direct impacts to sensitive
habitats, including riparian areas,
by implementing construction
BMPs, including containing
construction activities, debris, and
sediment in appropriate locations
outside of sensitive habitat to the
maximum extent practicable, and
by providing compensatory
mitigation for permanently impacted
riparian habitat. In addition
Mitigation Measures HWQ-1(a) and
HWQ-1(b) include construction
management practices that would
reduce construction related impacts
to water quality. When combined
with standard regulatory measures
(including required permitting from
USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB), and
regulatory oversight during
construction by the Environmental
Monitor, implementation of required
mitigation measures would reduce
impacts to a less than significant
level and ensure that the project
would comply with applicable
General Plan policies for the
protection of habitat and other
PC 1-73
Attachment 2
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
• Notification of completion of compensatory mitigation and agency confirmation;
and
• Contingency measures (initiating procedures, alternative locations for
contingency compensatory mitigation, funding mechanism).
BIO-2(b) . Tree Replacement. Riparian trees four inches or greater measured at
diameter-at-breast-height (DBH) shall be replaced in-kind at a minimum ratio of 3:1
(replaced: removed). Trees 24 inches or greater inches DBH shall be replaced in-
kind at a minimum ratio of 10:1. Willows and cottonwoods may be planted from live
stakes following guidelines provided in the California Salmonid Stream Habitat
Restoration Manual for planting dormant cuttings and container stock (CDFW
2010).
• Tree replacement shall be conducted in accordance with a Natural Habitat
Restoration and Enhancement Plan to be approved by the City’s Natural
Resource Manager.
• The Natural Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Plan shall prioritize the
planting of replacement trees on-site where feasible, but shall allow that
replacement trees may be planted off-site with approval of the City’s Natural
Resource Manager.
• Replacement trees may be planted in the fall or winter of the year in which
trees were removed. All replacement trees will be planted no more than one
year following the date upon which the native trees were removed.
BIO-2(c). Froom Ranch Way Bridge Design to Avoid Riparian Areas. The Froom
Ranch Way Bridge crossing footings shall be placed outside mapped riparian areas.
The placement of the bridge and footings shall be indicated on the Development
Plan, VTM, and HMMP, and shall show the bridge’s placement in relation to existing
vegetation and the bed and bank of Prefumo Creek.
biological resources.
Impact BIO-3. Construction of
the project could have a
substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. Impacts would
be Class II, potentially
significant but mitigable.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) and BIO-2(a) would reduce
impacts to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation is required.
Implementation of Mitigation
Measures BIO-1(a) andBIO-2(a
would reduce potential impacts to
federally protected wetlands, any
riparian habitat, or other sensitive
natural communities to a less than
significant level and ensure that the
project would be consistent with
COSE Policy 7.5.5.
PC 1-74
Attachment 2
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
Impact BIO-4. Development of
the San Luis Ranch Specific
Plan Area would not
permanently interfere with the
movement of resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established resident or
migratory wildlife corridors along
Prefumo Creek and through
open agricultural lands on the
project site. This impact would
be Class II, potentially
significant but mitigable.
Implementation of BIO-1(a) requires construction BMPs that would reduce potential
impacts to riparian habitat within the Prefumo Creek corridor. Implementation of
Mitigation Measures BIO-1(c), BIO-1(d), and BIO-1(e), would reduce impacts to
western pond turtle, CRLF, coast range newt, and steelhead by requiring pre-
construction surveys by qualified biological staff and construction worker training to
ensure individuals of these species are not impacts during project construction
activity within or adjacent to riparian and riverine habitat. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure BIO-1(f) would reduce impacts to heron rookeries by requiring
preconstruction surveys, mapping, exclusionary fencing, and offsite compensatory
mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1(h) would reduce impacts to
birds by requiring construction monitoring for nesting birds, and requiring
appropriate buffers for construction activity in proximity to active nests.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1(h) would reduce impacts to bats
roosting in trees by requiring trees that may provide habitat for roosting bats to be
surveyed by a qualified biologist prior to removal. Implementation of Mitigation
Measures BIO-2(a) would reduce potential impacts to federally protected wetlands,
any riparian habitat, or other sensitive natural community to a less than significant
level.
Implementation of Mitigation
Measures BIO-1(a), BIO-1(c), BIO-
1(d), BIO-1(e), BIO-1(f), BIO-1-(h),
and BIO-2(a) would reduce
potential impacts to wildlife species,
wildlife nursery sites, riparian
corridors, and other sensitive
natural communities to a less than
significant level.
Cumulative Biological
Resources Impacts. Consistent
with the LUCE Update EIR, the
project would implement
mitigation measures to ensure
compliance with the applicable
goals and policies of the
General Plan. As a result, the
project’s contribution to this
cumulative impact would be
potentially significant but
mitigable.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) through BIO-1(h) and BIO-2(a)
through BIO-2(c) would reduce cumulative impacts to biological resources to a less
than significant level.
Implementation of required
mitigation measures would reduce
cumulative impacts to a less than
significant level.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact CR-2. Identified
archaeological resources on the
project site are ineligible for
listing in the CRHR and NRHP,
and disturbance of these
resources would not constitute a
significant impact. However, the
CR-2(a). Retain a Qualified Principal Investigator. In accordance with
Conservation and Open Space Policies 3.5.6 and 3.5.7, a qualified principal
investigator, defined as an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for professional archaeology (hereafter qualified archaeologist), shall be
retained to carry out all mitigation measures related to archaeological resources.
Monitoring shall involve inspection of subsurface construction disturbance at or in
Implementation of Mitigation
Measures CR-2(a) and CR-2(b)
would reduce impacts to
archaeological resources to a less
than significant level.
PC 1-75
Attachment 2
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
potential remains for the project
to result in impacts to previously
unidentified archaeological
resources. Therefore, this
impact would be Class II,
significant but mitigable.
the immediate vicinity of known sites, or at locations that may harbor buried
resources that were not identified on the site surface. A Native American monitor
shall also be present because the area is a culturally sensitive location. The
monitor(s) shall be on-site on a full-time basis during earthmoving activities,
including grading, trenching, vegetation removal, or other excavation activities.
CR-2(b). Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources. In the event
that archaeological resources are exposed during construction, all work shall be
halted in the vicinity of the archaeological discovery until a qualified archaeologist
can visit the site of discovery and assess the significance of the cultural resource. In
the event that any artifact or an unusual amount of bone or shell is encountered
during construction, work shall be immediately stopped and relocated to another
area. The lead agency shall stop construction within 100 feet of the exposed
resource until a qualified archaeologist/paleontologist can evaluate the find (see 36
CFR 800.11.1 and CCR, Title 14, Section 15064.5[f]). Examples of such cultural
materials might include: ground stone tools such as mortars, bowls, pestles, and
manos; chipped stone tools such as projectile points or choppers; flakes of stone
not consistent with the immediate geology such as obsidian or fused shale; historic
trash pits containing bottles and/or ceramics; or structural remains. If the resources
are found to be significant, they must be avoided or will be mitigated consistent with
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Guidelines.
PC 1-76
Attachment 2
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact HAZ-4. Hazardous
materials sites identified on and
upgradient to the project site as
well as residual pesticides and
agricultural chemicals in soil due
to historical use of pesticides
and other agricultural chemicals
onsite could create a hazard to
construction workers during the
construction phase of the
project. Impacts would be Class
II, significant but mitigable.
HAZ-4. Soil Sampling and Remediation. Prior to issuance of any grading permits,
a contaminated soil assessment shall be completed in the portions of land to be
graded for development. Soil samples shall be collected under the supervision of a
professional geologist or environmental professional to determine the presence or
absence of contaminated soil in these areas. The sampling density shall be in
accordance with guidance from San Luis Obispo County Environmental Health
Services, so as to define the volume of soil that may require remediation.
Laboratory analysis of soil samples shall be analyzed for the presence of
organochlorine pesticides, in accordance with EPA Test Method SW8081A, and
heavy metals in accordance with EPA Test Methods 6010B and 7471A. If soil
sampling indicates the presence of pesticides or heavy metals exceeding applicable
environmental screening levels, the soil assessment shall identify the volume of
contaminated soil to be excavated.
If concentrations of contaminants exceed EPA action levels and therefore warrant
remediation, contaminated materials shall be remediated either prior to concurrent
with construction and an Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) shall be prepared.
Cleanup may include excavation, disposal, bio-remediation, or any other treatment
of conditions subject to regulatory action. All necessary reports, regulations and
permits shall be followed to achieve cleanup of the site. The contaminated materials
shall be remediated under the supervision of an environmental consultant licensed
to oversee such remediation and under the direction of the lead oversight agency.
The remediation program shall also be approved by a regulatory oversight agency,
such as the San Luis Obispo County Environmental Health Services, the Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or DTSC. All proper waste handling and
disposal procedures shall be followed. Upon completion of the remediation, the
environmental consultant shall prepare a report summarizing the project, the
remediation approach implemented, and the analytical results after completion of
the remediation, including all waste disposal or treatment manifests.
With implementation of Mitigation
Measure HAZ-4, impacts related to
exposure to residual agricultural
chemicals would be reduced to a
less than significant level.
Impact HAZ-5.
Tetrachloroethene (also called
perchloroethylene, or PCE) has
been detected in the shallow
aquifer in concentrations that
exceed the Maximum
Contaminant Level (MCL) in
active irrigation wells on the
HAZ-5(a). Groundwater Assessment for Contamination at Untested Wells. Any
groundwater wells on the project site that would be used for agricultural irrigation
shall be sampled by a registered soils engineer or remediation specialist to
determine the presence or absence of regulated contaminants prior to issuance of
grading permits. This assessment shall target on-site PCE associated with off-site
dry cleaning operations.
HAZ-5(b). Groundwater Remediation. If groundwater sampling indicates the
W ith incorporation of these
mitigation measures, this impact
would be less than significant.
PC 1-77
Attachment 2
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
eastern portion of the site. As
future on-site residents or
workers could potentially be
exposed to PCE from irrigation
water, this would be a Class II,
significant but mitigable, impact.
presence of any contaminant in hazardous quantities, the project applicant (or
authorized agent thereof) shall contact the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) and Department of Toxic Substances (DTSC) to determine the level of
any necessary remediation efforts. These may include:
• Installation of charcoal filtration into well-head systems at wells where PCE is
identified in hazardous quantities. After installation of charcoal filtration,
groundwater wells shall be re-sampled consistent with Mitigation Measure HAZ-
5(a).
• Groundwater remediation to contaminant concentrations below applicable
standards in compliance with applicable laws prior to issuance of grading
permits. A copy of the applicable remediation certification from Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and/or Department of Toxic Substances
(DTSC), or written confirmation that a certification is not required, shall be
submitted to the Community Development Department.
Impact HAZ-6. The project site
is located in an area where
geologic analysis for NOA is
required prior to grading and
could potentially result in
exposure of people to NOA
during grading and construction
activities. Therefore, this impact
would be Class II, significant but
mitigable.
HAZ-6. Naturally Occurring Asbestos Exposure Avoidance and Minimization:
a. Prior to earthwork activities, a site-specific health and safety plan shall be
developed per California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(CalOSHA) requirements. The plan shall include appropriate health and safety
measures if NOA is detected in soil or bedrock beneath the project site. All
construction workers that have the potential to come into contact with
contaminated soil/bedrock and groundwater shall be knowledgeable of the
requirements in the health and safety plan, which includes proper training and
personal protective equipment. The health and safety plan shall prescribe
appropriate respiratory protection for construction workers.
b. Prior to beginning construction, a soil and bedrock analysis for asbestos using
polarized light microscopy and transmission electron microscopy by a qualified
laboratory shall be conducted. Samples of soil shall be collected from multiple
locations across the site, and bedrock samples shall be collected from
locations where excavation into bedrock is anticipated. If NOA is detected,
appropriate regulations pertaining to excavation, removal, transportation, and
disposal of NOA shall be followed. The sampling strategy shall take into
account the locations of potential source areas, and the anticipated lateral and
vertical distribution of contaminants in soil and/or groundwater. The results of
the investigation shall be documented in a report that is signed by a California
Professional Geologist. The report shall include recommendations based upon
the findings for additional investigation/remediation if contaminants are
detected above applicable screening levels (e.g., excavate and dispose,
groundwater and/or soil vapor extraction, or in situ bioremediation).
With implementation of Mitigation
Measure HAZ-6, impacts related to
exposure to NOA would be reduced
to a less than significant level.
PC 1-78
Attachment 2
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
c. During earthwork activities, appropriate procedures shall be incorporated in the
event that NOA is detected in soil or bedrock beneath the project site. These
procedures shall be followed to eliminate or minimize construction worker or
general public exposure to potential contaminants in soil. Procedures shall
include efforts to control fugitive dust, contain and cover excavation debris
piles, appropriate laboratory analysis of soil for waste characterization, and
segregation of contaminated soil from uncontaminated soil. The applicable
regulations associated with excavation, removal, transportation, and disposal of
contaminated soil shall be followed (e.g., tarping of trucks and waste
manifesting). These procedures may be subject to San Luis Obispo APCD
requirements under the California ARB ATCM for Construction, Grading,
Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact HWQ-1. During project
construction, the surface soil
would be subject to erosion and
the downstream watershed
would be subject to pollution.
The project’s impact on water
quality during construction would
be Class II, significant but
mitigable.
HWQ-1(a). Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. All required actions shall be
implemented pursuant to a SWPPP and SWMP to be prepared by the project
applicant and submitted by the City to the Regional Water Quality Control Board
under the NPDES Phase II program. At a minimum, the SWPPP/SWMP shall
including the following BMPs:
• The use of sandbags, straw bales, and temporary de-silting basins during
project grading and construction during the rainy season to prevent discharge
of sediment-laden runoff into stormwater facilities;
• Revegetation as soon as practicable after completion of grading to reduce
sediment transport during storms;
• Installation of straw bales, wattles, or silt fencing at the base of bare slopes
before the onset of the rainy season (October 15th through April 15th);
• Installation of straw bales, wattles, or silt fencing at the project perimeter and in
front of storm drains before the onset of the rainy season (October 15th through
April 15th); and/or
• Alternative BMPs as approved by the RWQCB as part of the SWPPP submittal.
HWQ-1(b). Berms and Basins. As specified in the SWPPP, the applicant shall be
required to manage and control runoff by constructing temporary berms, sediment
basins, runoff diversions, or alternative BMP’s as approved by the RWQCB as part
of the SWPPP submittal, in order to avoid unnecessary siltation into local streams
during construction activities where grading and construction shall occur in the
vicinity of such streams.
• Berms and basins shall be constructed when grading commences and be
periodically inspected and maintained. The project applicant shall sufficiently
Implementation of the mitigation
measures and compliance with
existing regulations would ensure
that the potentially significant
construction runoff and associated
impacts to water quality would be
reduced to a less than significant
level.
PC 1-79
Attachment 2
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
document, to the CCRWQCB satisfaction, the proper installation of such berms
and basins during grading.
HWQ-1(c). Concept Grading Plan and Master Drainage Plan. As specified in the
SWPPP and the City’s Floodplain Management Regulations, the applicant shall be
required to submit a Grading Plan and Master Drainage Plan to the Planning
Division and City Public Works Director for approval prior to approval of the VTTM.
The grading and drainage plans shall be designed to minimize erosion and water
quality impacts, to the extent feasible, and shall be consistent with the project’s
SWPPP. The plans shall include the following:
a. Graded areas shall be revegetated with deep-rooted, native, non-invasive
drought tolerant species to minimize slope failure and erosion potential.
Geotextile fabrics shall be used if necessary to hold slope soils until vegetation
is established;
b. Temporary storage of construction equipment shall be limited to a minimum of
100 feet away from drainages on the project site; and
c. Erosion control structures shall be installed.
d. Demonstrate peak flows and runoff for each phase of construction.
e. Be coordinated with habitat restoration efforts, including measures to minimize
removal of riparian and wetland habitats and trees (Mitigation Measures BIO-
2[a] and BIO-2[b]).
f. Grading and drainage plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Planning Division. The applicant shall ensure installation of erosion control
structures prior to beginning of construction of any structures, subject to review
and approval by the City.
Impact HWQ-3. During
operation, the proposed
residential, and commercial, and
agricultural uses would increase
the quantities of pollutants
associated with runoff and
sedimentation. The project’s
impact on water quality would be
Class II, significant but mitigable
impact.
HWQ-3(a). Stormwater Quality Treatment Controls. BMP devices shall be
incorporated into the stormwater quality system depicted in the Master Drainage
Plan (refer to Mitigation Measure HWQ-1[c]). The final design of the stormwater
quality system shall be reviewed and approved by the City.
The Master Drainage Plan shall contain the following relevant BMPs:
• Vegetated bioswales to reduce sediment and particulate forms of metals and
other pollutants along corridors of planted grasses.
• Vegetated buffer strips to reduce sediment and particulate forms of metals and
nutrients.
• Hydrodynamic separation products to reduce suspended solids greater than
240 microns, trash, and hydrocarbons. These hydrodynamic separators shall
be sized to handle peak flows from the project site consistent with applicable
regulatory standards.
Implementation of required
mitigation measures and
compliance with existing
regulations would ensure that the
potentially significant impacts to
water quality resulting from runoff
during operation of the project
would be reduced to a less than
significant level.
PC 1-80
Attachment 2
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
HWQ-3(b). Stormwater BMP Maintenance Manual. The project applicant shall
prepare a development maintenance manual for the stormwater quality system
BMPs (refer to Mitigation Measure HWQ-3[a]). The maintenance manual shall
include detailed procedures for maintenance and operations of all stormwater
facilities to ensure long-term operation and maintenance of post-construction
stormwater controls. The maintenance manual shall require that stormwater BMP
devices be inspected, cleaned, and maintained in accordance with the
manufacturer’s maintenance specifications. The manual shall require that devices
be cleaned prior to the onset of the rainy season (i.e., October 15th) and
immediately after the end of the rainy season (i.e., May 15th). The manual shall also
require that all devices be checked after major storm events.
HWQ-3(c). Stormwater BMP Semi-Annual Maintenance Report. The property
manager(s) or acceptable maintenance organization shall submit to the City of San
Luis Obispo Public Works Department a detailed report prepared by a licensed Civil
Engineer addressing the condition of all private stormwater facilities, BMPs, and any
necessary maintenance activities on a semi-annual basis (October 15th and May
15th of each year). The requirement for maintenance and report submittal shall be
recorded against the property.
Impact HWQ-4. Approximately
98 acres of the project site is
within the existing 100-year
flood zone. However, proposed
grading and elevation
modifications would ensure that
the project would not place
housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area or expose people or
structures downstream of the
Specific Plan Area to flood
hazards due to increased runoff
or loss of floodplain storage.
This impact would be Class II,
significant but mitigable.
HWQ-4. Conditional Letter of Map Revision/Letter of Map Revision. The
applicant, in conjunction with the City of San Luis Obispo, shall prepare the CLOMR
application and obtain a LOMR from FEMA.
Implementation of Mitigation
Measure HWQ-4 and compliance
with existing regulations would
ensure that this impact would be
reduced to a less than significant
level.
LAND USE
Impact LU-2. The Specific Plan
would be potentially consistent
with LAFCO policies for
Mitigation Measures AG-1 and AG-3 would ensure that the Specific Plan would not
result in conflicts between the San Luis Obispo LAFCO agricultural policies and the
Specific Plan.
Implementation of Mitigation
Measures AG-1 and AG-3 would
ensure that this impact would
PC 1-81
Attachment 2
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
annexation. This impact would
be Class II, less than significant
with mitigation incorporated.
remain less than significant.
Cumulative Land Use Impacts.
The proposed uses are
consistent with the intent of the
goals and policies established
within the City’s General Plan
and Zoning Regulations after
implementation of mitigation,
and would not cumulatively
contribute to the loss of open
space or agricultural land
beyond that already anticipated
in the City’s LUCE Update and
EIR. Furthermore, the Specific
Plan is not expected to
cumulatively contribute to
potential airport noise and/or
safety issues. As such,
cumulative land use impacts
would be less than significant
with incorporation of the
mitigation included in this EIR.
The following Mitigation Measures would apply to this impact:
• Section 4.1, Aesthetics: AES-1(a) and AES-1(b)
• Section 4.2, Agricultural Resources: AG-1, AG-3
• Section 4.4, Biological Resources: BIO-1(a) through BIO-1(h) and BIO-2(a)
through BIO-2(c)
• Section 4.5, Cultural Resources: CR-1(a) through CR-1(c)
• Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials: HAZ-4, HAZ-5(a), HAZ-5(b),
HAZ-6
• Section 4.10, Noise: N-1(a) through N-1(g), N-4(a), N-4(b), N-5(a) through N-
5(d)
• Section 4.12, Transportation and Circulation: T-1(a) through T-1(i), T-2(a)
through T-2(j), T-3(a) through T-3(d), T-4, T-5, T-6, T-7, T-8(a) through T-8(g),
T-9(a) through T-9(m), T-10(a) through T-10(c)
• Section 4.14, Issues Addressed in the Initial Study: GEO-1, GEO-3
This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
NOISE
Impact N-4. Future
development on the project site
would generate operational
noise typically associated with
residential, commercial, office,
and hotel development. Noise
from the project would not
exceed acceptable levels at
existing off-site sensitive
receptors. However, noise from
new on-site commercial uses
may exceed applicable City
standards at proposed on-site
N-4(a). HVAC Equipment. Retail HVAC equipment shall be shielded and located
on building rooftops, or a minimum of 100 feet from the nearest residential property
line.
N-4(b). Parking Lot/Loading Dock Orientation and Noise Barrier. Parking areas
and loading docks within the proposed retail areas shall be located a minimum of
100 feet from the property lines of the nearest residential properties. For parking
areas and loading docks located a minimum of 250 feet from the property line of
residential properties to the west, or for parking areas and loading docks located a
minimum of 150 feet from the property line of residential properties to the west with
a building intervening line-of-sight between the parking area/loading dock and the
residential property, no further mitigation would be required.
If parking areas or loading docks would be located closer to the within 250 feet of
This mitigation would ensure that
noise levels at residences on the
project site would not exceed the
City’s standards for intermittent
noise.
PC 1-82
Attachment 2
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
residences. This impact would
be Class II, less than significant
with mitigation incorporated.
the residential properties to the west than described above, a masonry noise barrier
shall be installed along the eastern boundary of the proposed residences adjacent
to the commercial land use area on the eastern portion of the project site. The noise
barrier shall be constructed of any masonry material with a surface density of at
least three pounds per square foot, and shall have no openings or gaps.
Impact N-5. Existing noise
sources near the project site
include vehicles on local
roadways and U.S. 101.
Development of the project
would expose future residents
on the project site to traffic noise
from local roadways and U.S.
101. With mitigation, traffic
noise levels on the project site
would not exceed City
standards. Therefore, this
impact would be Class II, less
than significant with mitigation
incorporated.
N-5(a). Interior Noise Reduction. The project applicant shall implement the
following measures, or similar combination of measures, which demonstrate that
interior noise levels in proposed residences adjacent to Froom Ranch Way and
Madonna Road, hotel, and offices would be reduced below the City’s 45 dBA CNEL
interior noise standard. The required interior noise reduction shall be achieved
through a combination of standard interior noise reduction techniques, which may
include (but are not limited to):
• In order for windows and doors to remain closed, mechanical ventilation such
as air conditioning shall be provided for all units (Passive ventilation may be
provided, if mechanical ventilation is not necessary to achieve interior noise
standards, as demonstrated by a qualified acoustical consultant).
• All exterior walls shall be constructed with a minimum STC rating of 50,
consisting of construction of 2 inch by 4 inch wood studs with one layer of 5/8
inch Type “X” gypsum board on each side of resilient channels on 24 inch
centers and 3 ½ inch fiberglass insulation.
• All windows and glass doors shall be rated STC 39 or higher such that the
noise reduction provided will satisfy the interior noise standard of 45 dBA
CNEL.
• An acoustical test report of all the sound-rated windows and doors shall be
provided to the City for review by a qualified acoustical consultant to ensure
that the selected windows and doors in combination with wall assemblies would
reduce interior noise levels sufficiently to meet the City’s interior noise
standard.
• All vent ducts connecting interior spaces to the exterior (i.e., bathroom exhaust,
etc.) shall have at least two 90 degree turns in the duct.
• All windows and doors shall be installed in an acoustically-effective manner.
Sliding window panels shall form an air-tight seal when in the closed position
and the window frames shall be caulked to the wall opening around the
perimeter with a non-hardening caulking compound to prevent sound
infiltration. Exterior doors shall seal air-tight around the full perimeter when in
the closed position.
The applicant shall submit a report to the Community Development Department by a
qualified acoustical consultant certifying that the specific interior noise reduction
techniques included in residential, hotel, and office components of the project would
This mitigation would ensure that
traffic noise levels would not
exceed City standards.
PC 1-83
Attachment 2
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
achieve interior noise levels that would not exceed 45 dBA CNEL.
N-5(b). Residential Outdoor Activity Area Noise Attenuation. Outdoor activity
areas (e.g., patios and hotel pool areas) associated with shared multifamily
residential recreational spaces, hotel, commercial, and office uses shall be
protected from sound intrusion so that they meet the City’s exterior standard of 60
dBA CNEL. Outdoor activity areas shall be oriented away from traffic noise such
that intervening buildings reduce traffic noise or shall include noise barriers capable
of reducing traffic noise levels to meet the City’s exterior standard. Hotel pool areas
shall be located a minimum of 500 feet from the U.S. 101 right-of-way. Noise
barriers may be constructed of a material such as tempered glass, acrylic glass, or
masonry material with a surface density of at least three pounds per square foot,
and shall have no openings or gaps. The applicant shall submit a report to the
Community Development Department by a qualified acoustic consultant certifying
that the specific outdoor noise reduction techniques in combination with the
orientation of outdoor activity areas of shared multifamily residential recreational
spaces, hotel, commercial, and offices would achieve exterior noise levels that
would not exceed 60 dBA CNEL.
N-5(c). Froom Ranch Way Noise Barrier. A masonry noise barrier or alternative
barrier, such as a landscaped berm, shall be installed along the southern property
line of residential lots that abut Froom Ranch Way to protect outdoor activity areas
(patios and pools) at these residences from sound intrusion from traffic along Froom
Ranch Way. The noise barrier or berm shall provide, at minimum, a 6 foot high
barrier between Froom Ranch Way and the neighboring residences from the final
grade of whichever use (i.e., Froom Ranch Way or residences) has a higher final
elevation. If a masonry noise barrier is implemented, tThe noise barrier shall be
constructed of any masonry material with a surface density of at least three pounds
per square foot, and shall have no openings or gaps. If an alternative material is
used, the developer shall submit a report to the Community Development
Department by a qualified acoustical consultant certifying that the specific exterior
noise reduction techniques included would achieve exterior noise levels that would
not exceed 60 dBA CNEL.
N-5(d). U.S. Highway 101 Noise Barrier at Hotel. If the hotel includes an outdoor
activity area (such as a patio or pool) a masonry noise barrier or alternative barrier,
such as berms, landscaping, or glass, must be installed along the eastern property
line of the hotel where it abuts the U.S. 101 right of way to protect these outdoor
activity areas from sound intrusion from traffic along U.S. 101. If a masonry noise
PC 1-84
Attachment 2
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
barrier is implemented, tThe noise barrier shall provide, at minimum, an 8 foot high
barrier between U.S. 101 and the hotel from the final grade of whichever use (i.e.,
U.S. 101 or hotel) has a higher final elevation. Such a The noise barrier shall be
constructed of any masonry material with a surface density of at least three pounds
per square foot, and shall have no openings or gaps. If an alternative material is
used, the developer shall submit a report to the Community Development
Department by a qualified acoustical consultant demonstrating that the specific
exterior noise reduction techniques included in the hotel component of the project
would achieve exterior noise levels that would not exceed 60 dBA CNEL.
RECREATION
Impact REC-1. The project
would accommodate new
residents in the City of San Luis
Obispo who will use existing and
planned parks and recreation
facilities. Provision of on-site
parks and recreation facilities
would not meet the adopted City
parkland standard for the San
Luis Ranch Specific Plan Area.
Therefore, impacts to parks and
recreational facilities would be
Class II, potentially significant
but mitigable.
REC-1. Parkland In-lieu Fees. The project applicant shall pay parkland in-lieu fees
in accordance with the City’s parkland in-lieu fee program for the parkland shortage.
The project’s specific fee shall be determined by the City at the time of project
approval, after accounting for parkland provided within the San Luis Ranch Specific
Plan Area. The in-lieu fees collected from the project shall be directed to new
projects or improvements to existing parks and recreation facilities within the City of
San Luis Obispo parks system.
With payment of the City’s required
parkland in-lieu fees to ensure
compliance with the policies and
performance standards in the City’s
General Plan as part of the project,
impacts associated with parks and
recreational facilities would be less
than significant.
Cumulative Recreation
Impacts. The project would not
meet the Citywide parkland
standards and would exacerbate
the exiting shortfall of parks and
recreational facilities within the
City. As a result, cumulative
adverse physical effects on the
environment from recreational
development would be
potentially significant, and the
project’s contribution to this
impact would be cumulatively
considerable.
With payment of the City’s required parkland in-lieu fees to ensure compliance with
the policies and performance standards in the City’s General Plan as part of the
project, required by Mitigation Measure REC-1, the project contribution to
cumulative impacts associated with parks and recreational facilities would be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Implementation of required
mitigation measures would reduce
cumulative impacts to a less than
significant level.
PC 1-85
Attachment 2
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
TRANSPORTATION
Impact T-4. Project construction
activities would create traffic
impacts due to construction
vehicles causing congestion and
deteriorating pavement
conditions. Mitigation would
reduce these impacts to an
acceptable level. This impact
would be Class II, less than
significant with mitigation.
T-4. Construction Traffic Management Plan. Prior to construction, a traffic
management plan shall be prepared for review and approval by the City of San Luis
Obispo Public Works Department. The traffic management plan shall be based on
the type of roadway traffic conditions, duration of construction, physical constraints,
nearness of the work zone to traffic and other facilities (bicycle, pedestrian,
driveway access, etc.). The traffic management plan shall include:
• Advertisement. The project developer shall prepare an advertisement campaign
informing the public of the proposed construction activities. Advertisements
shall occur prior to beginning work and periodically during the course of the
project construction. The advertising shall include notification of changes to bus
schedules and potential changes to bus stop locations, potential impacts during
school drop-off and pick-up times, and major intersections that may be
impacted during construction.
• Property Access. Access to parcels along the construction area shall be
maintained to the greatest extent feasible. Affected property owners shall
receive advance notice of work adjacent to their property access and when
driveways would be potentially closed.
• Schools. Any construction adjacent to schools shall ensure that access is
maintained for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists, particularly at the
beginning and end of the school day.
• Buses, Bicycles, and Pedestrians. The work zone shall provide for passage by
buses, bicyclists, and pedestrians, particularly in the vicinity of schools.
• Intersections. Traffic control (i.e., use of flag persons) shall be used at
intersections that are determined to be unacceptably congested due to
construction traffic.
Implementation of the identified
mitigation would ensure that
impacts associated with
construction traffic would be less
than significant after mitigation.
Impact T-5. Construction of the
proposed Froom Ranch Way
bridge during phase 3 of the
Specific Plan buildout would
result in significant level of
service and queuing impacts at
study area intersections and
roadway segments. Mitigation
would reduce these impacts to
an acceptable level. This impact
would be Class II, less than
significant with mitigation.
T-5. Froom Ranch Way Bridge Phasing. The Froom Ranch Way bridge
connection shall be completed prior to occupancy of Phase 1 of the Specific Plan
buildout.
Implementation of the identified
mitigation would ensure that LOS
and queuing impacts associated
with the project’s proposed
infrastructure phasing would be
less than significant after mitigation.
PC 1-86
Attachment 2
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
Impact T-6. The project site
plan would result in and
contribute to increased access
conflicts. Proposed access
controls are not consistent with
General Plan policy. Mitigation
would reduce these impacts to
an acceptable level. This impact
would be Class II, less than
significant with mitigation.
T-6. Project Site Intersection Roundabout Control. New roadway intersections
within the Specific Plan Area shall be controlled using roundabout design, unless
the City Public Works Department determines that roundabout control is infeasible.
Implementation of the identified
mitigation would ensure that the
project would be consistent with
General Plan Circulation Element
Policy 7.1.2, and would ensure that
transportation impacts due to
access conflicts would be reduced
to a less than significant level after
mitigation.
Impact T-7. The project site
plan would result in on-site
traffic volumes and speeds that
may exceed General Plan policy
thresholds, resulting potential
traffic hazards within the project
site. Mitigation would reduce
these impacts to an acceptable
level. This impact would be
Class II, less than significant
with mitigation.
T-7. Traffic Calming Features. New roadway intersections along San Luis Ranch
Road shall include neighborhood traffic circles at key intersections, and traffic-
calming features, such as diverters, along longer uninterrupted segments.
This mitigation would ensure that
potential traffic hazards within the
Specific Plan area would be
reduced to a less than significant
level after mitigation.
ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE INITIAL STUDY
Due to the proximity of the site
to the Los Osos Fault and
Alquist-Priolo Zone, impacts
associated with earthquakes
and ground shaking would be
potentially significant. In
addition, the project site has
been identified as being located
in an area of very high
liquefaction potential, moderate
to high expansion potential, and
high settlement potential. In
addition, during historical
drought years, groundwater
levels in the site vicinity were
lowered enough to cause
GEO-1. Earthquake and Ground Acceleration Design and Construction
Measures. Design and construction of the buildings, roadway infrastructure and all
subgrades shall be specifically proportioned to resist Design Earthquake Ground
Motions (Design amax) of SD1=0.481 and SDS=0.832 and engineered to withstand
Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) peak ground acceleration (PGAM) equal
to 0.519 g, as described in the Soils Engineering Report for the project
(GeoSolutions, Inc., 2015). The design should take into consideration the soil type,
potential for liquefaction, and the most current and applicable seismic attenuation
methods that are available.
GEO-2. Operational Seismic Safety Requirement. For retail stores included in the
project, goods for sale may be stacked no higher than 8 feet from the floor in any
area where customers are present, unless provisions are made to prevent the
goods from falling during an earthquake of up to 7.5 magnitude. The stacking or
restraint methods shall be reviewed and approved by the City before approval of
occupancy permits, and shall be a standing condition of occupancy.
With implementation of the
mitigation described above, impacts
related to geology and soils would
be less than significant.
PC 1-87
Attachment 2
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
subsidence.
GEO-3. Geotechnical Design. The project plans and specifications shall include
the geotechnical recommendations included in the Soils Engineering Report,
prepared by GeoSolutions, Inc. on May 29, 2015. Recommendations therein that
shall be incorporated into the final project building plans include specification for the
following components of development preparation and design:
• Building Pad Preparation
• Paved Areas Preparation
• Pavement Design
• Interlocking Concrete Pavers
• Conventional Foundations
• Post-Tensioned Slabs
• Slab-On-Grade Construction
• Retaining Walls
• Exterior Concrete Flatwork
PC 1-88
Attachment 2
Table ES-3
Class III, Less than Significant Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
AESTHETICS
Impact AES-1. Although there
are potentially adverse impacts
to scenic viewsheds, the project
would implement the open
space and agricultural
preservation and design
elements included in the
proposed Specific Plan.
Therefore, potential impacts to
scenic vistas and scenic
resources within a state scenic
highway would be Class III, less
than significant.
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
Impact AES-2. The project
would alter the existing visual
character of the site by
converting over half of the
agricultural site into a
predominantly residential and
commercial use site. Due to the
project’s visual compatibility with
surrounding development,
preservation of on-site open
space and agricultural land, and
compliance with design
guidelines, the project’s impact
on the visual character and
quality of the site would be
Class III, less than significant.
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
Impact AES-3. The project
would introduce a new source of
nighttime lighting and daytime
glare, which could increase
ambient light and affect the
quality of the nighttime sky.
However, project compliance
with existing City requirements
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
PC 1-89
Attachment 2
Table ES-3
Class III, Less than Significant Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
and design guidelines would
limit the magnitude of these
effects. This would be Class III,
less than significant.
Cumulative Aesthetics
Impacts. As determined in the
LUCE Update EIR, all
development that adheres to
applicable General Plan policies
would result in less than
significant aesthetic impacts.
Therefore, the overall aesthetic
impact of cumulative
development in the project
vicinity would be less than
significant.
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact AG-2. The project would
alter the existing land use and
zoning on the project site.
However, these alterations
would be consistent with the
General Plan’s identification of
the San Luis Ranch Specific
Plan for a mix of urban,
agricultural, and open space
use. Therefore, this impact
would be Class III, less than
significant.
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
Impact AG-4. Re-grading of the
project site would not result in
significant degradation of
viability of on-site agricultural
land. Therefore, this impact
would be Class III, less than
significant.
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
PC 1-90
Attachment 2
Table ES-3
Class III, Less than Significant Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
Cumulative Agricultural
Resources Impacts. Consistent
with the LUCE Update EIR, the
project would implement Land
Use Element Policies 1.8.1 and
1.9.2, and Conservation and
Open Space Element Policy
8.6.3. As a result, cumulative
impacts would be less than
significant.
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
AIR QUALITY
Impact AQ-4 . The project would
not expose sensitive receptors
to substantial pollutant
concentrations. This impact
would be Class III, less than
significant.
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Impact GHG-1. The San Luis
Ranch Specific Plan is
consistent with the City’s
Climate Action Plan. This impact
would be Class III, less than
significant.
The San Luis Ranch Specific Plan is consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan.
No mitigation is required.
This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
HAZARDS/ HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact HAZ-1. Small quantities
of hazardous materials may be
used in conjunction with the
proposed residential and
commercial retail uses on site.
However, these materials would
be limited in type and quantity
such that they would not create
a hazard to the public or
environment. Therefore, this
impact would be Class III, less
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
PC 1-91
Attachment 2
Table ES-3
Class III, Less than Significant Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
than significant.
Impact HAZ-2. The project site
is adjacent to U.S. Highway 101,
on which accidents that involve
hazardous materials could
occur. Such accidents could
potentially create a significant
hazard to the public or
environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the
environment. However,
compliance with applicable
regulations related to the
handling and storage of
hazardous materials would
minimize the risk of the public’s
potential exposure to these
substances, resulting in a Class
III, less than significant, impact.
Transport of hazardous materials on U.S. 101 and other roadways, including U.S.
101, would be required to comply with all federal, State, and local laws pertaining to
the handling of hazardous materials. No mitigation is required.
This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
Impact HAZ-3. Two schools are
located within one-quarter mile
of the project site. Compliance
with existing federal, State, and
local regulations would ensure
that hazardous materials
impacts to schools would remain
Class III, less than significant.
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
Impact HAZ-7. Asbestos
Containing Material (ACM) and
Lead Based Paint (LBP) may be
present in existing on-site
structures. Demolition of these
structures would be required to
comply with applicable State
and local policies and
regulations for the control and
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
PC 1-92
Attachment 2
Table ES-3
Class III, Less than Significant Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
remediation of hazardous
materials to prevent human
exposure. Therefore, this impact
would be Class III, less than
significant.
Impact HAZ-8. The project site
is located within a San Luis
Obispo County Regional Airport
area of influence. The project
would be consistent with the
CALUPH Airport Safety Zones,
which represent the extent of
Airport-related safety hazard
zones for people residing or
working in these areas.
Therefore, this impact would be
Class III, less than significant.
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
Cumulative Hazards and
Hazardous Materials Impacts.
As described in the LUCE
Update EIR, adherence to
applicable General Plan policies
and applicable State and federal
regulatory requirements would
reduce any cumulative hazards
and hazardous materials
impacts resulting from buildout
of the City under the General
Plan, including buildout of the
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan,
to a less than significant level.
The uses proposed for the San
Luis Ranch Project would be
consistent with the CALUPH
Airport Safety Zones, which
represent the extent of Airport-
related safety hazard zones for
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
PC 1-93
Attachment 2
Table ES-3
Class III, Less than Significant Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
people residing or working in
these areas. As such, the
project would not result in a
substantial contribution to
cumulative aircraft related
hazards in the City.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact HWQ-2. The project
would alter the existing drainage
pattern of the project site, which
could result in flooding, erosion,
or siltation onsite and offsite.
However, the proposed retention
and detention systems, along
with compliance with applicable
regulations, would ensure that
this impact would remain Class
III, less than significant.
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
Cumulative Hydrology and
Water Quality Impacts.
Water Quality. The project, in
conjunction with pending
cumulative development would
not significantly increase the
concentration of urban
pollutants such as oil, grease,
and vehicular heavy metals in
surface runoff. Polluted runoff
which may be generated during
construction activities of
cumulative development and
projects considered in this
analysis would be regulated by
the SWRCB under General
Construction, NPDES permits,
and would be minimized through
the implementation of standard
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
PC 1-94
Attachment 2
Table ES-3
Class III, Less than Significant Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
construction BMPs. Cumulative
impacts would therefore be less
than significant for water quality.
Flooding. The proposed on-site
drainage system would
adequately capture associated
runoff, and the project would not
substantially contribute to
flooding on- or off-site. The
project grading plan has been
designed such that the resulting
post-development floodplain
would exclude areas proposed
for housing. Overall, cumulative
impacts to hydrology and water
quality would be less than
significant.
LAND USE
Impact LU-3. The Specific Plan
would be consistent with the
land use strategy in SLOCOG’s
2014 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy. This impact would be
Class III, less than significant.
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
Impact LU-4. The Specific Plan
would allow residential and non-
residential land uses consistent
with density and use restrictions
in the City’s Airport Safety
Zones, which represent the
extent of Airport-related safety
hazard zones for people residing
or working in these areas. The
LUCE Update EIR provided
substantial evidence that the
development of the San Luis
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
PC 1-95
Attachment 2
Table ES-3
Class III, Less than Significant Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
Ranch Specific Plan Area under
the updated General Plan land
use designations would be
consistent with ALUP safety and
noise standards. The project
would not conflict with land use
policies intended to prevent
airport-related safety hazards.
Therefore, this impact would be
Class III, less than significant.
NOISE
Impact N-2. Short-term
construction activities would
generate intermittent levels of
groundborne vibration. However,
the expected vibration level
during construction of the
project would not be perceptible
at the nearest residential
receptors. This impact would be
Class III, less than significant.
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
Impact N-3. Project-generated
traffic would incrementally
increase traffic-related noise on
study area roadway segments,
except on Madonna Road near
the project site, which would
potentially affect existing noise-
sensitive receptors along local
roadways. However, the
increase in traffic noise levels
along area roadways would not
exceed 3 dBA, which is the
increase threshold typically
audible to the human ear.
Therefore, the effect of
increased traffic noise would be
Class III, less than significant.
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
PC 1-96
Attachment 2
Table ES-3
Class III, Less than Significant Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
Cumulative Noise Impacts.
Traffic noise levels along
roadways in the project vicinity
would not increase by more than
0.5 dBA due to cumulative
traffic. This increase would not
be significant based on the
applicable traffic noise increase
threshold of 3 dBA. Therefore,
the project’s contribution to
traffic noise would not be
cumulatively considerable or
significant.
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
WATER RESOURCES
Impact WR-1. The project would
increase water demand as a
result of new residential and
commercial development on the
project site. However, the
project’s water demand would
be within the City of San Luis
Obispo’s projected primary
water supply. Therefore, impacts
to water supply would be Class
III, less than significant.
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
Cumulative Water Resources
Impacts. The project’s water
demand would not exceed
supply when combined with all
possible future development
within the City. In addition, the
project would reduce the overall
demand on the San Luis Obispo
groundwater basin as a result of
reduced on-site agricultural uses
and, therefore, would not
exacerbate potential cumulative
impacts on the local
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
PC 1-97
Attachment 2
Table ES-3
Class III, Less than Significant Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
groundwater basin associate
with future development within
the City. Accordingly, the
project’s cumulative water
supply impact would be less
than significant.
PC 1-98
Attachment 2
4.9 LAND USE/POLICY CONSISTENCY
4.9.1 Setting
a. Regional Land Use. The project site is located in San Luis Obispo County, which has
a rural and small-scale community character due to its relatively remote location midway
between San Francisco and Los Angeles (County of San Luis Obispo, General Plan, 2011). The
site is currently located in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, approximately 5.7 miles
northeast of the Pacific Ocean and outside of the local coastal zone (County of San Luis Obispo,
PermitView, 2016). The site is completely surrounded by the City of San Luis Obispo, and is
within the City’s Sphere of Influence. As described in the County’s Land Use and Circulation
Elements, the project site is located within the San Luis Obispo Planning Area, Sub Area North
(2014). Figure 2-1 in Section 2.0, Project Description, shows the regional location of the project.
b. Project Site Setting. Over time, land uses surrounding the property have
transitioned from agricultural to a variety of urban uses, including residential areas, shopping
centers, and auto dealerships. With these changes, the project site is bordered by urban uses on
north, east, and west, and by the SLO City Farm to the south. The project site is generally
bounded by Madonna Road to the west, Dalidio Drive to the north, U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101)
to the east and the San Luis Obispo City Farm to the south. Prefumo Creek is located south of
the site. Figure 2-2 in Section 2.0, Project Description, shows the site in its local context.
The site is identified by assessor’s parcel number (APN) 067-121-022. Under the City’s General
Plan, the site has a land use designation of San Luis Ranch Specific Plan and is intended for the
future adoption of a specific plan. Policy 8.1.4: SP-2 in the Land Use Element provides general
requirements and guidance for the future development of a mixed-use project that maintains
the agricultural heritage of the San Luis Ranch site.
The project site is currently used for agricultural purposes, primarily as cultivated row crops.
The site is important for its historic agricultural use, and is highly visible from U.S. 101. Because
if the site’s visually sensitive location at a southern gateway to the City, Policy 8.1.4 in the Land
Use Element states that the City shall to preserve approximately half of the agriculture and
open space on site, both to preserve views and to maintain the City’s agricultural heritage. The
San Luis Ranch Farm Complex (also known as the Dalidio Farm Complex), which includes a
farm house and several outbuildings, is located on the western portion of the property adjacent
to Madonna Road. Refer to Section 4.2, Agricultural Resources, for a discussion of the project’s
agricultural setting. Refer to Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, for a discussion of the existing
structures on the project site.
c. Regulatory Setting. This section summarizes federal, state, and regional, and local
land use plans and regulations.
Federal.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Aviation Regulation, Part 77 Objects Affecting
Navigable Airspace. The FAA Airport Design Guide, Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13,
contains guidance pertaining to land uses within the runway protection zone (RPZ). As part of
FAA grant assurances, if an airport sponsor receives federal funds for an airport, it is required
PC 1-99
Attachment 3
that use of land adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the airport be restricted to activities
and purposes compatible with normal airport operations.
State.
Government Code Section 63450. State law (Government Code Section 63450) authorizes
cities to adopt specific plans for implementation of their general plans in a defined area. All
specific plans must comply with Sections 6540-65457 of the Government Code. These provisions
require that a specific plan be consistent with the adopted general plan and, in turn that all
subsequent subdivisions and development, public works projects and zoning regulations must
be consistent with the specific plan. Specific plans are required to include distribution, location
and types of uses, development, and improvements to public facilities and infrastructure.
Tailored regulations, conditions, programs, standards and guidelines help implement the vision
for long-range development of the specific plan area.
Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The purpose of the California Airport Land
Use Planning Handbook (CALUPH; Caltrans, 2011) is to provide guidance for conducting airport
land use compatibility planning as required by Article 3.5, Airport Land Use Commissions,
Public Utilities Code Sections 21670-21679.5. The CALUPH also outlines the legal authority (and
limitations thereof) possessed by an Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) when establishing
noise and safety corridors around airports that potentially restrict land use development. The
CALUPH makes recommendations for an ALUC to establish land use development policies
based upon FAA regulations, rather than specifying precise statutes or means of interpreting
FAA regulations. Each ALUC has the final authority to establish safety and noise zones, policies
and regulations based on the input from the CALUPH, local conditions, and special exceptions.
For the purposes of safety and noise hazards assessment, Public Resources Code Section 21096
and CEQA Guidelines Section 15154 prescribe that the CALUPH is to be used to assist in
determining the potential for airport and safety issues, including aspects of the Project’s
conformity with local land use plans and regulations.
San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Commission. A Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) is a state agency that performs growth management functions, and has
approval authority regarding the establishment, expansion, reorganization, and elimination of
any city and most types of special districts. LAFCO establishes sphere of influence for cities and
special districts that define the territory that LAFCO independently finds will represent the
appropriate and probable future jurisdictional boundary and service area of the subject agency.
The State legislature has prescribed a “uniform process” for boundary changes for both cities
and special districts that is now embodied in the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government
Reorganization Act of 2000 (California Government Code Section 56000 et seq.). This Act
delegates the legislature’s boundary powers to local agency formation commissions (LAFCOs).
The San Luis Obispo LAFCO is responsible for reviewing and approving proposed
jurisdictional boundary changes in San Luis Obispo County, including the annexation and
detachment of territory to and/or from cities and most special districts, incorporations of new
cities, formations of new special districts, and consolidations, mergers, and dissolutions of
existing districts. In addition, LAFCOs must review and approve contractual service
PC 1-100
Attachment 3
agreements, conduct service reviews, and determine spheres of influence for each city and
district. In addition to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act, San Luis Obispo LAFCO has adopted
local policies that it considers in its review of projects
Regional.
2014 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy. The 2014 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy (RTP/SCS), adopted by the San Luis
Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) in April 2015, is the current regional transportation
plan for SLOCOG’s planning area. The primary purpose of the 2014 RTP/SCS is to develop a
fully intermodal transportation system that enhances the livability of the region. To this
purpose, the plan delineates a set of regional transportation goals, policies, and actions. In
addition, it integrates new requirements of SB 375 to address the interrelationship of
transportation and land use policies and practices. The SCS Element of the plan describes the
“preferred growth scenario” for the next two decades, as identified by the SLOCOG Board. This
scenario is intended to decrease strain on natural resources, reduce the amount of travel and
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, improve air quality, and promote public health by supplying
more efficient options for transportation and housing. Consistent with the preferred growth
scenario, a key strategy in the SCS is to focus new growth within Target Development Areas
(TDAs) in existing urbanized areas. The project site is located within the Central County TDA in
the greater San Luis Obispo area.
San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Master Plan. This plan was adopted in 2005 and
provides aircraft operations forecasts and identifies capital improvements needed at the Airport
to address future aeronautic activity at this commercial service airport. The planned facilities
identified in the Master Plan are depicted on the FAA – approved Airport Layout Plan. The
FAA‐approved forecasts project aircraft operations to exceed 140,000 operations by 2023.
San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport – Airport Land Use Plan. The San Luis Obispo
County Regional Airport – Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) was adopted in December 1973, most
recently amended in May 2005, and is currently being updated by the County ALUC. The
ALUP provides a set of policies and criteria by which the ALUC evaluates compatibility of land
uses around the airport to promote well‐being of the public and to protect long term viability of
the Airport. The ALUP identifies noise restrictions and safety zones and identifies land uses and
density and intensity limitations with each zone. It is expected that the ALUC will update the
ALUP’s policies in 2017.
The existing ALUP Safety Area “analog” maps have recently been reinterpreted to a more
precise GIS format that will be compatible with local mapping accuracy standards for viewing
and consistency with ALUP Safety Areas. The maps and the location of safety zones and noise
contours used for the Project have been reviewed by the ALUC. As shown in Figure 4.7-1 in
Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the entire project site is located within ALUP Safety
Areas S-1b and S-2, which are described below in detail.
ALUP Safety Area S-1b is comprised of those portions of Safety Area S-1 that are not included
in Safety Area S-1a, but are within probable gliding distance for aircraft on expected approach
or departure courses. This Safety Area also includes State-defined sideline Safety Areas, inner
PC 1-101
Attachment 3
turning zones and outer safety zones for both Runway 11-29 and Runway 7-25. Aviation safety
hazards to be particularly considered in this area include mechanical failures, fuel exhaustion,
deviation from glideslope or minimum descent altitude (MDA) during instrument flight rules
(IFR) operations (due to pilot error or equipment malfunction), loss of control during short
approach procedures, stall/spin incidents during engine-out maneuvers in multi-engine
aircraft, loss of control during “go around” or missed approach procedures, and midair
collisions. Approximately 119 acres in the northwest portion of the project site is within this
area.
ALUP Safety Area S-2 represents the area within the vicinity of which aircrafts operate
frequently or in conditions of reduced visibility at altitudes between 501 and 1,000 feet above
ground level (AGL). Aviation safety hazards identified in the ALUP include mechanical
failures, fuel exhaustion, loss of control during turns from downwind to base legs or from base
to final legs of the traffic pattern, stall/spin incidents during engine‐out maneuvers in twin
engine aircraft, and midair collisions. Because aircraft in Area S‐2 are at greater altitude and are
less densely concentrated than in other portions of the Airport Land Use Planning Area
(ALUPA), the overall level of aviation safety risk is considered to be lower than that in Area S‐1
or the RPZs (San Luis Obispo 2014). Approximately 16 acres in the northwest portion of the
project site is within Safety Area S-2.
ALUP Safety Policies. The ALUC reviews projects within the ALUPA to determine
consistency with the ALUP. A proposed general plan, general plan amendment, specific plan,
specific plan amendment, zoning ordinance, zoning ordinance amendment, building regulation
modification, or individual development proposal may be determined to be inconsistent with
the ALUP by the ALUC. Key policies used to review a project or local action for consistency
with the ALUP include:
• Policy S-1: Would permit or lack sufficient provisions to prohibit structures and other
obstacles within the RPZs for any runway at the Airport, as depicted in ALUP Figure 4.
• Policy S-2: Would permit or fail to adequately prohibit any future residential or
nonresidential development or redevelopment which would create, within the site to be
developed or redeveloped, a density greater than specified in ALUP Table 7 or any
mixed-use development or redevelopment which would create, within the site to be
developed or redeveloped, densities greater than illustrated in ALUP Table 7.
• Policy S-3: Would permit or fail to adequately prohibit any future development project
which specifies, entails, or would result in a greater building coverage than permitted by
ALUP Table 7.
• Policy S-4: Would permit or fail to adequately prohibit high intensity land uses or
special land use functions (impaired egress uses or unusually hazardous uses), except
that, when conditions specified by ALUP Table 7 for density adjustments have been
determined to be met by the ALUC, high intensity land and/or special function uses
may be allowed in ALUP Safety Area S-2.
Pursuant to ALUP Policy S-4, increases in allowable residential and non-residential densities
may be allowed with inclusion of an approved Airport Compatible Open Space Plan (ACOS),
Clustered Development Zone (CDZ) and/or Detailed Area Plan, as described below.
PC 1-102
Attachment 3
Airport Compatible Open Space Plan
On July 21, 2004, the ALUC voted to amend the ALUP with inclusion of the City’s ACOS. The
ACOS establishes open spaces in the areas around the Airport that can serve as reserve spaces
(for aircraft emergency situations). By maintaining reserve spaces that keep certain land
adjacent to the Airport free and clear from obstruction or from buildings and uses where people
congregate, the ACOS improves airport safety while allowing for more intense development of
urban areas. The areas identified as reserve space in the ACOS include land that is close to the
Airport, in line with the main Airport runway, or along an over-flight area where aircraft
typically operate at lower altitudes. Identification of these areas in the ACOS plan adds Airport
safety to the list of reasons why these lands should not be developed (City of San Luis Obispo &
County of San Luis Obispo 2013).
Clustered Development Zone
A CDZ may include any part or all of the area encompassed by an ACOS, and the geographic
extent of each CDZ will be determined and specified by the responsible local agency. In order to
be approved by the ALUC, an ACOS that proposes to establish one or more CDZs must be
provided for the establishment, protection, and maintenance in perpetuity of the following
percentages of each proposed CDZ as Reserve Space:
• in ALUP Airport Safety Area S-1c: 35% of the gross area of the CDZ
• in ALUP Airport Safety Area S-2: 25% of the gross area of the CDZ
Detailed Area Plan
The development of a Detailed Area Plan is a process which affords local agencies an
opportunity to work with the ALUC in planning for development that meets local needs with
respect to density while, by virtue of an increased level of specificity, protects the public against
undue aviation safety hazards.
Applicability of ALUP to Project Site
As the project site lies within the ALUPA, the project is subject to the ALUP’s restrictions in
building height, allowable uses, and population densities in the interest of safety and airport
hazards. The project site is located within Airport Safety Areas S-1b and S-2. Regulations in the
ALUP limit the density of residential and non-residential development.
Local.
City of San Luis Obispo General Plan. The City’s General Plan is intended to guide
development and municipal service improvements in San Luis Obispo. It has eight elements:
Land Use (adopted in 2014), Circulation (2014), Housing, (2015), Noise (1996), Safety (2012),
Conservation and Open Space (2006), Parks and Recreation (2001), and Water and Wastewater
(2010). As the core of the General Plan, the Land Use Element represents a generalized blueprint
for the City’s future and sets forth a pattern for the orderly development of land within the
City’s planning area. Land Use Element Policy 8.1.4 provides the regulatory basis for the San
Luis Ranch Specific Plan in the City’s updated Land Use and Circulation Elements:
Policy 8.1.4. SP-2, San Luis Ranch (Dalidio) Specific Plan Area. Purpose: This project site
should be developed as a mixed use project that maintains the agricultural heritage of the site, provides a
PC 1-103
Attachment 3
commercial/office transition to the existing commercial center to the north, and provides a diverse
housing experience. Protection of the adjacent creek and a well-planned integration into the existing
circulation system will be required.
The specific plan for this area should consider and address the following land use and design issues.
A Provide land and appropriate financial support for development of a Prado Road connection.
Appropriate land to support road infrastructure identified in the Final Project EIR (overpass
or interchange) at this location shall be dedicated as part of any proposal and any area in
excess of the project’s fair share of this facility shall not be included as part of the project site
area used to calculate the required 50% open space.
B Circulation connections to integrate property with surrounding circulation network for all
modes of travel.
C Connection to Froom Ranch and Calle Joaquin, if proposed, shall not bifurcate on- site or
neighboring agricultural lands. Any connection to Calle Joaquin shall be principally a
secondary / emergency access by design.
D Development shall include a transit hub. Developer shall work with transit officials to
provide express connections to Downtown area.
E Maintain agricultural views along Highway 101 by maintaining active agricultural uses on
the site, and maintain viewshed of Bishop Peak and Cerro San Luis.
F Maintain significant agricultural and open space resources on site (see Policy 1.13.8.B).
Land dedicated to Agriculture shall be of size, location and configuration appropriate to
maintain a viable, working agricultural operation.
G Where buffering or transitions to agricultural uses are needed to support viability of the
agricultural use, these shall be provided on lands not counted towards the minimum size for
the agriculture / open space component. Provide appropriate transition to agricultural uses
on-site.
H Integrate agricultural open space with adjacent SLO City Farm and development on
property.
I Site should include walkable retail and pedestrian and bicycle connections to surrounding
commercial and residential areas.
J Commercial and office uses shall have parking placed behind and to side of buildings so as to
not be a prominent feature.
K Neighborhood Commercial uses for proposed residential development shall be provided.
L Potential flooding issues along Prefumo Creek need to be studied and addressed without
impacting off-site uses.
M All land uses proposed shall be in keeping with safety parameters described in this General
Plan or other applicable regulations relative to the San Luis Obispo Regional Airport.
N Historic evaluation of the existing farm house and associated structures shall be included.
City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations The City’s Zoning Regulations are intended to
guide the development of the city in an orderly manner, based on the adopted general plan, to
protect and enhance the quality of the natural and built environment, and to promote the public
health, safety and general welfare by regulating the use of land and buildings and the location
and basic form of structures. These regulations define 15 zoning districts in three categories:
residential, non‐residential, and overlay. The residential zones include: low‐density residential,
medium‐density residential, medium‐high‐density residential and high‐density residential. The
non‐residential zones include: conservation/open space, office, public facility, neighborhood
commercial, retail commercial, community commercial, Downtown commercial, tourist
PC 1-104
Attachment 3
commercial, service commercial, manufacturing, and business park. The overlay zones include:
planned development, specific plan, historic, mixed‐use, and special considerations.
City of San Luis Obispo’s Right to Overrule. In a circumstance where the ALUC makes a
determination of inconsistency with the ALUP for a project, the City may overrule the ALUC
determination of inconsistency as allowed under Section 21676.5 et. seq. of the Public Utilities
Code. As directed by the General Plan, should an overrule action be taken, development shall
be consistent with General Plan policies and standards that reflect direction in the State
Aeronautics Act, FAA regulations concerning obstructions and notification, and guidance
provided in the CALUPH (City of San Luis Obispo 2014).
4.9.2 Previous Program-Level Environmental Review
The LUCE Update EIR previously analyzed land use impacts related to the adoption of the
updated Land Use and Circulation Elements, including impacts at the San Luis Ranch Specific
Plan Area. The LUCE Update EIR evaluated impacts in the Specific Plan area and assumed
future development parameters of approximately 500 dwelling units and 470,000 square feet of
non-residential uses (San Luis Obispo 2014). Based on this buildout of the Specific Plan area, the
LUCE Update EIR identified potential land use conflicts with nearby agricultural operations
associated with odors, dust, noise, pesticide or herbicide spraying, and trespass onto
agricultural lands. The LUCE Update EIR determined that additional land use conflicts could
result from noise and traffic, the impairment of views of important visual resources, shadows
and loss of privacy, and short-term construction impacts. The LUCE Update EIR concluded that
potential land use conflicts at the site could feasibly be reduced to a less than significant level
with implementation of existing and updated Land Use and Circulation Element policies
intended to ensure compatibility of new development with existing land uses.
Because of the proximity of the Airport to planned residential growth areas in the southern part
of the City, a key issue addressed in the LUCE Update EIR was consistency of future
development under the updated Land Use and Circulation Elements with the ALUP and the
potential risks or hazards associated with development near the Airport. The City determined
that the technical studies and Council Agenda Reports prepared for and as a result of the LUCE
Update EIR provided substantial evidence that the development of the San Luis Ranch Specific
Plan Area under the updated General Plan land use designations would be consistent with the
State Aeronautics Act (SAA) and guidance in the CALUPH associated with safety and noise.
The LUCE Update EIR found that residential development envisioned in the Specific Plan area
would exceed the ALUP’s density limits for Safety Zones S-1b and S-2, even if allowable
increases in density under the Airport Compatible Open Space (ACOS) plan are assumed. In
addition, it was found that non-residential development envisioned in the Specific Plan area
could exceed the respective density limits for these safety zones. Nevertheless, the City’s
findings associated with adoption of the LUCE Update EIR concluded the potential land use
conflict impacts between development in the Specific Plan area and the ALUP would be less
than significant for the following reasons (San Luis Obispo 2014):
• The existing ALUP is outdated and non-compliant with statutory requirements that it be
based on the Airport Master Plan;
• The adopted plan zones and contours are not supported by the operations data in the
adopted Airport Master Plan, FAA forecasts, technical compatibility analyses, or the
PC 1-105
Attachment 3
CALUPH, nor do the adopted zones further the objectives of the SAA based on any
objective, verifiable data or standard; and
• The City has developed data-supported zones, contours and standards that do further
the objectives of the SAA, while not unreasonably restricting compatible development
Based on this determination, the LUCE Update EIR concluded that potential inconsistency with
the ALUP would present a policy impact without resulting in significant impacts on the
physical environment. The City Council found during its review of airport compatibility for the
LUCE Update that the 2014 Airport Land Use Compatibility Report (Appendix I) and Final
LUCE Update EIR provided substantial evidence in the record that the City’s Airport Safety
Zones accurately reflect Airport-related hazard zones as set forth in the CALUPH and
supporting federal guidance, and that maps provided in the ALUP did not accurately reflect the
actual extent of Airport-related safety zones (Council Agenda Report, City of San Luis Obispo
2014d). The ALUC made a determination that the LUCE Update EIR did not adequately
address airport land use issues or comply with the ALUP policies. For the LUCE Update, the
City Council elected to issue an overrule of the ALUC’s determination of inconsistency,
including planned development in the LUCE Update at the programmatic level for planned
Specific Plan areas, including the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Area. The adopted LUCE Update
included Airport Compatibility policies (Land Use Element Chapter 7) applicable to
development within the Airport Influence Area.
4.9.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. The following criteria are based on
Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. An impact is considered significant if the project
would result in one or more of the following conditions:
1. Physically divide an established community;
2. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction
over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, clean air plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect;
3. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
The Initial Study determined that development under the project would be designed to fit
among existing surrounding urban development and would not physically divide an
established community or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plans. Therefore, Thresholds 1 and 3 are not discussed further in this
section. See Section 4.14, Issues Addressed in the Initial Study, for a discussion of these impacts.
Growth inducing impacts and impacts related to the use of substantial fuel and energy are
discussed in Section 5.0, Other CEQA-Required Discussions.
In addition, applicable policies from the SLOAPCD’s 2001 Clean Air Plan and the 2012 City of
San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan are discussed in Section 4.3, Air Quality, and 4.6,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
b. Impacts and Mitigation Measures. The following impact analysis examines the
implementation of the Specific Plan at a programmatic level of detail.
PC 1-106
Attachment 3
Impact LU-1 The project would be potentially inconsistent with adopted City
policies in the General Plan designed to protect historical
resources, and ensure provision of parkland. This would be a
Class I, significant and unavoidable, impact.
The San Luis Obispo General Plan is the principal tool the City uses when evaluating municipal
service improvements and land use proposals. Land use decisions in the City are governed by
the General Plan and must be consistent with the General Plan’s direction. This discussion
focuses on those goals and policies in the City’s General Plan that relate to avoiding or
mitigating environmental impacts, and an assessment of whether any potential inconsistency
with these standards would create a significant physical impact on the environment. Only
policies relevant and applicable to the project are included. Policies that are redundant between
elements are omitted. In addition, some policies have been truncated in instances where the
overall meaning of the policy would not be made unclear.
The City’s Zoning Regulations, which implement the General Plan, do not apply to the project
site because it is currently outside of the incorporated City. The proposed pre-zoning for the site
is shown in Figure 2-4 in Section 2.0, Project Description, and is consistent with the proposed
land use plan, shown in Figure 2-5. Therefore, the Specific Plan would not conflict with any
existing zoning standards.
It should be noted that this discussion is intended to guide policy interpretation, but is not
intended to replace the City decision-making process. The final determination of consistency
will be made by City Board of Supervisors when they act on the Specific Plan. The General Plan
consistency determination is based on the Specific Plan’s overall consistency with the General
Plan rather than strict adherence to every single principle and policy of each General Plan
element.
Table 4.9-1 describes the project’s preliminary consistency with applicable policies of the
General Plan related to avoiding or mitigating environmental effects.
PC 1-107
Attachment 3
Table 4.9-1
Consistency with City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Plan, Policy, or Regulation Consistency Analysis
Land Use Element
Policy 1.2: Urban Separation. Broad, undeveloped open spaces should separate the City from nearby
urban areas. This element establishes a final edge for urban development.
Potentially Consistent. The project site is located inside of the
City’s Urban Reserve Line, which is intended to protect open
space between the City and nearby jurisdictions. Furthermore,
existing agricultural land on the project site is surrounded by
existing urban development. Development in the Specific Plan
area would not affect the City’s separation from nearby urban
areas.
Policy 1.4: Urban Edges Character. The City shall maintain a boundary between urban development
and surrounding open land. Development just inside the boundary shall provide measures to avoid a
stark-appearing edge between buildings in the city and adjacent open land. Such measures may
include: using new or existing groves or windrows of trees, or hills or other landforms, to set the edge
of development; increasing the required side-yard and rear-yard setbacks; and providing open space
or agricultural transition buffers.
Potentially Consistent. The project would preserve
approximately 53 acres of prime farmland on-site in
perpetuity, as well as approximately 7.67.4 acres in parks
and open space on-site within the southern limit of the City’s
Urban Reserve Line. These areas would serve as a
transition buffer between urban development and adjacent
open land.
Policy 1.5: Jobs/Housing Relationship. The gap between housing demand (due to more jobs and
college enrollment) and supply should not increase.
Potentially Consistent. The project includes mixed uses and
workforce housing to balance the provision of jobs and
housing within the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Area and
the City.
Policy 1.7.1: Urban Reserve. The City shall maintain an urban reserve line containing the area around
the City where urban development might occur (Land Use Element Figure 3, Land Use Diagram).
Urban uses within this line should only be developed if consistent with City-approved plans. Non-urban
agricultural, open space, and wildlife corridor uses are also encouraged within the urban reserve, as
interim or permanent uses shown on City-approved plans.
Potentially Consistent. The 131-acre San Luis Ranch
property is currently outside the City, but within its Sphere of
Influence and Urban Reserve Line. The site is currently
designated for future urban use under the City’s Land Use
Element. The project would involve annexation of the 131-
acre property to the City. The project includes development
of a mix of residential, commercial, and office uses while
preserving substantial areas of open space and agriculture
on the property. The Specific Plan and related actions would
allow for the development of the San Luis Ranch area as
identified in the City’s General Plan as Special Focus Area
SP-2. The intent is for the project to be consistent with the
development parameters described in the General Plan.
Policy 1.8.1: Open Space Protection. Within the City's planning area and outside the urban reserve
line, undeveloped land should be kept open. Prime agricultural land, productive agricultural land, and
potentially productive agricultural land shall be protected for farming. Scenic lands, sensitive wildlife
habitat, and undeveloped prime agricultural land shall be permanently protected as open space.
Potentially Consistent. The project site is located within the
City’s planning area and the urban reserve line, and it would
be annexed into the City under the project. The project
would contribute to the protection of agricultural land within
this City planning area by preserving approximately 53 acres
of prime farmland on-site in perpetuity, as well as
PC 1-108
Attachment 3
Table 4.9-1
Consistency with City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Plan, Policy, or Regulation Consistency Analysis
approximately 7.67.4 acres in parks and open space. In
addition, the project includes a commitment to procure an
off-site agricultural conservation easement/deed restriction
such that one half of total land on-site is preserved for
agricultural and open space use. In addition, the project
would provide restored and enhanced wildlife habitat areas.
Policy 1.8.5: Building Design and Siting. All new buildings and structures should be subordinate to and
in harmony with the surrounding landscape. The City should encourage County adoption of
regulations prohibiting new structures on ridge lines or in other visually prominent or environmentally
sensitive locations, and allowing transfer of development rights from one parcel to another in order to
facilitate this policy.
Potentially Consistent. As discussed in Impact AES-2 in
Section 4.1, Aesthetics, the design features of development
in the project site would be consistent with the visual
character of surrounding residential and commercial land
uses. In addition, the City’s Architectural Review
Commission (ARC) would review and approve the design for
proposed buildings, examining the layout, building design, its
relationship to the neighborhood in which it would be
located, landscaping, parking, signage, lighting, and other
features affecting the project’s appearance.
Policy 1.9.1: Agricultural Protection. The City shall support preservation of economically viable
agricultural operations and land within the urban reserve and city limits. The City should provide for the
continuation of farming through steps such as provision of appropriate general plan designations and
zoning.
Policy 1.9.2: Prime Agricultural Land. The City may allow development on prime agricultural land if the
development contributes to the protection of agricultural land in the urban reserve or greenbelt by one
or more of the following methods, or an equally effective method: acting as a receiver site for transfer
of development credit from prime agricultural land of equal quantity; securing for the City or for a
suitable land conservation organization open space or agricultural easements or fee ownership with
deed restrictions; helping to directly fund the acquisition of fee ownership or open space easements by
the City or a suitable land conservation organization. Development of small parcels which are
essentially surrounded by urbanization need not contribute to agricultural land protection.
Policy 1.10.2: Means of Protection. The City shall require that open space be preserved either by
dedication of permanent easements or transfer of fee ownership to the City, the County, or a
responsible, nonprofit conservation organization.
Potentially Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.2,
Agricultural Resources, the project would result in the direct
conversion of approximately 56 59 acres of prime farmland
to non-agricultural use; however, the project would
contribute to the protection of agricultural land within the
urban reserve by preserving approximately 53 acres of
prime farmland on-site in perpetuity, as well as
approximately 7.67.4 acres in parks and open space. In
addition, the project includes a commitment to procure an
off-site agricultural conservation easement/deed restriction
such that one half of total land on-site is preserved for
agricultural and open space use. Mitigation Measure AG-1,
Agricultural Conservation, would ensure that for every one
acre of Important Farmland (Prime Farmland, Farmland of
Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland) on the site
that would be permanently converted to non-agricultural use
as a result of project development, one acre of land of
comparable agricultural productivity shall be preserved in
perpetuity.
PC 1-109
Attachment 3
Table 4.9-1
Consistency with City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Plan, Policy, or Regulation Consistency Analysis
Policy 1.10.3: Public Access. Areas preserved for open space should include public trail access,
controlled to protect the natural resources, to assure reasonable security and privacy of dwellings, and
to allow continuing agricultural operations. Public access through production agricultural land will not
be considered, unless the owner agrees.
Potentially Consistent. The proposed open space in the
northwestern portion of the project site along Prefumo Creek
would include a link to the Bob Jones Regional Bicycle Trail.
Public trail access would not be provided through the portion
of the site where agricultural cultivation would continue.
Policy 1.10.4: Design Standards. The City shall require cluster development to:
A. Be screened from public views by land forms or vegetation, but not at the expense of habitat. If the
visually screened locations contain sensitive habitats or unique resources as defined in the
Conservation and Open Space Element, development should be avoided in those areas and instead
designed to cluster in the form of vernacular farm building complexes, to blend into the traditional
agricultural working landscape.
B. Be located on other than prime agricultural land and be situated to allow continued agricultural use.
C. Prohibit building sites and roads within stream corridors and other wetlands, on ridge lines, rock
outcrops, or visually prominent or steep hillsides, or other sensitive habitats or unique resources as
defined in the Conservation and Open Space Element.
D. Preserve historic or archaeological resources.
Potentially Inconsistent (with 1.10.4.D).
A. Development would be clustered on the western portion
of the project site, so that vegetation in open space along
Froom Ranch Way would screen it from public views from
U.S. 101. Although the project would result in conversion of
approximately 56 59 acres of prime farmland to non-
agricultural, development would be clustered to preserve
approximately 53 acres of the site in agricultural use.
B. Refer to discussion of Land Use Element Policy 1.9.2.
C. As described in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, the
project would have a potentially significant but mitigable
impact on sensitive habitats, including riparian areas.
Mitigation Measures BIO-2(a) through BIO-2(c) would
ensure that potential habitat impacts would remain less than
significant.
D. As described in Section 4.5 Cultural Resources, existing
structures on the site are individually eligible for historic
designation. The project includes the adaptive reuse and
relocation of the existing main residence and the historic
former spectators’ barn/viewing stand to new locations on
the site. Mitigation Measure CR-1(a) would reduce impacts
to these historic resources to the maximum extent feasible.
Demolition of the historic main barn, which is part of the San
Luis Ranch Complex, would conflict with Conservation and
Open Space Element Policies 3.3.1 and 3.3.2. Salvageable
materials from the main barn are proposed to be reused to
the greatest extent possible. Mitigation Measures CR-1(b)
and CR-1(c) would reduce significant direct impacts to the
remainder of the historically significant San Luis Ranch
Complex to the maximum extent feasible. However, the
PC 1-110
Attachment 3
Table 4.9-1
Consistency with City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Plan, Policy, or Regulation Consistency Analysis
potential impact to these historic resources would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Policy 1.13.5: Annexation in Airport Area. Properties in the Airport Area Specific Plan may only be
annexed if they meet the following criteria:
A. The property is contiguous to the existing city limits; and
B. The property is within the existing urban reserve line; and
C. The property is located near to existing infrastructure; and
D. Existing infrastructure capacity is available to serve the proposed development; and
E. A development plan for the property belonging to the applicant(s) accompanies the application for
annexation; and
F. The applicant(s) agree to contribute to the cost of preparing the specific plan and constructing area-
wide infrastructure improvements according to a cost-sharing plan maintained by the City.
Potentially Consistent. The project would involve annexation
of the 131-acre San Luis Ranch property to the City. The
project site is entirely surrounded by the existing City limit,
within the existing urban reserve line, and adjacent to urban
development served by existing infrastructure. As discussed
in Section 4.14, Issues Addressed in the Initial Study, the
Specific Plan Area could be adequately served by the City’s
sewer, water, and wastewater infrastructure, provided that
impact fees are collected for wastewater facilities. The
Specific Plan also comprises a development plan for the
property and includes a cost-sharing plan for infrastructure
improvements.
Policy 1.13.8: Open Space. The City shall require that each annexation help secure permanent
protection for areas designated Open Space, and for the habitat types and wildlife corridors within the
annexation area that are identified in the Conservation and Open Space Element. Properties, which
are both along the urban reserve line and on hillsides, shall dedicate land or easements for about four
times the area to be developed (developed area includes building lots, roads, parking and other paved
areas, and setbacks required by zoning). (See also Policy 6.4 and Policies 6.4.1 – 6.4.7). The
following standards shall apply to the indicated areas:
A. Airport Area Specific Plan properties shall secure protection for any on-site resources as identified
in the Conservation and Open Space Element. These properties, to help maintain the greenbelt, shall
also secure open space protection for any contiguous, commonly owned land outside the urban
reserve. If it is not feasible to directly obtain protection for such land, fees in lieu of dedication shall be
paid when the property is developed, to help secure the greenbelt in the area south of the City’s
southerly urban reserve line.
B. San Luis Ranch property (outside the city limit and generally bounded by Highway 101 and
Madonna Road) shall dedicate land or easements for approximately one-half of the ownership that is
to be preserved as open space.
C. Foothill Annexation: The northern portion of the Foothill property, and the creek area shall be
annexed as open space. Development on this site should be clustered or located near Foothill
Boulevard, with the northern portion of the site and creek area preserved as open space.
Potentially Consistent. The project would involve annexation
of the San Luis Ranch property and dedication of land or
easements for approximately one-half of the ownership that
is to be preserved as open space. (Refer to discussion of
Land Use Element Policy 1.9.2). The project site is not
located adjacent to the urban reserve line, on hillsides, or
within the Airport Area Specific Plan, or the Foothill property.
PC 1-111
Attachment 3
Table 4.9-1
Consistency with City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Plan, Policy, or Regulation Consistency Analysis
Policy 1.13.10: Solid Waste Capacity. In addition to other requirements for adequate resources and
services prior to development, the City shall require that adequate solid waste disposal capacity exists
before granting any discretionary land use approval which would increase solid waste generation.
Potentially Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.14, Issues
Addressed in the Initial Study, the project would be served
by the San Luis Garbage Company. The incremental
additional waste stream generated by this project would not
create significant impacts related to the solid waste disposal
capacity of landfills.
Policy 1.8.6: Wildlife Habitat. The City shall ensure that continuous wildlife habitat – including corridors
free of human disruption - are preserved, and, where necessary, created.
Potentially Consistent. The San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
would provide permanently dedicated open space and
restored and enhanced wildlife habitat areas.
Policy 1.8.7: Trees Outside City Limits. The City shall preserve significant trees, particularly native
species, outside its limits and in the greenbelt on lands owned or leased by the City or for which the
City has an easement. For other areas in the greenbelt, the City will work with the County, Cal Poly,
and other public agencies to protect these trees.
Potentially Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.4,
Biological Resources, the project would result in potential
impacts to Great Blue Heron and Monarch Butterflies due
removal of the on-site eucalyptus trees which serve as
overwintering habitat for these species. Mitigation Measures
BIO-1(f), BIO-1(h), and BIO-2(b) would ensure that impacts
to trees and the habitat they provide would remain less than
significant.
Policy 2.3.7: Natural Features. The City shall require residential developments to preserve and
incorporate as amenities natural site features, such as land forms, views, creeks, wetlands, wildlife
habitats, wildlife corridors, and plants.
Potentially Consistent. The Specific Plan includes
landscaping with drought tolerant, native species, as well as
restoration and enhancement of creeks, drainages, and
habitat areas.
Policy 2.3.8: Parking. The City shall discourage the development of large parking lots and require
parking lots be screened from street views. In general, parking should not be located between
buildings and public streets.
Potentially Consistent. The Specific Plan does not include
any standards for the placement of parking associated with
proposed on-site uses. However, development on the
project site would be required to adhere to this policy. In
addition, the ARC would review and approve the design for
proposed buildings, examining the layout, building design, its
relationship to the neighborhood in which it would be
located, landscaping, parking, signage, lighting, and other
features affecting the project’s appearance.
Policy 2.3.10: Site Constraints. The City shall require new residential developments to respect site
constraints such as property size and shape, ground slope, access, creeks and wetlands, wildlife
habitats, wildlife corridors, native vegetation, and significant trees.
Potentially Consistent. The project would dedicate
approximately 7.67.4 acres of internal open space, primarily
along the Prefumo Creek and Cerro San Luis Channel,
which would reduce permanent adverse impacts to riparian
habitat along these corridors. Access routes and
construction staging areas would be located outside of
wetlands and riparian areas to the maximum extent
practicable and would not permanently interfere with the
PC 1-112
Attachment 3
Table 4.9-1
Consistency with City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Plan, Policy, or Regulation Consistency Analysis
movement of resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
migratory wildlife corridors.
Policy 3.2.1: Locations for Regional Attractions. The City should focus its retailing with regional draw in
the locations of downtown, the area around the intersection of Madonna Road and Highway 101, and
the area around Highway 101 and Los Osos Valley Road.
Policy 3.2.2: Specialty Store Locations. The City shall direct most specialty retail stores to locate in the
Downtown Core, in the Madonna Road area, or the Los Osos Valley Road area, and in other
community shopping areas identified by the Community Commercial district (see the Community
Commercial section) where they will not detract from the role of the Downtown Core as the City’s
primary concentration of specialty stores; some may also be in neighborhood shopping centers so
long as they are a minor part of the centers and serve neighborhood rather than citywide or regional
markets.
Policy 3.8.3: Neighborhood Centers. The City shall identify suitable sites for new or expanded
neighborhood centers as it prepares specific plans and development plans.
Potentially Consistent. The project would include
development of neighborhood retail uses that may include
specialty retail stores in the Madonna Road area. The
project would not include regional attractions that would
detract from other identified commercial areas in the City.
Policy 3.3.1: New or Expanded Areas of Neighborhood Commercial Use. The City shall provide for
new or expanded areas of neighborhood commercial uses that:
A. Are created within, or extended into, nonresidential areas adjacent to residential
neighborhoods;
B. Provide uses to serve nearby residents, not the whole City;
C. Have access from arterial streets, and not increase traffic on residential streets;
D. Have safe and pleasant pedestrian access from the surrounding service area, as well as
good internal circulation;
E. Are designed to be pedestrian-oriented, and architecturally compatible with the adjacent
neighborhoods being served. Pedestrian-oriented features of the project design should
include:
i. Off-street parking areas located to the side or rear of buildings rather than between
buildings and the street;
ii. Landscaped areas with public seating; and
iii. Indoor and outdoor space for public use, designed to provide a focus for some
neighborhood activities.
Potentially Consistent. The project would include
development of neighborhood commercial uses adjacent to
the proposed residential neighborhoods on the project site.
These uses may include specialty retail stores that would to
serve nearby residents. The project would also provide
pedestrian and bicycle facilities from nearby residential uses
to the proposed neighborhood commercial uses.
Furthermore, development on the project site would be
required to adhere to the City’s policies related to the
provision of parking areas. In addition, the ARC would
review and approve the design for proposed buildings,
examining the layout, building design, its relationship to the
neighborhood in which it would be located, landscaping,
parking, signage, lighting, and other features affecting the
project’s appearance.
Policy 6.3.1: Open Space and Greenbelt Designations. The City shall designate the following types of
land as open space:
A Upland and valley sensitive habitats or unique resources, as defined in the Conservation and
Open Space Element, including corridors which connect habitats.
B Undeveloped prime agricultural soils which are to remain in agricultural use as provided in
Policy 1.9.2.
C Those areas which are best suited to non-urban uses due to: infeasibility of providing proper
access or utilities; excessive slope or slope instability; wildland fire hazard; noise exposure;
Potentially Consistent. The Specific Plan would not involve
hillside development or the creation of new parcels within
the greenbelt.
As described in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, the
project would have a potentially significant but mitigable
impact on sensitive habitats, including riparian areas.
Mitigation Measures BIO-2(a) through BIO-2(c) would
PC 1-113
Attachment 3
Table 4.9-1
Consistency with City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Plan, Policy, or Regulation Consistency Analysis
flood hazard; scenic value; wildlife habitat value, including sensitive habitats or unique
resources as defined in the Conservation and Open Space Element; agricultural value; and
value for passive recreation.
D A greenbelt, outside the urban reserve, that surrounds the ultimate boundaries of the urban
area, and which should connect with wildlife corridors that cross the urbanized area.
E Sufficient area of each habitat type to ensure the ecological integrity of that habitat type within
the urban reserve and the greenbelt, including connections between habitats for wildlife
movement and dispersal; these habitat types will be as identified in the natural resource
inventory, as discussed in the “Background to this Land Use Element Update” and in
Community Goal #8.
Policy 6.3.2: Open Space Uses include: watershed protection; wildlife and native plant habitat;
grazing; cultivated crops; and passive recreation. The City shall require that buildings, lighting, paving,
use of vehicles, and alterations on open space lands are minimized, so rural character and resources
are maintained. Buildings and paved surfaces shall not exceed the following: where a parcel smaller
than ten acres already exists, five percent of the site area; on a parcel of ten acres or more, three
percent. (As explained in the Conservation and Open Space Element, the characteristics of an open
space area may result in it being suitable for some open space uses, but not the full range.) Parcels
within Open Space areas should not be further subdivided.
ensure that potential habitat impacts would remain less than
significant.
The Specific Plan would preserve approximately 53 acres of
prime farmland on-site in perpetuity, as well as
approximately 7.67.4 acres in parks and open space.
Agricultural operations would be protected and highlighted
through on-site and off-site agricultural preservation and the
proposed Agricultural Heritage Facilities & Learning Center.
Policy 6.6.1: Creek and Wetlands Management Objectives. The City should manage its lake, creeks,
wetlands, floodplains, and associated wetlands to achieve the multiple objectives of:
A Maintaining and restoring natural conditions, and fish and wildlife habitat;
B Preventing loss of life and minimizing property damage from flooding;
C Providing recreational opportunities which are compatible with fish and wildlife habitat, flood
protection and use of adjacent private properties; and
D Recognizing and distinguishing between those sections of creeks and Laguna Lake which
are in previously urbanized areas, such as the downtown core and sections which are in
largely natural areas. Those sections already heavily impacted by urban development and
activity may be appropriate for multiple use whereas creeks and lakeshore in a more natural
state shall be managed for maximized ecological value.
Potentially Consistent. As described in Section 4.4,
Biological Resources, the project would have a potentially
significant but mitigable impact on sensitive habitats,
including riparian areas. Mitigation Measures BIO-2(a)
through BIO-2(c) would ensure that potential habitat impacts
would remain less than significant. The Specific Plan would
dedicate approximately 7.67.4 acres of internal open space,
primarily along the Prefumo Creek and Cerro San Luis
Channel, which would reduce permanent adverse impacts to
riparian habitat along these corridors. The Specific Plan
includes no built structures within the Plan Area’s flood plain.
Policy 6.6.2: Citywide Network. The City shall include the lake, creeks, and wetlands as part of a
citywide and regional network of open space, parks, and – where appropriate – trails, all fostering
understanding, enjoyment, and protection of the natural landscape and wildlife.
Potentially Consistent. The Specific Plan would connect with
the City’s park and open space system with convenient
access through the various bike paths and pedestrian trails
and complete a segment of the Bob Jones Regional Bicycle
Trail. Visitors to the Agricultural Heritage Facilities &
Learning Center would be able to access the facility via the
Bob Jones Regional Bicycle Trail.
PC 1-114
Attachment 3
Table 4.9-1
Consistency with City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Plan, Policy, or Regulation Consistency Analysis
Policy 6.6.3: Amenities and Access. The City shall require new public or private development adjacent
to the lake, creeks, and wetlands to respect the natural environment and incorporate the natural
features as project amenities, provided doing so does not diminish natural values. Developments
along creeks should include public access across the development site to the creek and along the
creek, provided that wildlife habitat, public safety, and reasonable privacy and security of the
development can be maintained, consistent with the Conservation and Open Space Element.
Potentially Consistent. The Specific Plan would not conflict
with any Zoning Code requirements regarding development
adjacent to creeks, wetlands, and lakes. The project would
dedicate approximately 7.67.4 acres of internal open space,
primarily along the Prefumo Creek and Cerro San Luis
Channel, which would reduce permanent adverse impacts to
riparian habitat along these corridors.
Policy 6.6.5: Runoff Reduction and Groundwater Recharge. The City shall require the use of methods
to facilitate rainwater percolation for roof areas and outdoor hardscaped areas where practical to
reduce surface water runoff and aid in groundwater recharge.
Policy 6.6.6: Development Requirements. The City shall require project designs that minimize
drainage concentrations and impervious coverage. Floodplain areas should be avoided and, where
feasible, any channelization shall be designed to provide the appearance of a natural water course.
Policy 6.6.7: Discharge of Urban Pollutants. The City shall require appropriate runoff control measures
as part of future development proposals to minimize discharge of urban pollutants (such as oil and
grease) into area drainages.
Policy 6.6.8: Erosion Control Measures. The City shall require adequate provision of erosion control
measures as part of new development to minimize sedimentation of streams and drainage channels.
Potentially Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.8,
Hydrology and Water Quality, the Specific Plan details
requirements for best management practices (BMPs)
regarding site drainage and impervious coverage consistent
with San Luis Obispo Zoning Code Chapter 12.08 (Urban
Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control).
Policy 6.7: Creeks and Flooding Programs.
Policy 6.7.1: Previously Developed Areas. To limit the potential for increased flood damage in
urbanized areas, the City shall ensure new development complies with the City’s flood plain ordinance,
setbacks, specific plans, and design standards to minimize flood damage and flood plain
encroachment.
Policy 6.7.2: National Flood Program. The City shall administer the National Flood Insurance Program
standards.
Policy 6.7.3: Creekside Care and Notification. In maintaining creek channels to accommodate flood
waters, the City shall notify owners of creeks and adjacent properties in advance of work, and use
care in any needed removal of vegetation.
Policy 6.7.4: Evaluate Use of Financing Districts. The City shall evaluate the feasibility of establishing
a financing district or districts to address flood concerns in affected areas. Cost and benefits will be
weighed in relation to the cost of flood insurance for affected property owners.
Potentially Consistent. As described in Section 4.4,
Biological Resources, the project would have a potentially
significant but mitigable impact on sensitive habitats,
including riparian areas. Mitigation Measures BIO-2(a)
through BIO-2(c) would ensure that potential habitat impacts
would remain less than significant. The Specific Plan would
dedicate approximately 7.67.4 acres of internal open space,
primarily along the Prefumo Creek and Cerro San Luis
Channel, which would reduce permanent adverse impacts to
riparian habitat along these corridors. As discussed in
Impact HWQ-2 in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality,
the Specific Plan Area is located partly within a 100-year
floodplain. However, residential development would be
located in the portion of the site that is not within the 100-
year flood plain. Compliance with local flood management
measures including Special Floodplain Management Zone
Regulation and the City Waterways Management Plan would
minimize the impact of placing structures within the 100-year
flood plain.
PC 1-115
Attachment 3
Table 4.9-1
Consistency with City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Plan, Policy, or Regulation Consistency Analysis
Policy 7.3: Airport Land Use Plan. Land use density and intensity shall carefully balance noise impacts
and the progression in the degree of reduced safety risk further away from the runways, using
guidance from the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan, State Aeronautics Act,
and California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines. The City shall use the Airport Master
Plan forecasts of aviation activity as a reasonably foreseeable projection of ultimate aviation activity
sufficient for long-term land use planning purposes. Prospective buyers of property subject to airport
influence should be so informed.
Policy 7.4: Airport Safety Zones. Density and allowed uses within the Airport Safety Zones shall be
consistent with the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan unless the City overrides
a determination of inconsistency in accordance with Section 21676 and 21676.5 et. seq. of the Public
Utilities Code. If the City overrides a determination, all land uses shall be consistent with the State
Aeronautics Act and guidance provided in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
guidelines, City policies, and noise standards as substantiated by the San Luis Obispo County Airport
Master Plan activity forecasts as used for noise planning purposes.
Policy 7.5: Airport Noise Compatibility. The City shall use the aircraft noise analysis prepared for the
Airport Master Plan Environmental Impact Report as an accurate mapping of the long term noise
impact of the airport’s aviation activity that is tied to the ultimate facilities development depicted in the
FAA-approved Airport Layout Plan. The City shall use the 60 dB CNEL aircraft noise contour (FAA and
State aircraft noise planning standard) as the threshold for new urban residential areas. Interiors of
new residential structures shall be constructed to meet a maximum 45 dB CNEL.
Potentially Consistent. The Specific Plan would preserve the
southeastern portion of the site in agricultural use.
Residential and commercial uses are clustered in the
northern and western portions of the site adjacent to
Madonna Road and existing residential (to the west) and
commercial (to the east) areas. As discussed in Impact LU-
4, although the project would conflict with the ALUP’s
density standards, based on this analysis the 2014 Airport
Land Use Compatibility Report, airport land use planning
impacts to future residents and commercial employees or
patrons the project would be consistent with the City’s
Airport Safety Zones. The Specific Plan’s uses are
consistent with the applicable Airport Master Plan, California
State Aeronautics Act and CALUPH standards and
guidelines, as well as the City’s safety and noise standards.
Policy 8.1.4: SP-2, San Luis Ranch (Dalidio) Specific Plan Area. The project site should be developed
as a mixed use project that maintains the agricultural heritage of the site, provides a commercial/ office
transition to the existing commercial center to the north, and provides a diverse housing experience.
Protection of the adjacent creek and a well-planned integration into the existing circulation system will
be required.
The specific plan for this area should consider and address the following land use and design issues:
a. Provide land and appropriate financial support for development of a Prado Road connection.
Appropriate land to support road infrastructure identified in the Final Project EIR (overpass or
interchange) at this location shall be dedicated as part of any proposal and any area in excess of the
project’s fair share of this facility shall not be included as part of the project site area used to calculate
the required 50% open space.
b. Circulation connections to integrate property with surrounding circulation network for all modes of
travel.
c. Connection to Froom Ranch and Calle Joaquin, if proposed, shall not bifurcate on- site or
neighboring agricultural lands. Any connection to Calle Joaquin shall be principally a secondary /
emergency access by design.
d. Development shall include a transit hub. Developer shall work with transit officials to provide
express connections to Downtown area.
e. Maintain agricultural views along Highway 101 by maintaining active agricultural uses on the site,
Potentially Consistent. The project would allow for mixed-
use development on the San Luis Ranch property, providing
a commercial transition to the existing commercial center to
the north, which may include neighborhood retail,
restaurants, offices, and a hotel. The project includes a
range of housing types, from detached single-family units to
attached multi-family dwellings. The agricultural heritage of
the site would be protected by preserving approximately 53
acres of the site in agricultural cultivation and building an
Agricultural Heritage Facilities & Learning Center intended to
promote the education of local residents and agritourism.
The project would dedicate approximately 7.67.4 acres of
internal open space, primarily along the Prefumo Creek and
Cerro San Luis Channel, which would reduce permanent
adverse impacts to riparian habitat along these corridors. In
addition, the project would be consistent with items a
through n in Policy 8.1.4:
a. The project would be required to provide or pay fair share
PC 1-116
Attachment 3
Table 4.9-1
Consistency with City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Plan, Policy, or Regulation Consistency Analysis
and maintain viewshed of Bishop Peak and Cerro San Luis.
f. Maintain significant agricultural and open space resources on site (see Policy 1.13.8.B). Land
dedicated to Agriculture shall be of size, location and configuration appropriate to maintain a viable,
working agricultural operation.
g. Where buffering or transitions to agricultural uses are needed to support viability of the agricultural
use, these shall be provided on lands not counted towards the minimum size for the agriculture / open
space component. Provide appropriate transition to agricultural uses on-site.
h. Integrate agricultural open space with adjacent SLO City Farm and development on property.
i. Site should include walkable retail and pedestrian and bicycle connections to surrounding
commercial and residential areas.
j. Commercial and office uses shall have parking placed behind and to side of buildings so as to not be
a prominent feature.
k. Neighborhood Commercial uses for proposed residential development shall be provided.
l. Potential flooding issues along Prefumo Creek need to be studied and addressed without impacting
off-site uses.
m. All land uses proposed shall be in keeping with safety parameters described in this General Plan or
other applicable regulations relative to the San Luis Obispo Regional Airport.
n. Historic evaluation of the existing farm house and associated structures shall be included.
This specific plan shall meet the following performance standards.
Type
Designations
Allowed % of Site Minimum Maximum
Residential LDR, MDR,
MHDR, HDR
350 units 500 units
Commercial NC, CC 50,000 sf 200,000 sf
Office/High tech O 50,000 sf 150,000 sf
Hotel/Visitor-
serving
200 rooms
Parks PARK 5.8 acres
Open Space/
Agriculture
OS, AG Minimum 50% 1 No maximum
Public n/a
Infrastructure n/a
1. The City Council may consider allowing a portion of required open space to be met through off-site
dedication provided:
a. A substantial multiplier for the amount of open space is provided for the off-site property
exchanged to meet the on-site requirement; and
b. Off-site land is of similar agricultural and visual value to the community; and
c. Off-site land is protected through an easement, dedication or fee title in perpetuity for agriculture/
open space.
fees for an extension of Prado Road and an overpass or
interchange connection for Prado Road. Refer Section 4.11,
Transportation and Circulation.
b, c. The proposed circulation system would connect the
project site with surrounding multi-modal facilities, including
the Bob Jones Regional Bicycle Trail, and would not
bifurcate the site or neighboring agricultural lands.
d. The Specific Plan includes a transit center that would
provide direct transit access between the site and downtown
San Luis Obispo.
e-h. Development would be clustered to the west to preserve
agricultural views along U.S. 101. Approximately 53 acres of
land would be preserved for working agricultural operations
on-site. Agricultural land would be preserved next to existing
farmland at the San Luis Obispo City Farm.
i. The project would establish links in the City’s Bicycle
Transportation Plan, constructing a segment of the Bob
Jones Regional Bicycle Trail and providing a connection
from Laguna Lake area neighborhoods and businesses
along Madonna Road to the southern portion of the City
Limits at Froom Ranch Way.
j. The Specific Plan does not include any standards for the
placement of parking associated with commercial and office
uses; however, site-specific commercial development on the
project site would be required to adhere to this policy.
k. As shown in Figure 2-5 in Section 2.0, Project Description,
the proposed zoning for the Specific Plan Area would allow
Neighborhood Commercial uses on the northeast portion of
the site.
l. As described in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, the
project would have a potentially significant but mitigable
impact on sensitive habitats, including riparian areas such as
Prefumo Creek and its tributaries. Mitigation Measures BIO-
2(a) through BIO-2(c) would ensure that potential habitat
impacts would remain less than significant.
m. Refer to discussion of Land Use Element Policy 7.4.
n. As described in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, a
Cultural Resources Study was prepared for the project site
in October 2016, and includes a historic evaluation of the
San Luis Ranch Complex and associated structures
PC 1-117
Attachment 3
Table 4.9-1
Consistency with City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Plan, Policy, or Regulation Consistency Analysis
(Appendix G).
As shown in Table 2-3 in Section 2.0, Project Description,
the proposed land uses would be generally consistent with
the performance standards described in Land Use Element
Policy 8.1.4.
Approximately 53 acres of prime farmland would be preserved
on-site. The project also includes a commitment to procure an
off-site agricultural conservation easement/deed restriction,
such that the equivalent of 50 percent of the site acreage
would be preserved.
However, only 3.4 acres of parks would be provided, which
is lower than the minimum of 5.8 acres required by the
performance standards described in Land Use Element
Policy 8.1.4. However, as described in Section 4.11,
Recreation, with payment of the City’s required parkland in-
lieu fees to ensure compliance with the policies and
performance standards in the City’s General Plan as part of
the project, impacts associated with parks and recreational
facilities would be less than significant.
Policy 10.4: Encouraging Walkability. The City shall encourage projects which provide for and
enhance active and environmentally sustainable modes of transportation, such as pedestrian
movement, bicycle access, and transit services.
Potentially Consistent. The project would provide for a
walkable community by constructing a segment of the Bob
Jones Regional Bicycle Trail and providing a connection
from Laguna Lake area neighborhoods and businesses
along Madonna Road to the southern portion of the City
Limits at Froom Ranch Way. The project also would create
interior bicycle trails and lanes, including a Class I Bike Trail
and Class II Bike lanes, and complete a segment of the Bob
Jones Regional Bicycle Trail.
Circulation Element
Policy 3.1.6: Service Standards. The City shall implement the following service standards for its transit
system and for development that is proximate to the transit network:
A. Routes, schedules and transfer procedures of the City and regional transit systems should be
coordinated to encourage use of buses.
B. In existing developed areas, transit routes should be located within 1/4 mile of existing businesses
or dwellings.
Potentially Consistent. The project would include a transit
center that would provide transit access between the San
Luis Ranch Specific Plan Area and downtown San Luis
Obispo. The location of the proposed transit center would be
coordinated with SLO Transit and the Regional Transit
Authority upon submittal of individual project plans. In
PC 1-118
Attachment 3
Table 4.9-1
Consistency with City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Plan, Policy, or Regulation Consistency Analysis
C. In City expansion areas, employment-intensive uses or medium, medium-high or high density
residential uses should be located within 1/8 mile of a transit route.
D. The spacing of stops should balance patron convenience and speed of operation.
Policy 3.1.7: Transit Service Access. New development should be designed to facilitate access to
transit service.
addition, revised San Luis Obispo Transit bus routes through
the project site would be coordinated with the City based on
an analysis of expected demand.
Policy 4.1.4: New Development. The City shall require that new development provide bikeways,
secure bicycle storage, parking facilities and showers consistent with City plans and development
standards. When evaluating transportation impacts, the City shall use a Multimodal Level of Service
analysis.
Potentially Consistent. Refer to discussion of Land Use
Element Policy 10.4 for a discussion of proposed bikeways
on the project site. As discussed in Chapter 6 of the Specific
Plan, new development on the project site would provide
both short-term and secure long-term bicycle parking
facilities.
Policy 5.1.2: Sidewalks and Paths. The City should complete a continuous pedestrian network
connecting residential areas with major activity centers as well as trails leading into City and county
open spaces.
Policy 5.1.4: Pedestrian Access. New or renovated commercial and government public buildings shall
provide convenient pedestrian access from nearby sidewalks and pedestrian paths, separate from
driveways and vehicle entrances.
Potentially Consistent. The Specific Plan would connect with
the City’s park and open space system through bike paths
and pedestrian trails. The project would provide for a
continuous pedestrian network by constructing a segment of
the Bob Jones Regional Bicycle Trail and providing a
connection from Laguna Lake area neighborhoods and
businesses along Madonna Road to the southern portion of
the City Limits at Froom Ranch Way. Streets in the project
site would also devote space to multi-modal access,
including pedestrian access, and collector streets would
have landscaped parkways at least six feet total on each
side of the road.
Policy 6.1.2: Multimodal Level of Service (LOS) Objectives, Service Standards, and Significance
Criteria. The City shall strive to achieve level of service objectives and shall maintain level of service
minimums for all four modes of travel; Pedestrians, Bicyclists, Transit, & Vehicles per Table 2 and the
Highway Capacity manual.
Travel Mode LOS Objective Minimum LOS Standard
Bicycle B D
Pedestrian B C
Transit C Baseline LOS or LOD D,
whichever is lower
Vehicle C E (Downtown), D (All Other
Routes)
Potentially Inconsistent. The Multimodal Transportation
Impact Study (Appendix L) evaluated projected
transportation impact conditions associated with
development of the project. As discussed in Section 4.12
Transportation and Circulation, traffic conditions for
automobile and bike, pedestrian and transit LOS were
evaluated under project conditions near term (2023) and
cumulative (2035) conditions. Mitigation Measures in Section
4.12, Transportation, have been included to reduce potential
impacts to regional vehicle and multimodal traffic to the
maximum extent feasible. However, as described in Section
4.12, Transportation, impacts associated with multimodal
level of service standards at several study area intersections
under Existing Plus Project, Near-Term Plus Project, and
Cumulative Plus Project conditions were found to remain
PC 1-119
Attachment 3
Table 4.9-1
Consistency with City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Plan, Policy, or Regulation Consistency Analysis
significant and unavoidable with mitigation.
Policy 15.1.2. Development Along Scenic Routes. The City will preserve and improve views of
important scenic resources form streets and roads. Development along scenic roadways should not
block views or detract from the quality of views.
A. Projects, including signs, in the viewshed of a scenic roadway should be considered as "sensitive"
and require architectural review.
B. Development projects should not wall off scenic roadways and block views.
C. As part of the city's environmental review process, blocking of views along scenic roadways should
be considered a significant environmental impact.
D. Signs along scenic roadways should not clutter vistas or views.
E. Street lights should be low scale and focus light at intersections where it is most needed. Tall light
standards should be avoided. Street lighting should be integrated with other street furniture at
locations where views are least disturbed. However, safety priorities should remain superior to scenic
concerns.
F. Lighting along scenic roadways should not degrade the nighttime visual environment and night sky
per the City’s Night Sky Preservation Ordinance.
Potentially Consistent. The project would involve
development adjacent to U.S. 101, which is eligible for
designation as a State scenic highway and is identified in the
City’s General Plan as a scenic corridor. The project would
cluster development on the northern portion of the project
site while preserving approximately 53 acres of prime
farmland on-site in perpetuity, as well as approximately
7.67.4 acres in parks and open space adjacent to the
highway. As discussed in Impact AES-1 in Section 4.1,
Aesthetics, commercial development in the northeast corner
of the site would be adjacent to and highly visible from U.S.
101; however, the outside of the commercial area facing the
highway would be partially blocked from view by landscape
screening. Background views from the east would continue
to be visible at the same extent as they are currently, as the
heights of the proposed structures would not project above
the existing tree line to the west or the existing development
to the north. As a result, scenic views of Cerro San Luis and
the Irish Hills would remain visible from U.S. 101.
Housing Element
Policy 2.4. Encourage housing production for all financial strata of the City's population, in the
proportions shown in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, for the 2014 - 2019 planning period.
These proportions are: extremely low income, 12 percent, very low income, 12 percent; low income,
16 percent; moderate income, 18 percent; and above moderate income, 42 percent.
Policy 4.1. Within newly developed neighborhoods, housing that is affordable to various economic
strata should be intermixed rather than segregated into separate enclaves. The mix should be
comparable to the relative percentages of extremely low, very-low, low, moderate and above-
moderate income households in the City’s quantified objectives.
Policy 4.2. Include both market-rate and affordable units in apartment and residential condominium
projects and intermix the types of units. Affordable units should be comparable in size, appearance
and basic quality to market-rate units.
Policy 5.3. Encourage the development of housing above ground-level retail stores and offices to
provide housing opportunities close to activity centers and to use land efficiently.
Policy 5.4. In general, housing developments of twenty (20) or more units should provide a variety of
dwelling types, sizes or forms of tenure.
Potentially Consistent. The proposed mixed-use development
would include 580 residential units including affordable
housing, in accordance with the City requirements. Proposed
housing types would range from single-family homes to high-
density multi-family housing. Different forms of housing
tenure would be allowed on-site, including homes and
condominiums for purchase and apartments for rent.
Commercial building height restrictions would limit the
opportunity for vertically mixed-use development. However,
the project would provide residential development in close
proximity to office and retail uses, and the range of
residential densities would allow for work-live opportunities.
PC 1-120
Attachment 3
Table 4.9-1
Consistency with City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Plan, Policy, or Regulation Consistency Analysis
Policy 3.2: Discourage the removal or replacement of housing affordable to extremely low, very-low,
low- and moderate income households, and avoid permit approvals, private development, municipal
actions or public projects that remove or adversely impact such housing unless such actions are
necessary to achieve General Plan objectives and: (1) it can be demonstrated that rehabilitation of
lower-cost units at risk of replacement is financially or physically infeasible, or (2) an equivalent
number of new units comparable or better in affordability and amenities to those being replaced is
provided, or (3) the project will correct substandard, blighted or unsafe housing; and (4) removal or
replacement will not adversely affect housing which is already designated, or is determined to qualify
for designation as a historic resource.
Potentially Consistent. The proposed mixed-use development
would include 580 residential units including affordable
housing, in accordance with the City requirements. By
providing units that are affordable by design, the Specific
Plan would increase the supply of affordable housing in the
City without displacing or adversely impacting existing
affordable units.
Policy 7.4. Within expansion areas, new residential development should be an integral part of an
existing neighborhood or should establish a new neighborhood, with pedestrian and bicycle linkages
that provide direct, convenient and safe access to adjacent neighborhoods, schools and shopping
areas.
Policy 7.7. The physical design of neighborhoods and dwellings should promote walking and bicycling
and preserve open spaces and views.
Potentially Consistent. Refer to discussion of Land Use
Element Policy 10.4 for a discussion of proposed pedestrian
and bicycle linkages to adjacent destinations. In addition,
open spaces and views would be preserved adjacent to U.S.
101.
Policy 7.5. The creation of walled-off residential enclaves, or of separate, unconnected tracts, is
discouraged because physical separations prevent the formation of safe, walkable, and enjoyable
neighborhoods.
Potentially Consistent. As shown in Figure 2-8 in Section
2.0, Project Description, the Specific Plan’s vehicular
circulation network does not include avoid cul-de-sacs or
dead end streets. No neighborhood separation walls are
proposed.
Policy 8.1. Encourage housing development that meets a variety of special needs, including large
families, single parents, disabled persons, the elderly, students, veterans, the homeless, or those
seeking congregate care, group housing, single-room occupancy or co-housing accommodations,
utilizing universal design.
Potentially Consistent. The project includes housing types at
a variety of densities, which range in number of rooms, size,
and configuration of units to accommodate different
household needs. All proposed development would be
constructed in compliance with applicable accessibility
standards.
Policy 9.2. Residential site, subdivision, and neighborhood designs should be coordinated to make
residential sustainability work. Some ways to do this include:
A) Design subdivisions to maximize solar access for each dwelling and site.
B) Design sites so residents have usable outdoor space with access to both sun and shade.
C) Streets and access ways should minimize pavement devoted to vehicular use.
D) Use neighborhood retention basins to purify street runoff prior to its entering creeks. Retention
basins should be designed to be visually attractive as well as functional. Fenced-off retention basins
should be avoided.
E) Encourage cluster development with dwellings grouped around significantly-sized, shared open
space in return for City approval of smaller individual lots.
F) Treat public streets as landscaped parkways, using continuous plantings at least six feet wide and
where feasible, median planters to enhance, define, and to buffer residential neighborhoods of all
Potentially Consistent. The project includes open space,
parks, and other recreational opportunities intended to
provide area residents with access to usable outdoor space.
Streets in the project site would devote space to multi-modal
access, minimizing pavement devoted to vehicular use.
Development would be clustered in the northern portion of
the site to preserve agricultural land and open space on
approximately half of the project site. In addition, collector
streets would have landscaped parkways at least six feet
total on each side of the road, and landscaped medians
would be constructed on Froom Ranch Way and some local
streets.
PC 1-121
Attachment 3
Table 4.9-1
Consistency with City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Plan, Policy, or Regulation Consistency Analysis
densities from the effects of vehicle traffic. As discussed in Section 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality,
best Management Practices and Low Impact Development
strategies are utilized to retain and filter storm water.
Policy 11.2. Prevent new housing development on sites that should be preserved as dedicated open
space or parks, on sites subject to natural hazards such as unmitigatable geological or flood risks, or
wild fire dangers, and on sites subject to unacceptable levels of man-made hazards or nuisances,
including severe soil contamination, airport noise or hazards, traffic noise or hazards, odors or
incompatible neighboring uses.
Potentially Consistent. The Specific Plan would not involve
development on existing dedicated open space or parks.
The project would preserve approximately 53 acres of
project site in agriculture and open space. As discussed in
Section 4.14, Issues Addressed in the Initial Study; Section
4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Section 4.10, Noise;
Section 4.12, Transportation and Circulation, and Section
4.3, Air Quality, the project would not result in significant
hazards related to geology and soils, flooding, wildfire, man-
made hazards, traffic, or odors after implementation of
Mitigation Measures HAZ-4, HAZ-5(a), HAZ-5(b), and HAZ-
6.
PC 1-122
Attachment 3
Table 4.9-1
Consistency with City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Plan, Policy, or Regulation Consistency Analysis
Noise Element
Policy 1.3. New Development Design and Transportation Noise Sources. New noise-sensitive
development shall be located and designed to meet the maximum outdoor and indoor noise exposure
levels of Table 1.
Land Use
Outdoor Activity
Areas Indoor Spaces
Ldn or CNEL, in dB Ldn or CNEL, in dB Leq in dB Lmax in dB
Residences,
hotels, motels,
hospitals,
nursing homes
60 45 - 60
Theaters,
auditoriums,
music halls
- - 35 60
Churches,
meeting halls,
office building,
mortuaries
60 - 45 -
Schools,
libraries,
museums
- - 45 60
Neighborhood
parks 65 - - -
Playgrounds 70 - - -
Policy 1.4. New Transportation Noise Sources. Noise created by new transportation noise sources,
including road, railroad, and airport expansion projects, shall be mitigated to not exceed the levels
specified in Table 1 for outdoor activity areas and indoor spaces of noise-sensitive land uses which
were established before the new transportation noise source.
Policy 1.6. New Development and Stationary Noise Sources. New development of noise-sensitive land
uses may be permitted only where location or design allow the development to meet the standards of
Table 2, for existing stationary noise sources.
Policy 1.7. New or Modified Stationary Noise Sources. Noise created by new stationary; noise
sources, or by existing stationary noise sources which undergo modifications that may increase noise
levels, shall be mitigated to not exceed the noise level standards of Table 2, for lands designated for
noise-sensitive uses. This policy does not apply to noise levels associated with agricultural operations.
Potentially Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.10 Noise,
the project would not result in any long-term noise impacts
associated with transportation noise sources or stationary
noise sources, with incorporation of Mitigation Measures N-
4(a), N-4(b) and N-5(a) through N-5(d).
Policy 1.8. Preferred Noise Mitigation Approaches. When approving new development of noise-
sensitive uses or noise sources, the City will require noise mitigation in the descending order of
Potentially Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.10, Noise,
a mitigation measures are identified for short-term and long-
PC 1-123
Attachment 3
Table 4.9-1
Consistency with City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Plan, Policy, or Regulation Consistency Analysis
desirability shown below. For example, when mitigating outdoor noise exposure, providing distance
between source and recipient is preferred to providing berms and walls. Before using a less desirable
approach, the applicant must show that more desirable approaches are not effective or that it is not
practical to use the preferred approaches consistent with other design criteria based on the General
Plan.
1.8.1. Mitigating Noise Sources.
A. Arrange activity areas on the site of the noise-producing project so project features, such as
buildings containing uses that are not noise-sensitive, shield neighboring noise-sensitive uses;
B. Limit the operating times of noise-producing activities;
C. Provide features, such as walls, with a primary purpose of blocking noise.
1.8.2. Mitigating Outdoor Noise Exposure.
A. Provide distance between noise source and recipient;
B. Provide distance plus planted earthern berms;
C. Provide distance and planted earthern berms, combined with sound walls;
D. Provide earthern berms combined with sound walls;
E. Provide sound walls only;
F. Integrate buildings and sound walls to create a continuous noise barrier.
1.8.3. Mitigating Indoor Noise Exposure.
A. Achieve indoor noise level standards assuming windows are open
B. Achieve indoor noise level standards assuming windows must be closed (this option requires air
conditioning or mechanical ventilation in buildings.)
term noise impacts. These include Mitigation Measures N-
1(a) through N-1(g), which address temporary construction
noise, as well as Mitigation Measures N-4(a), N-4(b) and N-
5(a) through N-5(d), which address long-term operational
noise, including roadways and stationary sources of noise.
These measures prioritize noise reduction through setbacks
where feasible. Other mitigation measures identify interior
noise reduction construction materials in addition to sound
barriers.
Policy 1.10: Existing and Cumulative Impacts. The City will consider the following mitigation measures
where existing noise levels significantly impact existing noise-sensitive land uses, or where cumulative
increases in noise levels resulting from new development significantly impact existing noise-sensitive
land uses (See also Chapter 2 of the Land Use Element, concerning residential neighborhoods).
A. Rerouting traffic onto streets that can maintain desired levels of service, consistent with the
Circulation Element, and which do not adjoin noise-sensitive land uses.
B. Rerouting trucks onto streets that do not adjoin noise-sensitive land uses.
C. Constructing noise barriers.
D. Lowering traffic speeds through street or intersection design methods (see also the Circulation
Element).
E. Retrofitting buildings with noise-reducing features.
F. Establishing financial programs, such as low cost loans to owners of noise-impacted property, or
establishment of developer fees to pay for noise mitigation or trip reduction programs.
Potentially Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.10 Noise,
project construction would represent a temporary source of
noise to sensitive receptors adjacent to the project site and
along the route used by haul trucks. Mitigation Measures N-
1(a) through N-1(g) require implementation of noise
reduction devices and techniques during construction, and
would reduce noise associated with on- and off-site
construction activity to the maximum extent feasible. In
addition, implementation of Mitigation Measures N-4(a) and
N-4(b) would ensure that HVAC and delivery/garbage truck
noise would not exceed the City’s maximum noise standards
at adjacent residences on the project site. Furthermore,
construction techniques described in Mitigation Measure N-
5(a) would ensure that interior noise levels would not exceed
the City’s interior standard in proposed residential, hotel, and
office uses and Mitigation Measures N-5(b) through N-5(d)
would ensure that the City’s exterior noise standard of 60
dBA CNEL would be achieved at affected land uses in the
PC 1-124
Attachment 3
Table 4.9-1
Consistency with City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Plan, Policy, or Regulation Consistency Analysis
Specific Plan Area. Implementation of these measures
would also ensure that the project’s contribution to
cumulative noise impacts in the vicinity would be less than
significant
Conservation and Open Space Element
Air Policies
Policy 2.2.4. Promote walking, biking and use of public transit to reduce dependency on motor
vehicles. City actions shall seek to reduce dependency on gasoline- or diesel powered motor vehicles
and to encourage walking, biking and public transit use.
Potentially Consistent. The Specific Plan would connect with
the City’s park and open space system with convenient
access through the various bike paths and pedestrian trails
and complete a segment of the Bob Jones Regional Bicycle
Trail. The Specific Plan includes a transit center that would
provide direct transit access between the site and downtown
San Luis Obispo, Additional neighborhood-serving
commercial would further reduce dependence on motor
vehicles.
Cultural Heritage Policies
Policy 3.3.2: Demolitions. Historically or architecturally significant buildings shall not be demolished or
substantially changed in outward appearance, unless doing so is necessary to remove a threat to
health and safety and other means to eliminate or reduce the threat to acceptable levels are infeasible.
Policy 3.3.3: Historical Documentation. Buildings and other cultural features that are not historically
significant but which have historical or architectural value should be preserved or relocated where
feasible. Where preservation or relocation is not feasible, the resource shall be documented and the
information retained in a secure but publicly accessible location. An acknowledgment of the resource
should be incorporated within the site through historic signage and the reuse or display of historic
materials and artifacts.
Potentially Inconsistent. As described in Section 4.5 Cultural
Resources, existing structures on the site are individually
eligible for historic designation. The project includes the
adaptive reuse and relocation of the existing main residence
and the historic former spectators’ barn/viewing stand to new
locations on the site. Mitigation Measure CR-1(a) would
reduce impacts to these historic resources to the maximum
extent feasible. Demolition of the historic main barn, which is
part of the San Luis Ranch Complex, would conflict with
Conservation and Open Space Element Policies 3.3.1 and
3.3.2. Salvageable materials from the main barn are
proposed to be reused to the greatest extent possible.
Mitigation Measures CR-1(b) and CR-1(c) would reduce
significant direct impacts to the remainder of the historically
significant San Luis Ranch Complex to the maximum extent
feasible. However, the potential impact to these historic
resources would remain significant and unavoidable.
Policy 3.5.1: Archaeological resource protection. The City shall provide for the protection of both
known and potential archaeological resources. To avoid significant damage to important
archaeological sites, all available measures, including purchase of the property in fee or easement,
shall be explored at the time of a development proposal. Where such measures are not feasible and
Potentially Consistent. As described in Section 4.5 Cultural
Resources, archaeological resources that have been
identified on the project site are ineligible for listing in the
CRHR and NRHP, and disturbance of these resources
PC 1-125
Attachment 3
Table 4.9-1
Consistency with City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Plan, Policy, or Regulation Consistency Analysis
development would adversely affect identified archaeological or paleontological resources, mitigation
shall be required pursuant to the Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines.
Policy 3.5.2: Native American sites. All Native American cultural and archaeological sites shall be
protected as open space wherever possible.
Policy 3.5.5: Archaeological resources present. Where a preliminary site survey finds substantial
archaeological resources, before permitting construction, the City shall require a mitigation plan to
protect the resources. Possible mitigation measures include: presence of a qualified professional
during initial grading or trenching; project redesign; covering with a layer of fill; excavation, removal
and curation in an appropriate facility under the direction of a qualified professional.
would not constitute a significant impact. The potential
remains for the project to result in impacts to previously
unidentified archaeological resources. The Native American
scoping did not identify any identify any specific resources
important to the consulted groups within the project site.
However, several contacts noted that the area is sensitive.
Unanticipated discovery of human remains during project
excavation would comply with Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 and PRC Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98 to
ensure that these would be addressed appropriately by the
County Coroner and NAHC (if required).
Energy Policies
Policy 4.3.4: Use of energy efficient, renewable energy sources. The City will promote the use of cost
effective, renewable, non-depleting energy sources wherever possible, both in new construction
projects and in existing buildings and facilities.
Policy 4.3.6: Energy efficiency and Green Building in new development. The City shall encourage
energy-efficient “green buildings” as certified by the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED (Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design) Program or equivalent certification, as further described in
Chapter 5.5.7.
Policy 4.6.8: Energy-efficient project design. Encourage energy-efficient project design by
emphasizing use of daylight and solar exposure, shading and natural ventilation, as opposed to
designing a particular image and relying on mechanical systems to maintain functionality and comfort.
Educate City staff, citizen advisers, developers and designers on ways to exceed minimum State
energy standards.
Potentially Consistent. The Specific Plan would include the
following construction techniques for energy conservation:
• Meeting or exceeding Title 24 standards
• Natural lighting and ventilation
• High R-value insulation
• Energy-efficient HVAC systems and appliances
• Noise reduction
• Water usage reduction
In addition, guidelines for commercial, office, and hotel
design state that the lighting plan should incorporate current
energy-efficient fixtures and technology, and design
standards call for energy-efficient windows.
Policy 4.4.1: Pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly design. Residences, work places and facilities for all
other activities will be located and designed to promote travel by pedestrians and bicyclists. (Also see
the Land Use and Circulation Elements)
Potentially Consistent. Refer to discussion of Land Use
Element Policy 10.4 for a discussion of proposed pedestrian
and bicycle linkages to adjacent destinations.
Materials Policies
Policy 5.5.8: Recycling Facilities in New Development. During development review, the City shall
require facilities in new developments to accommodate and encourage recycling.
Potentially Consistent. Consistent with the City’s Source
Reduction and Recycling Element, the Specific Plan design
would accommodated recycling facilities on the project site
and would include a solid waste reduction plan for recycling
discarded construction materials with the building permit
application. The project would also include facilities for
recycling to reduce the waste stream generated by operation
of the project.
PC 1-126
Attachment 3
Table 4.9-1
Consistency with City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Plan, Policy, or Regulation Consistency Analysis
Natural Communities Policies
Policy 7.3.1 (A through D): Protect Listed Species. The City will comply with state and federal
requirements; the City will protect listed species through its actions on: land-use designations;
development standards; development applications; location, design, construction and maintenance of
creeks, City roads and facilities; and on land that the City owns or manages. Additionally, the City may
approve a project where mitigation requires relocation of a species if there is no practicable
alternative.
Potentially Consistent. As described in Section 4.4,
Biological Resources, Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) through
BIO-1(h) would ensure that the project would not result in
unavoidable impacts on candidate, sensitive, or special
status species that may occur on the project site.
Policy 7.3.2: Species of local concern. The City will:
A. Maintain healthy populations of native species in the long term, even though they are not listed for
protection under State or Federal laws. These “species of local concern” are at the limit of their range
in San Luis Obispo, or threats to their habitat are increasing.
B. Identify the location, habitat and buffer needs of species of local concern. This information will be
developed by qualified people early in the planning and development review process. (These species
are listed in Appendix A [to the Conservation and Open Space Element], which may be revised by the
City’s Natural Resources Manager or other biological resource professional upon public notice.
Anyone may nominate species for the list.)
C. Protect species of local concern through: its actions on land use designations, development
standards, development applications; the location, design, construction and maintenance of City
facilities; land that the City owns or manages.
D. Encourage individuals, organizations and other agencies to protect species of local concern within
their areas of responsibility and jurisdiction.
E. Protect sensitive habitat, including creeks, from encroachment by livestock and human activities.
Potentially Consistent. As described in Section 4.4,
Biological Resources, the project would have a potentially
significant but mitigable impact on sensitive habitats,
including riparian areas. Mitigation Measures BIO-2(a)
through BIO-2(c) would ensure that potential habitat impacts
would remain less than significant.
Refer to discussion of Conservation and Open Space
Element Policy 7.3.1 for a discussion of the project’s
potential impacts and mitigation for candidate, sensitive, or
special status species that may occur on the project site.
Policy 7.3.3: Wildlife habitat and corridors. Continuous wildlife habitat, including corridors free of
human disruption, shall be preserved and where necessary, created by interconnecting open spaces,
wildlife habitat and corridors. To accomplish this, the City will:
A. Require public and private developments, including public works projects, to evaluate animal
species and their movements within and through development sites and create habitats and corridors
appropriate for wildlife.
B. Plan for connectivity of open spaces and wildlife habitat and corridors using specific area plans,
neighborhood plans, subdivision maps or other applicable planning processes, consistent with Open
Space Guidelines.
C. Coordinate with San Luis Obispo County and adjoining jurisdictions, federal and state agencies
such as Caltrans to assure regional connectivity of open space and wildlife corridors.
D. Preserve and expand links between open spaces and creek corridors, as shown in Figure 3.
Potentially Consistent. Refer to discussion of Conservation
and Open Space Element Policy 7.3.2 for a discussion of
habitat protection, and sensitive species protection
measures.
In addition, as discussed in Section 4.4 Biological
Resources, the open agricultural lands on the project site do
not provide a corridor between other non-disturbed habitat.
Impacts to Prefumo Creek would be temporary, and this
existing wildlife corridor would not be removed or narrowed.
Therefore, no permanent impacts to wildlife movement are
expected.
Policy 7.5.1: Protection of Significant Trees. Significant trees, as determined by the City Council upon
the recommendation of the Tree Committee, Planning or Architectural Review Committee, are those
making substantial contributions to natural habitat or to the urban landscape due to their species, size,
or rarity. Significant trees, particularly native species, shall be protected. Removal of significant trees
Potentially Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.4,
Biological Resources, the project would result in potential
impacts to Great Blue Heron and Monarch Butterflies due
removal of the on-site eucalyptus trees which serve as
PC 1-127
Attachment 3
Table 4.9-1
Consistency with City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Plan, Policy, or Regulation Consistency Analysis
shall be subject to the criteria and mitigation requirements in Chapter 8.6.3. Oak Woodland
communities in the Greenbelt and in open space areas shall be protected.
overwintering habitat for these species. Mitigation Measures
BIO-1(f), BIO-1(h), and BIO-2(b) would ensure that impacts
to significant trees and the habitat they provide would remain
less than significant.
Policy 7.5.2: Use of Native California plants in urban landscaping. Landscaping should incorporate
native plant species, with selection appropriate for location.
Potentially Consistent. Design guidelines for residential and
commercial areas in the Specific Plan call for landscaping
that incorporates native plant species, in addition to edible
and other drought-tolerant plants.
Policy 7.5.3: Heritage Tree Program. The City will continue a program to designate and help protect
“heritage trees.”
Potentially Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.14, Issues
Addressed in the Initial Study; No heritage trees have been
identified in the project area.
Policy 7.5.5: Soil Conservation and Landform modification. Public and private development projects
shall be designed to prevent soil erosion, minimize landform modifications to avoid habitat disturbance
and conserve and reuse onsite soils.
Potentially Consistent. The Specific Plan includes Low
Impact Development and best management practices to
minimize landform modifications, avoid habitat disturbance,
and conserve and reuse on-site soils.
Policy 7.7.6 Replace Invasive, Non-Native Vegetation with Native Vegetation. The City and private
development will protect and enhance habitat by removing invasive, non-native vegetation that
detracts from habitat values and by replanting it with native California plant species. The Natural
Resources Manager will prioritize projects and enlist the help of properly trained volunteers to assist in
non-native vegetation removal and replanting when appropriate.
Potentially Consistent. Several eucalyptus trees that border
the developed area on the west and along Prefumo Creek
would be subject to cutting or thinning for development.
Direct impacts to species that rely on this habitat if the
species are present at the time of removal. As required in
Mitigation Measure BIO-1(f), as eucalyptus trees senesce,
they shall be replaced with native species. Native trees and
shrubs shall also be used to supplement gaps in canopy or
act as windbreaks.
Policy 7.7.7: Preserve Ecotones. Condition or modify development approvals to ensure that
“ecotones,” or natural transitions along the edges of different habitat types, are preserved and
enhanced because of their importance to wildlife. Natural ecotones of particular concern include those
along the margins of riparian corridors, marshlands, vernal pools and oak woodlands where they
transition to grasslands and other habitat types.
Potentially Consistent. The project site currently supports
limited ecotones as it primarily consists of open agricultural
fields, which border native habitats along Prefumo Creek.
Regular cultivation and other agricultural practices generally
eliminate habitat for burrowing animals, amphibian and
reptile species. Conservation and Open Space Element
Policy 8.3.2 requires buffers between resources and urban
uses using techniques such as planting and wildlife-
compatible fencing. Mitigation for sensitive species and
habitats included in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, would
address this policy.
PC 1-128
Attachment 3
Table 4.9-1
Consistency with City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Plan, Policy, or Regulation Consistency Analysis
Policy 7.7.8: Protect Wildlife Corridors. Condition development permits in accordance with applicable
mitigation measures to ensure that important corridors for wildlife movement and dispersal are
protected. Features of particular importance to wildlife include riparian corridors, wetlands, lake
shorelines, and protected natural areas with cover and water. Linkages and corridors shall be provided
to maintain connections between habitat areas.
Potentially Consistent. Refer to discussion of Land Use
Element Policies 1.13.8, 2.3.7, and 2.3.10.
Policy 7.7.9: Creek Setbacks. As further described in the zoning regulations (Section 17.16.025), the
City will maintain creek setbacks to include: an appropriate separation from the physical top of bank,
the appropriate floodway as identified in the Flood Management Policy, native riparian plants or wildlife
habitat and space for paths called for by any city-adopted plan. In addition, creek setbacks should be
consistent with the following:
• The following items should be no closer to the wetland or creek than the setback line: buildings,
streets, driveways, parking lots, aboveground utilities, and outdoor commercial storage or work
areas.
• Development approvals should respect the separation from creek banks and protection of
floodways and natural features identified in Part A above, whether or not the setback line has
been established.
• Features which normally would be outside the creek setback may be permitted to encroach where
there is no practical alternative, to allow reasonable development of a parcel, consistent with the
Conservation and Open Space Element.
• Existing bridges may be replaced or widened, consistent with policies in this Element. Removal of
any existing bridge or restoration of a channel to more natural conditions will provide for wildlife
corridors, traffic circulation, access, utilities and reasonable use of adjacent properties.
Potentially Consistent. Refer to the discussion under
Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 7.3.3 Wildlife
habitat and corridors above.
Open Space Policies
Policy 8.3.1: Open space within the urban area. The City will preserve the areas listed in Goal 8.2.2,
and will encourage individuals, organizations, and other agencies to do likewise. The City will
designate these areas as Open Space or Agriculture in the General Plan.
Potentially Consistent. Refer to the discussion of Land Use
Element Policy 1.4 above.
Policy 8.3.2: Open Space Buffers. When activities close to open space resources within or outside the
urban area could harm them, the City will require buffers between the activities and the resources.
Potentially Consistent. Refer to discussion of Open Space
and Conservation Element Policy 7.7.7.
Policy 8.6.3.: Required Mitigation. Loss or harm shall be mitigated to the maximum extent feasible.
Mitigation must at least comply with Federal and State requirements. Mitigation shall be implemented
and monitored in compliance with State and Federal requirements, by qualified professionals, and
shall be funded by the project applicant.
Any development that is allowed on a site designated as Open Space or Agriculture, or containing
open space resources, shall be designed to minimize its impact on open space values on the site and
on neighboring land.
1. Hillside development shall comply with the standards of the Land Use Element, including
minimization of grading for structures and access, and use of building forms, colors, and landscaping
Potentially Consistent. Although development under the
Specific Plan would convert existing prime agricultural land
on-site, development would be clustered to minimize
impacts to agriculture and open space. The project would
preserve approximately 53 acres of prime farmland on-site in
perpetuity, as well as approximately 7.67.4 acres in parks
and open space along Prefumo Creek and Cerro San Luis
Channel, while urban development would occur in the
northwest portion of the site. The agricultural preserve and
PC 1-129
Attachment 3
Table 4.9-1
Consistency with City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Plan, Policy, or Regulation Consistency Analysis
that are not visually intrusive. (See also Chapter 9.2.1)
2. Creek corridors, wetlands, grassland communities, other valuable habitat areas, archaeological
resources, agricultural land, and necessary buffers should be within their own parcel, rather than
divided among newly created parcels (Figure 8). Where creation of a separate parcel is not practical,
the resources shall be within an easement. The easement must clearly establish allowed uses and
maintenance responsibilities in furtherance of resource protection.
3. The City will encourage the County not to create new parcels within the greenbelt, with the
exception of those permitted under the County’s agriculture cluster incentive. Outside of cluster
districts, allowed parcel sizes within the greenbelt should be no smaller, and the number of dwellings
allowed on a parcel should be no greater than as designated in the September 2002 San Luis Obispo
Area Plan and related County codes.
open space would be located adjacent to the SLO City
Farm, minimizing impacts on the open space values of that
neighboring property. In addition, the Specific Plan would not
involve hillside development or the creation of new parcels
within the greenbelt.
As discussed in Section 4.2 Ag Resources, Mitigation
Measure AG-1 would reduce the impacts associated with the
conversion of Prime Farmland consistent with the intent of
Land Use Element Policy 1.9.2 and Conservation and Open
Space Element Policy 8.6.3.
Policy 8.7.2.C Enhance and Restore Open Space. Remove invasive, non-native species in natural
habitat areas, and prevent the introduction or spread of invasive, non-native species and pathogens.
Potentially Consistent. Refer to discussion of Open Space
and Conservation Policies 7.7.6 and 8.3.2. In addition,
project specific BMPs including maintenance activities
during the monitoring period, including weed removal and
irrigation as appropriate.
Views Policies
Policy 9.1.1: Preserve Natural and Agricultural Landscapes. The City will implement the following
policies and will encourage other agencies with jurisdiction to do likewise:
A. Natural and agricultural landscapes that the City has not designated for urban use shall be
maintained in their current patterns of use.
B. Any development that is permitted in natural or agricultural landscapes shall be visually subordinate
to and compatible with the landscape features. Development includes, but is not limited to buildings,
signs (including billboard signs), roads, utility and telecommunication lines and structures. Such
development shall:
1. Avoid visually prominent locations such as ridgelines, and slopes exceeding 20 percent.
2. Avoid unnecessary grading, vegetation removal, and site lighting.
3. Incorporate building forms, architectural materials, and landscaping, that respect the setting,
including the historical pattern of development in similar settings, and avoid stark contrasts with its
setting.
4. Preserve scenic or unique landforms, significant trees in terms of size, age, species or rarity, and
rock outcroppings.
C. The City’s non-emergency repair, maintenance, and small construction projects in highly visible
locations, such as hillsides and downtown creeks, where scenic resources could be affected, shall be
subject to at least “minor or incidental” architectural review.
Potentially Consistent. The project site is currently
designated for future urban use under the City’s Land Use
Element. Agricultural land and open space would be
clustered adjacent to U.S. 101 to preserve views of these
landscapes. No development would occur on visually
prominent locations, such as ridgelines. As discussed in
Impact AES-2 in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, the design features
of development in the project site would be consistent with
the visual character of surrounding residential and
commercial land uses. Development on-site would remove
scenic resources by thinning groves of mature eucalyptus
trees that shield views from Madonna Road and nearby
residences. With the removal of these trees, residents would
foreground views of high-density residential development.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1(a)
BIO-2(b) would require replacement of trees on-site where
feasible, which would in order to screen development from
neighbors’ views. With maturity, these trees would mitigate
for the loss of scenic resources.
PC 1-130
Attachment 3
Table 4.9-1
Consistency with City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Plan, Policy, or Regulation Consistency Analysis
Policy 9.1.4: Streetscapes and Major Roadways. In the acquisition, design, construction or significant
modification of major roadways (highways/regional routes and arterial streets), the City will promote
the creation of “streetscapes” and linear scenic parkways or corridors that promote the City’s visual
quality and character, enhance adjacent uses, and integrate roadways with surrounding districts. To
accomplish this, the City will:
A. Establish streetscape design standards for major roadways.
B. Encourage the creation and maintenance median planters and widened parkway plantings.
C. Retain mature trees in the public right-of-way.
D. Emphasize the planting and maintenance of California Native tree species of sufficient height,
spread, form and horticultural characteristics to create the desired streetscape canopy, shade,
buffering from adjacent uses, and other desired streetscape characteristics, consistent with the Tree
Ordinance or as recommended by the Tree Committee or as approved by the Architectural Review
Commission.
E. Encourage the use of water-conserving landscaping, street furniture, decorative lighting and paving,
arcaded walkways, public art, and other pedestrian-oriented features to enhance the streetscape
appearance, comfort and safety.
F. Encourage and where possible, require undergrounding of overhead utility lines and structures.
Potentially Consistent. The project does not include
modification of any major roadways (highways/regional
routes and arterial streets). Mitigation described in Section
4.12, Transportation, would require the project to pay its fair-
share contribution toward the development of an interchange
or overcrossing at Prado Road and U.S. 101. This
improvement would be required to comply with all applicable
City standards for streetscape design, plantings, tree
protection, landscaping, and utility lines in structures at the time
the improvement is completed.
Policy 9.2.1: Views to and from public places, including scenic roadways.
The City will preserve and improve views of important scenic resources from public places, and
encourage other agencies with jurisdiction to do so. Public places include parks, plazas, the grounds
of civic buildings, streets and roads, and publicly accessible open space. In particular, the route
segments shown in Figure 11 are designated as scenic roadways.
A. Development projects shall not wall off scenic roadways and block views.
B. Utilities, traffic signals, and public and private signs and lights shall not intrude on or clutter views,
consistent with safety needs.
C. Where important vistas of distant landscape features occur along streets, street trees shall be
clustered to facilitate viewing of the distant features.
D. Development projects, including signs, in the viewshed of a scenic roadway shall be considered
“sensitive” and require architectural review.
Policy 9.3.6: View blockage along scenic highways. Determine that view blockage along scenic
roadways is a significant impact.
Potentially Consistent. The proposed Specific Plan proposes
to maintain agriculture and open space along U.S. 101,
reducing the visual change from this high scenic value
corridor. The proposed commercial and residential
development would be visually consistent with adjacent land
uses to the north and west. Views from Madonna Road
would change substantially with the replacement of the
existing eucalyptus trees with multi-family residential
development. However, based on surrounding development
on the south side of Madonna Road, viewer expectations
along this roadway are generally of suburban and
commercial uses. The proposed multi-family residential
development along this approximately 800-foot segment of
Madonna Road would be consistent with the surrounding
development along the south side of the roadway, and would
provide a visual transition from suburban residential uses
west of the project site frontage to commercial uses east of
the project site frontage. Also refer to the discussion of
Policy 9.1.1 with regard to views of scenic resources and
views from U.S. 101. Where proposed commercial
development would obstruct foreground views from the
highway, implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1(b)
PC 1-131
Attachment 3
Table 4.9-1
Consistency with City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Plan, Policy, or Regulation Consistency Analysis
would require landscaping to screen commercial structures
from public view. In addition, the ARC would review and
approve the design for proposed buildings, examining the
layout, building design, its relationship to the neighborhood
in which it would be located, landscaping, parking, signage,
lighting, and other features affecting the project’s
appearance.
Water Policies
Policy 10.2.2: Ahwahnee Water Principles. In planning for its water operations, programs and services,
the City will be guided by the Ahwahnee Water Principles and will encourage individuals,
organizations, and other agencies to follow these policies:
A. Community design should be compact, mixed use, walkable and transit-oriented so that
automobile-generated urban runoff pollutants are minimized and the open lands that absorb water are
preserved to the maximum extent possible.
B. Natural resources such as wetlands, flood plains, recharge zones, riparian areas, open space, and
native habitats should be identified, preserved and restored as valued assets for flood protection,
water quality improvement, groundwater recharge, habitat, and overall long-term water resource
sustainability.
C. Water holding areas such as creekbeds, recessed athletic fields, ponds, cisterns, and other
features that serve to recharge groundwater, reduce runoff, improve water quality and decrease
flooding should be incorporated into the urban landscape.
D. All aspects of landscaping from the selection of plants to soil preparation and the installation of
irrigation systems should be designed to reduce water demand, retain runoff, decrease flooding, and
recharge groundwater.
E. Permeable surfaces should be used for hardscape. Impervious surfaces such as driveways, streets,
and parking lots should be minimized so that land is available to absorb storm water, reduce polluted
urban runoff, recharge groundwater and reduce flooding.
F. Dual plumbing that allows grey water from showers, sinks and washers to be reused for landscape
irrigation should be included in the infrastructure of new development, consistent with State guidelines.
G. Community design should maximize the use of recycled water for appropriate applications including
outdoor irrigation, toilet flushing, and commercial and industrial processes. Purple pipe should be
installed in all new construction and remodeled buildings in anticipation of the future availability of
recycled water.
H. Urban water conservation technologies such as low-flow toilets, efficient clothes washers, and more
efficient water-using industrial equipment should be incorporated in all new construction and retrofitted
in remodeled buildings.
I. Ground water treatment and brackish water desalination should be pursued when necessary to
maximize locally available, drought-proof water supplies.
Potentially Consistent. The Specific Plan would allow for
compact, mixed use, walkable, and transit-oriented
development, and would preserve open space in riparian
areas. As discussed in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water
Quality, landscaping would include native and drought-
tolerant plants to reduce water demand. As discussed in
Section 4.13, Water Resources, the water supply would be
sufficient to serve anticipated water demand in the Specific
Plan Area.
PC 1-132
Attachment 3
Table 4.9-1
Consistency with City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Plan, Policy, or Regulation Consistency Analysis
Safety Element
Policy 2.1. Policy S: Flood Hazard Avoidance and Reduction.
E. Within new development areas, such as the potential expansion areas shown in Figure 2 of the
Land Use Element, substantial displacement of flood waters should be avoided by:
1. Keeping a substantial amount of flood-prone land in the vicinity as open space;
2. Enlarging man-made bottlenecks, such as culverts, which contribute to flood waters backing up
from them;
3. Accommodating in such places uses which have relatively low ratios of building coverage to site
area, for which shallow flooding of parking and landscape areas would cause minimum damage.
4. Requiring new buildings to be constructed above the 100-year flood level.
Potentially Consistent. As discussed in Impact HWQ-2 in
Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Specific Plan
Area is located partly within a 100-year floodplain. However,
residential development would be located in the portion of
the site that is not within the 100-year flood plain.
Compliance with local flood management measures
including Special Floodplain Management Zone Regulation
and the City Waterways Management Plan would minimize
the impact of placing structures within the 100-year flood
plain.
Policy S 3.0: Adequate Fire Services. Development shall be approved only when adequate fire
suppression services and facilities are available or will be made available concurrent with
development, considering the setting, type, intensity, and form of the proposed development.
Potentially Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.14, Issues
Addressed in the Initial Study, the project site would be
adequately served by the City’s existing fire protection
services. The project site is an infill site and not directly
adjacent to any wildlands. Project plans would be required to
be evaluated by the Fire Marshal and comply with applicable
Uniform Fire Code, CBC, and General Plan policies.
Additionally, a Fire Flow Analysis was prepared for the
project on March 18, 2016 by Cannon and determined that
the San Luis Ranch water system would be able to meet the
required fire flow and pressures throughout the site.
Policy 4.7. Avoiding Liquefaction Hazards. Development may be located in areas of high liquefaction
potential only if a site-specific investigation by a qualified professional determines that the proposed
development will not be at risk of damage from liquefaction. The Chief Building Official may waive this
requirement upon determining that previous studies in the immediate area provide sufficient
information.
Potentially Consistent. According to the Safety Element of
the City’s General Plan, the project site has been identified
as being located in an area of very high liquefaction
potential. However, as discussed in Section 4.14, Issues
Addressed in the Initial Study, Mitigation Measures GEO-1
and GEO-3 require that new buildings and roadway
infrastructure are designed to minimize hazards from ground
motion and liquefaction.
Policy 5.2: Minimizing Hazardous Materials Exposure. People’s exposure to hazardous substances
should be minimized.
Potentially Consistent. The proposed residential and
commercial land uses included in the San Luis Ranch
Specific Plan would not involve the transport, use, or
disposal of substantial amounts of hazardous substances.
Enforcement of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act,
laws and regulations to track and manage the safe interstate
transportation of hazardous materials and waste, and rapid
response by local agencies would ensure that hazards to the
PC 1-133
Attachment 3
Table 4.9-1
Consistency with City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Plan, Policy, or Regulation Consistency Analysis
public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment and/or associated with
hazardous emissions or materials near schools would
remain less than significant. Additionally, with
implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-4, AG-3, HAZ-
5(a), HAZ-5(b) and HAZ-6, impacts related to exposure to
residual agricultural chemicals, PCE, and NOA would be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Policy S 6.0: Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields. Land-use decisions should avoid prolonged
exposure of people to strong electromagnetic fields. Appropriate uses for areas under or next to high-
voltage power transmission lines are agriculture, floodwater detention, roads, parking, materials
storage, and parks and greenways with low-intensity use. Residential yards may be located along but
outside of high‐voltage power transmission line easements. School buildings and playgrounds,
residential buildings, and work places should be set back from high-voltage power transmission lines.
The amount of setback will be a matter of judgment, considering the space available in which to locate
uses within the site being planned.
Policy S 6.1: Notification to Buyers Near Electromagnetic Fields. When land containing major sources
of electromagnetic fields, such as power transmission lines, is subdivided, the City will determine if a
condition will be imposed requiring notification of prospective buyers that a source of electromagnetic
fields exists and that studies have raised concerns about long‐term exposure.
Potentially Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.14, Issues
Addressed in the Initial Study, there are overhead
transmission lines in the vicinity of the project site. However,
these lines are elevated such that they are not close enough
to pose a risk to residents and other users of the project site
associated with electromagnetic fields.
Policy S 7.0: Uses in the Airport Land Use Plan Area. Development should be permitted only if it is
consistent with the requirements of the California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code §21670,
et. seq.), guidance from the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, other related federal and
state requirements relating to airport land use compatibility planning, and the San Luis Obispo County
Regional Airport Land Use Plan unless the City overrules a determination of inconsistency in
accordance with Section 21676.5 et. seq. of the Public Utilities Code. Prospective buyers of property
that is subject to airport influence should be so informed.
Potentially Consistent. Refer to the discussion of Land Use
Element Policies 7.3 through 7.5 with regard to airport land
use compatibility and compliance with applicable
regulations. As discussed in Impact LU-4, although the
project would conflict with the ALUP’s density standards,
based on this analysis the 2014 Airport Land Use
Compatibility Report, airport land use planning impacts to
future residents and commercial employees or patrons the
project would be consistent with the City’s Airport Safety
Zones. The Specific Plan’s uses are consistent with the
applicable Airport Master Plan, California State Aeronautics
Act and CALUPH standards and guidelines, as well as the
City’s safety and noise standards related to the airport.
PC 1-134
Attachment 3
Table 4.9-1
Consistency with City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Plan, Policy, or Regulation Consistency Analysis
Policy 9.13. Emergency Access and Evacuation. Substantial development will be allowed only where
multiple routes of road access can be provided, consistent with other General Plan policies on
development location and open space protection. “Substantial development” means industrial,
commercial, and institutional uses, multifamily housing, and more than ten single-family dwellings.
”Multiple routes” include vehicle connections that provide emergency access only, as well as public
and private streets.
Potentially Consistent. As discussed in Impact HAZ-5 in
Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the San Luis
Ranch development includes a circulation plan that would
ensure adequate public and emergency vehicular access.
Parks and Recreation Element
Policy 3.13.1. The City shall develop and maintain a park system at the rate of 10 acres of parkland
per 1,000 residents. Five acres shall be dedicated as a neighborhood park. The remaining five acres
required under the 10 acres per 1000 residents in the residential annexation policy may be located
anywhere within the City’s park system as deemed appropriate.
Policy 3.14.4. New significant residential developments and annexations, shall provide sufficient
athletic fields to meet the demands of the youth who will reside in the development.
Potentially Consistent. The Specific Plan would include
playground and recreational spaces to serve residents.
Refer to Section 4.12, Recreation.
Policy 3.15.1. San Luis Obispo residents shall have access to a neighborhood park within .5 to 1.0
mile walking distance of their residence.
Potentially Consistent. The project includes a central park
area that would provide residents with access to a park
within 0.5 to 1.0 mile walking distance.
Policy 3.15.3. All residential annexation areas shall provide developed neighborhood parks at the rate
of 5 acres per 1000 residents.
Policy 5.0.2. For annexation areas, at least 10 acres of developed parkland for each 1000 new
residents shall be provided by the developer.
Potentially Consistent. The Specific Plan would comply with
the City's neighborhood park requirement. Refer to Section
4.12, Recreation.
Policy 3.20.6. Open space and parks shall be connected where possible by trails or bike paths. Potentially Consistent. As shown in Figure 2-8 in Section
2.0, Project Description, proposed parks in the project site
would be connected by an internal multi-modal network that
includes trails and bike paths.
Water and Wastewater Element
Policy A 5.2.5. Paying for Water for New Development. New development shall pay its proportionate
or “fair share” for water supplies, expanded treatment and distribution system capacity and upgrades.
Policy B 2.2.3. Wastewater Service for New Development. New development shall pay its
proportionate or “fair share” of expanded treatment and collection system capacity and upgrades. New
development will only be permitted if adequate capacity is available within the wastewater collection
system and/or Water Reclamation Facility.
Potentially Consistent. New development in the Specific
Plan area would be required to pay its fair share for the
provision of water supplies and water and wastewater
infrastructure.
Policy B 2.2.2: Service Capacity. The City's wastewater collection system and Water Reclamation
Facility shall support population and related service demands consistent with the General Plan.
Potentially Consistent. The project includes development of
water, wastewater, and storm water infrastructure to connect
the project to existing City infrastructure. With the proposed
infrastructure, the project would be adequately served by the
City’s sewer and water systems. The City’s Water Resource
PC 1-135
Attachment 3
Table 4.9-1
Consistency with City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Plan, Policy, or Regulation Consistency Analysis
Recovery Facility (WRRF) processes wastewater in
accordance with the standards set by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The WRRF is designed for
an average dry weather flow capacity of 5.1 million gallons
per day (MGD) and a peak wet weather flow capacity of 22
MGD. The Land Use and Circulation Elements Update EIR
determined that the project, in combination with other
specific plan development in the City, would generate
approximately 0.32 MGD of wastewater or approximately 20
percent of the WRRF dry weather flow capacity and 1.7
percent of the WRRF wet weather flow capacity.
PC 1-136
Attachment 3
As shown in Table 4.9-1, the project would be potentially inconsistent with San Luis Obispo
City General Plan policies designed to protect historical resources, and ensure adequate
multimodal transportation levels of service.
Mitigative Components of the Specific Plan and Impact Conclusion. The San Luis Ranch
Specific Plan includes a mix of residential, commercial, and office uses while preserving
substantial areas of open space and agriculture on a 131.3-acre property. The project site is
currently outside the City, but within its Sphere of Influence and Urban Reserve Line, and
would require annexation. The Specific Plan and related actions would allow for the
development of the San Luis Ranch area as identified in the City’s General Plan as Special Focus
Area SP-2. The intent is for the project to be consistent with the development parameters
described in the General Plan. The Specific Plan is potentially consistent with most principles
and policies found in the City’s General Plan, with incorporation of mitigation measures
included in Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis. However, it is also inconsistent with
some of the principles and policies, specifically Land Use Element Policy 1.10.4 (Design
Standards), Land Use Element Policy 8.1.4 (SP-2, San Luis Ranch (Dalidio) Specific Plan Area),
and Conservation and Open Space Element 3.3.2 (Demolitions). The physical impacts on the
environment associated with Specific Plan implementation are detailed in Section 4.0,
Environmental Impact Analysis.
Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures described in Section 4.0, Environmental
Impact Analysis, would ensure that several potential conflicts between the San Luis Obispo City
General Plan and the Specific Plan would be reduced to the maximum extent feasible. The
following Mitigation Measures would apply to this impact:
• Section 4.1, Aesthetics: AES-1(a) and AES-1(b)
• Section 4.2, Agricultural Resources: AG-1, AG-3
• Section 4.4, Biological Resources: BIO-1(a) through BIO-1(h) and BIO-2(a) through BIO-2(c)
• Section 4.5, Cultural Resources: CR-1(a) through CR-1(c)
• Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials: HAZ-4, HAZ-5(a), HAZ-5(b), HAZ-6
• Section 4.10, Noise: N-1(a) through N-1(g), N-4(a), N-4(b), N-5(a) through N-5(d)
• Section 4.12, Transportation and Circulation: T-1(a) through T-1(i), T-2(a) through T-2(j), T-
3(a) through T-3(d), T-4, T-5, T-6, T-7, T-8(a) through T-8(g), T-9(a) through T-9(m), T-
10(a) through T-10(c)
• Section 4.14, Issues Addressed in the Initial Study: GEO-1, GEO-3
Residual Impacts. Implementation of mitigation measures identified in Section 4 of this
EIR would reduce impacts to the extent feasible. However, Specific Plan conflicts with Land Use
Element Policy 1.10.4 (Design Standards), Land Use Element Policy 8.1.4 (SP-2, San Luis Ranch
(Dalidio) Specific Plan Area), and Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 3.3.2
(Demolitions) would remain potentially inconsistent. The City acknowledges the importance
and breadth of the potential inconsistencies associated with the Specific Plan by finding them to
be Class I, significant and unavoidable impacts.
PC 1-137
Attachment 3
Threshold 2 Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, clean air plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Impact LU-2 The Specific Plan would be potentially consistent with LAFCO
policies for annexation. This impact would be Class II, less than
significant with mitigation incorporated.
The San Luis Obispo LAFCO is responsible for reviewing and approving proposed
jurisdictional boundary changes in San Luis Obispo County, including the City’s proposed
annexation of the San Luis Ranch property from the County. In addition to the requirements of
the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act, the San Luis Obispo LAFCO has adopted local policies that it
considers in its review of projects. LAFCO policies applicable to the project pertain to the
location of land to be annexed, affordable housing, agricultural resources, and public services.
The San Luis Obispo LAFCO encourages cities to annex unincorporated islands, prefers urban
development within cities, and favors proposals that are supported by a community’s long-
range vision for its growth and development. Table 4.9-2 discusses the Specific Plan’s
preliminary consistency with applicable LAFCO policies related to city annexations and
agricultural land.
Table 4.9-2
Preliminary Consistency with LAFCO Policies for Annexation and Agricultural Land
Policy Consistency Analysis
Policies for City Annexations
1. The boundaries of a proposed annexation must be
definite and certain and must conform to lines of
assessment whenever possible.
Potentially Consistent. The proposed annexation would
include the area within the existing 131-acre San Luis
Ranch property, an agricultural parcel envisioned in the
City Land Use Element for agricultural and urban mixed
use that is surrounded by incorporated City of San Luis
Obispo land
2. The boundaries of an area to be annexed will not result
in any areas difficult to serve.
Potentially Consistent. The project site is surrounded by
urban development to the north, south, west, and east,
which is served by existing City infrastructure.
Therefore, the annexed area would not be difficult to
serve.
3. There is a demonstrated need for governmental
services and controls in the area proposed for annexation.
Potentially Consistent. The proposed mixed-use
development would include 580 residential units
including affordable housing, 9.5 acres of commercial
uses, 3.8 acres of office uses, 3.5 acres of hotel and
conference center uses, and 5.7 acres of new and
extended roadways. This development would require
government services and controls.
4. The municipality has the resources capable of meeting
the need for services in the area proposed for annexation
and has submitted studies and information documenting
its ability to serve.
Potentially Consistent. The project applicant would be
required to pay fair share development impact fees that
would provide for improved services as necessary. The
Specific Plan is consistent with the City’s General Plan
and service facilities have been planned to meet the
additional service demand. The environmental impacts
of such facilities were addressed in the LUCE Update
EIR. Additionally, a Fire Flow Analysis has been
PC 1-138
Attachment 3
Table 4.9-2
Preliminary Consistency with LAFCO Policies for Annexation and Agricultural Land
Policy Consistency Analysis
prepared for the project and determined that the San
Luis Ranch water system would be able to meet the
required fire flow and pressures throughout the site.
Plans for project-related public improvement will be
consistent with the key City financing policies including
those concerning impact fees, debt financing, and
capital improvements.
5. There is a mutual social and economic community of
interest between the residents of the municipality and the
proposed territory.
Potentially Consistent. The Specific Plan would assist in
meeting the City’s needs for market-rate and affordable
housing, while providing neighborhood-serving
commercial uses.
6. The proposed annexation is compatible with the
municipality’s general plan. The proposed annexation
represents a logical and reasonable expansion of the
annexing municipality.
Potentially Consistent. The proposed annexation is
supported by the City’s long-range vision for its growth
and development. It is intended under the City’s
existing land use designation of San Luis Ranch
Specific Plan for the project site, which assumes future
annexation of the site. It is also compatible with Land
Use Element Policies 1.13.8 and 8.1.4 in the Land Use
Element, which assume the development of a mixed-
use project and preservation of open space on an
annexed project site.
7. The Commission shall determine if a disadvantaged
unincorporated community is associated with an
application. If a disadvantaged unincorporated community
does exist, the procedures for processing the annexation
as outlined in the CKH Act shall be implemented.
Potentially Consistent. The project site does not have
any existing occupied housing and is not associated
with a disadvantaged unincorporated community. As
described in Section 4.14, Issues Addressed in the
Initial Study, no existing homes or residents would be
displaced within the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan area
as a result of project implementation
Agricultural Policies
1. Vacant land within urban areas should be developed
before agricultural land is annexed for non-agricultural
purposes.
3. In general, urban development should be discouraged
in agricultural areas. For example, agricultural land should
not be annexed for nonagricultural purposes when
feasible alternatives exist. Large lot rural development that
places pressure on a jurisdiction to provide services and
causes agricultural areas to be infeasible for farming
should be discouraged.
Potentially Consistent. While the project would involve
annexation of agricultural land for development, the site
is already surrounded by urban development to the
north, west, and east. Furthermore, the site is not
located within the City’s greenbelt, which covers
agricultural land outside of the urban area. However,
development within the Specific Plan Area would be
clustered to preserve approximately 53 acres of the
site in agricultural use by (refer to Section 4.2,
Agricultural Resources).
2. Land substantially surrounded by existing jurisdictional
boundaries should be annexed before other lands.
Potentially Consistent. The project site is an
unincorporated island that is surrounded on all sides by
the City of San Luis Obispo City.
4. The Memorandum of Agreement between a city and the
County should be used and amended as needed to
address the impacts on and conversion of Agricultural
Lands on the fringe of a city.
Potentially Consistent. The property to be annexed is
located within the boundaries of the City’s Sphere of
Influence, as documented by the Memorandum of
Agreement between the City and LAFCO which was
adopted in 2005. The approach of this memorandum is
to ensure close coordination and cooperation between
the City and County on the future planning and
development of the areas within the City’s SOI
boundary. Consistent with the memorandum,
developers in the Specific Plan area would be required
to pay their fair share of mitigation and impact fees.
PC 1-139
Attachment 3
Table 4.9-2
Preliminary Consistency with LAFCO Policies for Annexation and Agricultural Land
Policy Consistency Analysis
Mitigation described in Section 4.12,
Transportation/Traffic, would require the project to pay
its fair-share contribution toward the development of an
interchange or overcrossing at Prado Road and U.S.
101. Development projects in the Specific Plan Area
would be required to pay school impact fees
established to offset potential impacts on school
facilities. In addition, impact fees collected at the time
building permits are issued would pay for sewer
capacity at the City’s Water Recovery and Reclamation
Facility (WRRF).
5. The continued productivity and sustainability of
agricultural land surrounding existing communities should
be promoted by preventing the premature conversion of
agricultural land to other uses and, to the extent feasible,
minimizing conflicts between agricultural and other land
uses. Buffers should be established to promote this policy.
6. Development near agricultural land should not
adversely affect the sustainability or constrain the lawful,
responsible practices of the agricultural operations.
Potentially Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.2,
Agricultural Resources, the project would result in the
direct conversion of approximately 56 59 acres of
prime farmland to non-agricultural use; however, the
project would contribute to the protection of
agricultural land within the urban reserve by
preserving approximately 53 acres of prime farmland
on-site in perpetuity, as well as approximately 7.67.4
acres in parks and open space, and would be
consistent with applicable General Plan Land Use
Element policies related to agricultural preservation.
The Specific Plan would minimize conflicts with existing
adjacent agricultural land by preserving farmland
adjacent to the SLO City Farm. In addition, the Specific
Plan would establish a 72-foot buffer between new
residences and agricultural land on the project site.
While agricultural buffers are typically 100 feet wide in
the County, this buffer is intended to maximize the
amount of land available for agricultural cultivation. As
discussed in Section 4.2, Agricultural Resources,
Mitigation Measure AG-3, Agricultural Conflict
Avoidance Measures, includes City-approved
measures to reduce availability of public access to
agricultural cultivation areas adjacent to the project site
(e.g., fencing, signs, etc.).
7. In considering the completeness and appropriateness
of any proposal, the Executive Officer and this
Commission may require proponents and other interested
parties to provide such information and analysis as, in
their judgment, will assist in an informed and reasoned
evaluation of the proposal in accordance with these
policies.
Potentially Consistent. The project applicant would
provide information to LAFCO as needed to assist its
evaluation of the project’s agricultural impacts.
8. No change of organization, as defined by Government
Code 56021, shall be approved unless it is consistent with
the Spheres of Influence of all affected agencies.
Potentially Consistent. The project site is located within
the City’s Sphere of Influence.
9. Where feasible, and consistent with LAFCO policies,
non-prime land should be annexed before prime land.
10. The Commission will consider feasible mitigation
(found in the following guidelines) if a proposal would
result in the loss of agricultural land.
12. The Commission may approve annexations of prime
agricultural land only if mitigation that equates to a
Potentially Consistent. Although the project would
convert approximately 56 59 acres of prime farmland to
non-agricultural use within the proposed annexation
area, it would the project would contribute to the
protection of agricultural land within the urban reserve
by preserving approximately 53 acres of prime
farmland on-site in perpetuity, and would mitigate for
the loss of prime farmland by preserving on-site and off-
PC 1-140
Attachment 3
Table 4.9-2
Preliminary Consistency with LAFCO Policies for Annexation and Agricultural Land
Policy Consistency Analysis
substitution ratio of at least 1:1 for the prime land to be
converted from agricultural use is agreed to by the
applicant (landowner), the jurisdiction with land use
authority. The 1:1 substitution ratio may be met by
implementing various measures:
a. Acquisition and dedication of farmland, development
rights, and/or agricultural conservation easements to
permanently protect farmlands within the annexation
area or lands with similar characteristics within the
County Planning Area.
b. Payment of in-lieu fees to an established, qualified,
mitigation/conservation program or organization
sufficient to fully fund the acquisition and dedication
activities stated above in 12a.
c. Other measures agreed to by the applicant and the
land use jurisdiction that meet the intent of replacing
prime agricultural land at a 1:1 ratio.
site prime farmland (refer to Section 4.2, Agricultural
Resources). Approximately 53 acres of prime farmland
would be preserved on-site. The project also includes a
commitment to procure an off-site agricultural
conservation easement/deed restriction, such that the
equivalent of 50 percent of the site acreage would be
preserved. Mitigation Measure AG-1, Agricultural
Conservation, would ensure that for every one acre of
Important Farmland (Prime Farmland, Farmland of
Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland) on the
site that would be permanently converted to non-
agricultural use as a result of project development, one
acre of land of comparable agricultural productivity shall
be preserved in perpetuity.
11. The Commission encourages local agencies to adopt
policies that result in efficient, coterminous and logical
growth patterns within their General Plan and Sphere of
Influence areas and that encourage protection of prime
agricultural land in a manner that is consistent with this
Policy.
Potentially Consistent. Because the project site is
surrounded by incorporated land and bounded by
urban developed to the west, north, and east, the
proposed annexation would result in an efficient,
coterminous, and logical growth pattern. The project
would also contribute to the protection of agricultural
land within the urban reserve by preserving
approximately 53 acres of prime farmland on-site in
perpetuity, and by mitigating for the conversion of such
land to urban development.
13. Property owners of agricultural lands adjacent to a
LAFCO proposal shall be notified when an application is
submitted to LAFCO.
Potentially Consistent. When the application for
annexation is submitted to LAFCO, the property owners
of SLO City Farm, which is located adjacent to the
project site, would be notified.
As shown in Table 4.9-2, the project would be potentially consistent with LAFCO policies for
City annexations and agricultural resources, with implementation of Mitigation Measures AG-1
and AG-3 described in Section 4.2, Agricultural Resources. In addition, LAFCO requires
demonstration of the availability of an adequate, reliable, and sustainable water supply. As
discussed in Impact WR-1 in Section 4.13, Water Resources, it is estimated that the project would
generate a water demand of 184.7 acre-feet per year (AFY), including implementation of water
conservation measures. This water demand would represent 3.0 percent of the City’s current
surplus of 7,201 AFY in water supply above current demand levels. Accordingly, the City
currently has sufficient water supply to provide potable water to the project.
Mitigative Components of the Specific Plan and Impact Conclusion. Consistent with LAFCO
policies, the project site is an unincorporated island surrounded by City land and is designated
for future mixed-use development under a specific plan in the City’s General Plan. LAFCO also
requires consideration of impacts on affordable housing. By providing for a maximum of 80
units that are affordable by design, the Specific Plan would increase the supply of affordable
housing in the City without displacing existing affordable units. In addition, the project
includes a commitment to procure an off-site agricultural conservation easement/deed
restriction, such that the equivalent of 50 percent of the site acreage would be preserved.
Therefore, the project would be consistent with LAFCO’s applicable general policies, and this
PC 1-141
Attachment 3
impact would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures AG-1 and
AG-3 described in Section 4.2, Agricultural Resources.
Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures AG-1 and AG-3 described in Section 4.2,
Agricultural Resources, would ensure that the Specific Plan would not result in conflicts between
the San Luis Obispo LAFCO agricultural policies and the Specific Plan. No further mitigation is
required in order to reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Residual Impacts. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AG-1 and AG-3 described in
Section 4.2, Agricultural Resources, would ensure that this impact would remain less than
significant.
Threshold 2 Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, clean air plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Impact LU-3 The Specific Plan would be consistent with the land use strategy
in SLOCOG’s 2014 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy. This impact would be Class III, less than
significant.
Due to the 131-acre size of the project site and the scale of proposed development, the Specific
Plan would be considered a “regionally significant” project that merits analysis for consistency
with the regional land use strategy in SLOCOG’s 2014 RTP/SCS. The SCS element of this
transportation plan describes the “preferred growth scenario” for the next two decades, as
identified by the SLOCOG Board. This scenario is intended to decrease strain on natural
resources, reduce the amount of travel and GHG emissions, improve air quality, and promote
public health by supplying more efficient options for transportation and housing. Consistent
with the preferred growth scenario, the SCS envisions focusing new growth within Target
Development Areas (TDAs) in existing urbanized areas. The project site is located within the
Central County TDA in the greater San Luis Obispo area, and SCS is generally consistent with
the existing General Plan Land Use Element designation for the site.
Mitigative Components of the Specific Plan and Impact Conclusion. The Specific Plan area is
part of an existing urbanized area. As a result, the project would allow for efficient development
that minimizes increases in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and associated motor vehicle GHG
emissions. The project includes mixed uses and workforce housing to balance jobs and housing.
The project also emphasizes bikeways, pedestrian, and transit connections, all of which
contribute to reduced VMT. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the land use
strategy in the 2014 RTP/SCS, and this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Residual Impacts. This impact would be less than significant without mitigation.
PC 1-142
Attachment 3
Threshold 2 Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, clean air plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Impact LU-4 The Specific Plan would allow residential and non-residential
land uses consistent with density and use restrictions in the
City’s Airport Safety Zones, which represent the extent of
Airport-related safety hazard zones for people residing or
working in these areas. The LUCE Update EIR provided
substantial evidence that the development of the San Luis
Ranch Specific Plan Area under the updated General Plan land
use designations would be consistent with ALUP safety and
noise standards. The project would not conflict with land use
policies intended to prevent airport-related safety hazards.
Therefore, this impact would be Class III, less than significant.
As discussed in Impact HAZ-8 in Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project would
result in construction of up to 580 residential units, 150,000 square feet of commercial
development, 100,000 square feet of office development, and a 200-room hotel with an
associated increase of 1,293 new residents in the vicinity of the approaches to Runway 11-29 at
the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. The project site is within CALUPH Airport
Safety Zones 4 and 6 and ALUP Safety Areas Safety Area S-1b and S-2 (refer to Figures 4.7-1
and 4.7-2 in Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials).
As shown in Figure 4.7-1 in Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the majority of the
project site (approximately 119 acres) is within Safety Area S-1b in the ALUP. Safety Area S-1b
identifies an outer approach/departure zone for the airport and allows a maximum non-
residential development intensity of 75 persons per acre and a maximum residential
development density of 0.2 units per acre. Approximately 16 acres in the northwest portion of
the project site is located within Safety Area S-2, which allows six dwelling units per acre with
an approved ACOS plan. The proposed residential development within Safety Area S-1b would
exceed the ALUP’s maximum development intensities for residential and non-residential uses.
The 2014 Airport Land Use Compatibility Report prepared by Johnson Aviation (refer to
Appendix I) in support of the City’s recent Land Use and Circulation update process and the
LUCE Update EIR, analyzed potential airport hazards and includes recommendations to update
safety and hazards planning around the Airport based on guidance from the CALUPH and
other sources. The CALUPH describes the characteristics of “ideal” safety zones such as “easily
definable geometric shapes,” a limited number of five or six zones, a distinct progression in the
degree of safety risk farther from the runway, providing that “each zone should be as compact
as possible.” The Land Use Element and associated Airport Safety Zones implement these
suggested standards by identifying six revised safety zones that consist of clearly justified and
compact geometric shapes that represent distinct progression in the degree of safety risk farther
from the runway. These Airport Safety Zones are supported by Land Use Element and
Circulation Element policies, programs, and development standards consistent with those
guidelines.
PC 1-143
Attachment 3
As shown in Figure 4.7-2 in Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the southeast portion of
the project site along U.S. 101 is located within CALUPH Airport Safety Zones 4 and 6. Airport
Safety Zone 4 allows for non-residential development intensity of up to 200 persons per acre
and allows for residential infill at up to the average of surrounding residential areas. The project
would involve residential development similar in density to existing residential uses to the west
and non-residential development similar in density to existing commercial uses to the north.
Airport Safety Zone 6 has no limits for non-residential development intensity, but suggests
avoidance of large stadiums and similar uses. Airport Safety Zone 6 has no limit for residential
development intensity, but suggests consideration of aircraft noise during such development.
Consistent with these restrictions, no residential development is proposed within the portion of
the project site located in Airport Safety Zone 4 and no residential or commercial development
is proposed for the portion of the site in Airport Safety Zone 6. The eastern portion of the project
site along U.S. 101 that is within Airport Safety Zone 6 would be preserved for agricultural use.
The remainder of the project site is not located with an Airport Safety Zone, as defined by the
CALUPH. Therefore, development on the project site would be consistent with the restrictions
specified in the CALUPH for the Airport Safety Zones and consistent with additional statewide
safety standards for new development evaluated in the LUCE Update EIR.
Although the project would conflict with the ALUP’s density standards, it is consistent with the
City’s Airport Safety Zones. The reasons for this discrepancy in approach to safety zone
mapping are related to use of more updated and sophisticated mapping techniques for creation
of the CALUPH Airport Safety Zones compared to the ALUP Safety Areas, which were first
mapped in 1973 with a limited update in 2005. The City Council found during its review of
airport compatibility for the LUCE Update that the 2014 Airport Land Use Compatibility Report
(Appendix I) and revised LUCE Update EIR provided substantial evidence in the record that
the Airport Safety Zones accurately reflect Airport-related hazard zones as set forth in the
CALUPH and supporting federal guidance, and that maps provided in the ALUP did not
accurately reflect the actual extent of Airport-related safety zones (Council Agenda Report, City
of San Luis Obispo 2014d). For the LUCE Update, the City Council elected to issue an overrule
of the ALUP, including planned development in the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Area, as long
as such development was found to be consistent with the Land Use Element Airport policies.
Therefore, even though the project would be inconsistent with the ALUP maps, it would be
consistent with safety zones and land use restrictions as recommended by the CALUPH and as
evaluated in the Johnson Aviation Compatibility Report (Appendix I).
Mitigative Components of the Specific Plan and Impact Conclusion. Section 2.6 of the San Luis
Ranch Specific Plan (Appendix B) includes various Airport Compatibility Performance
Standards intended to maintain safety of the airspace of the airport and avoid potential airport-
related hazards. In addition, because the project would be consistent with the CALUPH Airport
Safety Zones, which the City has found represents the actual extent of Airport-related safety
hazard zones consistent with direction in the State Aeronautics Act, the FAA Regulations, and
guidance provided in the CALUPH, no physical Airport-related safety hazards would occur as
result of project implementation. While the project would be subject to review by the ALUC for
consistency with the ALUP policies for safety and operations, based on the analysis provided
above and substantial evidence in the record provided by the LUCE Update EIR, which is
incorporated by reference into this EIR (see Section 1.1.3 of this EIR) and 2014 Airport Land Use
Compatibility Report (see Appendix I), airport land use planning impacts in the Specific Plan
Area would be less than significant.
PC 1-144
Attachment 3
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Residual Impacts. This impact would be less than significant without mitigation.
d.Cumulative Impacts. The San Luis Ranch Specific Plan would include residential
development, commercial uses, including office and retail development, a hotel, and park and
open space uses. The Specific Plan would also preserve the equivalent of 50 percent of the
Specific Plan Area acreage in agricultural use, including approximately 53 acres within the
Specific Plan Area. The proposed uses are consistent with the intent of the goals and policies
established within the City’s General Plan and Zoning Regulations after implementation of
mitigation, and would not cumulatively contribute to the loss of open space or agricultural land
beyond that already anticipated in the City’s LUCE Update and EIR. The project, in
combination with planned buildout of the City of San Luis Obispo under the General Plan,
including buildout of previously approved (Margarita and Orcutt) or proposed (San Luis
Ranch, Avila Ranch, Madonna) specific plans or development plans, would incrementally
contribute to the conversion of City land from rural and agricultural uses to urban uses, and to
associated potential land use conflicts. All pending/future projects would be required to adhere
by City development regulations and General Plan policies to retain character of the City and
mitigate environmental impacts where feasible. In addition, all pending and future projects
would be reviewed for consistency with the General Plan and all other applicable regulatory
land use actions prior to approval.
Furthermore, the Specific Plan is potentially inconsistent with ALUP development standards for
Safety Areas, but as described in Impact LU-4, is not expected to result in airport-related safety
hazards consistent with the Caltrans California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, the 2014
Airport Land Use Compatibility Report prepared by Johnson Aviation (refer to Appendix I),
and the applicable Airport Safety Zones within the Specific Plan Area. Therefore, the Specific
Plan is not expected to cumulatively contribute to potential airport noise and/or safety issues.
As such, cumulative land use impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of the
mitigation included in this EIR.
PC 1-145
Attachment 3
This page intentionally left blank.
PC 2-146
Attachment 3
PC 1-146
X
X
1514119.01
1518134.211519134.41
1520134.72
1522143.40
1523136.12
1524114.66
1525118.94
691116.60
692114.65
693136.98
694149.17
696129.85697129.41699124.69
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
P
C
1
-
1
4
7
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
x x x
P
C
1
-
1
4
8
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
P
C
1
-
1
4
9
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
P
C
1
-
1
5
0
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
P
C
1
-
1
5
1
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
P
C
1
-
1
5
2
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
P
C
1
-
1
5
3
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
P
C
1
-
1
5
4
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
1514119.01
1520134.72
1523136.12
1525118.94
693136.98
696129.85
697129.41699124.69
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
P
C
1
-
1
5
5
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
P
C
1
-
1
5
6
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
P
C
1
-
1
5
7
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
P
C
1
-
1
5
8
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
P
C
1
-
1
5
9
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
P
C
1
-
1
6
0
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
P
C
1
-
1
6
1
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
P
C
1
-
1
6
2
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
P
C
1
-
1
6
3
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
P
C
1
-
1
6
4
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
P
C
1
-
1
6
5
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
P
C
1
-
1
6
6
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
P
C
1
-
1
6
7
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
P
C
1
-
1
6
8
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
P
C
1
-
1
6
9
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
P
C
1
-
1
7
0
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
Y
I
E
L
D
Y
I
E
L
D
YIELD
Y
I
E
L
D
YIELD
Y
I
E
L
D
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
P
C
1
-
1
7
1
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
P
C
1
-
1
7
2
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
P
C
1
-
1
7
3
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
12
0
12
5
13
0
13
5
11
5
12
0
12
5
13
0
13
5
14
0
11
0
11
5
12
0
12
5
13
0
13
5
14
0
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
P
C
1
-
1
7
4
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
699124.69699124.69
1514119.01
1523136.12693136.98
699124.69
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
P
C
1
-
1
7
5
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
P
C
1
-
1
7
6
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
P
C
1
-
1
7
7
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
P
C
1
-
1
7
8
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
FM
FM
S
/
/
/
PP
PP
S
S
S
B-8
PD6
X
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
P
C
1
-
1
7
9
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
P
C
1
-
1
8
0
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
P
C
1
-
1
8
1
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
P
C
1
-
1
8
2
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4