HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-11-2019 PC Agenda PacketCity of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Planning Commission
Agenda
PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, December 11, 2019
6:00 p.m. REGULAR MEETING Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE : Chair Wulkan
ROLL CALL : Commissioners Robert Jorgensen, Steve Kahn, John McKenzie, Nicholas
Quincey, Charles Stevenson, Vice-Chair Hemalata Dandekar, and Chair Mike
Wulkan.
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
1. Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of November 13, 2019.
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.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
NOTE: Any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this agenda may be
limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence
delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or prior to, the public hearing. If you wish to speak,
please give your name and address for the record. Please limit your comments to three minutes;
consultant and project presentations limited to six minutes.
Planning Commission Agenda for December 11, 2019 Page 2
2. Review of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) during
the 45-day public review period (State Clearinghouse No. 2017071033); Project Address:
12165 and 12393 Los Osos Valley Road; Case #: SPEC-0143-2017 / GENP 0737-2019 /
EID 0738-2019; Land Use Element SP-3 Madonna on LOVR; proposed pre-zoning for
Specific Plan includes Medium-High Density Residential, High Density Residential,
Commercial Retail, Conservation/Open Space, and Public Facilities; JM Development
Group, Inc., applicant. (Emily Creel, Contract Planner – 90 Minutes)
Recommendation: Receive a presentation regarding an overview of the Draft EIR for the
Froom Ranch Specific Plan project and provide comments to staff on any additional analysis
needed to adequately evaluate the potential for significant environmental impacts in the EIR
for the proposed project.
3. Development review of a three-story affordable housing project consisting of 68 residential
units, including a density bonus of 40 percent and an affordable housing incentive to allow
for a maximum height of 45 feet where 35 is normally required, and a determination that the
project is consistent with the certified Final EIR for Orcutt Area Specific Plan and exempt
from environmental review (CEQA); Project Address: 3750 Bullock; Case #: ARCH-0148-
2019; Zone: C-C-MU, R-3-SP, PF-SP; Righetti Ranch LP, owner; Peoples’ Self-Help
Housing Corp, applicant. (Kyle Bell – 45 Minutes)
Recommendation: Adopt a draft Resolution that allows the approval of the project, subject
to findings and conditions of approval.
4. Review of a tentative parcel map to create four parcels, with a requested exception to the
minimum lot size and width requirements for a corner parcel (SLO 18-0154), including a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental review (CEQA); Project Address: 309
Sandercock; Case #: EID-0137-2019 & SBDV-0136-2019; Zone: R-2; John Diodati,
owner/applicant. (Kyle Bell – 45 Minutes)
Recommendation: Adopt a draft Resolution which grants final approval to the project, based
on findings, and subject to conditions.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
5. Staff Updates & Agenda Forecast
ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for Wednesday , January 8,
2020, at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
Planning Commission Agenda for December 11, 2019 Page 3
APPEALS
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 appropriate appeal fee must accompany the
appeal documentation.
LISTENING ASSISTIVE DEVICES are available for the hearing impaired--please see Recording
Secretary.
The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public.
Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with
disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order
to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100
at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805)
781-7410.
Planning Commission regular meetings are televised live on Charter Channel 20. Agenda related
writings or documents provided to the Planning Commission are available for public inspection in
the Community Development Department located at 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California
during the hours of 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM, and on the City’s website:
http://www.slocity.org/government/advisory-bodies.
Meeting video recordings can be found on the City’s website:
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/city-clerk/on-demand-meeting-videos
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Minutes - Draft
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
Wednesday, November 13, 2019
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order on
Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Wulkan.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Robert Jorgensen, Steve Kahn, John McKenzie, Nicholas Quincey,
Charles Stevenson, Vice-Chair Hemalata Dandekar and Chair Mike Wulkan
Absent: None
Staff: Community Development Director Michael Codron, Principal Planner Tyler Corey,
Assistant City Attorney Charles Bell, and Deputy City Clerk Kevin Christian
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None
1.CONSENT AGENDA – CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE CHAIR DANDEKAR, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
STEVENSON, CARRIED 7-0 to approve the minutes of October 23, 2019.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2.Project Address: 486 March & 545 Higuera; Case #: ARCH-0017-2019; Zone: C-D;
March Higuera Mixed Use LLC owner/applicant. Review of a four-story mixed-use project
consisting of approximately 5,209 square feet of commercial use on the ground floor and 55
residential units above, including provision of 10 percent low-income affordable units, an
associated 20 percent density bonus, and a request for a standard incentive to apply affordable
housing parking standards identified in Zoning Regulations Section 17.140.040.K. Project
includes: a request for a mechanical parking lift; parking, landscaping, and site improvements;
tree removals; and a categorical exemption from environmental review (CEQA).
At the request of the applicant, this item will be continued to a date uncertain to allow
applicant-proposed revisions to be incorporated into the project.
Item 1
Packet Page 1
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 4
November 13, 2019
3. Project Address: 2600 Broad; Case #: USE-0371-2019; Zone: C-R-SF; Nicholas Andre,
applicant; Helios Dayspring, applicant; Natural Healing Center, applicant. Review of a
Conditional Use Permit to allow operation of a Cannabis Retail Storefront with a categorical
exemption from CEQA environmental review.
Community Development Director Codron reviewed the unique nature and process to date for
Cannabis permitting. Associate Planner Rachel Cohen and Contract Staff Planner Brandi
Cummings presented the staff report and responded to Commission inquiries.
Applicant representative, Craig Smith, reviewed the site design, security, land use issues, and
addressed questions concerning odor and signage raised by the Commission.
Chair Wulkan opened the public hearing.
Public Comments
Nadel (no speaker slip received)
Chair Wulkan closed the public hearing
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MCKENZIE, SECOND BY VICE CHAIR
DANDEKAR, CARRIED 5-2 (Commissioner Stevenson and Chair Wulkan opposed) to adopt
a Resolution entitled:
“A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION GRANTING
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF A
CANNABIS RETAIL STOREFRONT INCLUDING A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AS REPRESENTED IN THE PLANNING
COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED NOVEMBER 13,
2019 (2600 & 2640 BROAD STREET, FILE #USE-0371-2019)” with a modification to
Condition 1 as follows with new language underlined:
- The proposed use shall operate consistent with the project description and other supporting
documentation submitted with this application unless otherwise conditioned herein,
including, but not limited to: the Operations Plan; Chapter 9.10 of the City Municipal Code;
and Section 17.86.080 (E) (5) (f) of the City Municipal Code. This use permit shall be
reviewed by the Community Development Director if any reasonable written complaint is
received from any citizen or from the Police Department or upon receipt of evidence that
the use is not in compliance with conditions of approval and the Municipal Code. The
Community Development Director may refer the complaint to the Planning Commission
at his/her discretion and conditions of approval may be added, deleted, or modified or the
use permit may be revoked to ensure on-going compatibility between uses on the project
site and other nearby uses.
Item 1
Packet Page 2
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 4
November 13, 2019
4. Project Address: 280 Higuera; Case #: USE-0550-2019; Zone: C-R-MU; MOM SLO
LLC, applicant. Review of a Conditional Use Permit to allow operation of a Cannabis Retail
Storefront with a categorical exemption from CEQA environmental review.
Contract Staff Planner Brandi Cummings presented the staff report and responded to
Commission inquiries.
Applicant Megan Souza, co-owner of Megan’s Organic Market, reviewed the project
highlighting energy consumption targets, sourcing of local materials, hiring practices and
community commitments, and responded to Commissioner questions.
Chair Wulkan opened the public hearing.
Public Comments
None
Chair Wulkan closed the public hearing
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER JORGENSEN, SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER KAHN, CARRIED 6-1 (Commissioner Stevenson opposed) to adopt a
Resolution entitled:
“A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION GRANTING
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF A
CANNABIS RETAIL STOREFRONT INCLUDING A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AS REPRESENTED IN THE PLANNING
COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED NOVEMBER 13,
2019 (280 HIGUERA STREET, FILE #USE-0550-2019)” with a modification to the
Conditions as proposed below:
- Condition 1 modified as follows with new language underlined: The proposed use shall
operate consistent with the project description and other supporting documentation
submitted with this application unless otherwise conditioned herein, including, but not
limited to: the Operations Plan; Chapter 9.10 of the City Municipal Code; and Section
17.86.080 (E) (5) (f) of the City Municipal Code. This use permit shall be reviewed by the
Community Development Director if any reasonable written complaint is received from
any citizen or from the Police Department or upon receipt of evidence that the use is not in
compliance with conditions of approval and the Municipal Code. The Community
Development Director may refer the complaint to the Planning Commission at his/her
discretion and conditions of approval may be added, deleted, or modified or the use permit
may be revoked to ensure on-going compatibility between uses on the project site and other
nearby uses.
- Addition of Condition 2 that states: Any parking lot lighting installed on the site by the
applicant shall be night sky compliant LED bollard lighting, as specified on sheet A1.0 of
the project plans dated June 27, 2019 by Ten Over Studio. The Director of Community
Development may modify this requirement upon a determination that such lighting would
not be conducive to the safety of the public or would not meet the requirements of the
California Building Code.
Item 1
Packet Page 3
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 4
November 13, 2019
The Commission directed staff to include language that summarizes standards and
requirements with reference to the applicable ordinance in future resolutions granting
conditional use permits for cannabis retail.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
5. Agenda Forecast – Principal Planner Tyler Corey provided an update of upcoming projects.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. The next Regular meeting of the Planning Commission
is scheduled for Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: XX/XX/2019
Item 1
Packet Page 4
Meeting Date: December 11, 2019
Item Number: 2
It
2
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Discussion of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Froom Ranch
Specific Plan project.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 12165 and 12393 BY: Emily Creel, Contract Planner
Los Osos Valley Road Phone: (805) 543-7095
E-mail: ecreel@swca.com
VIA: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7176
E-mail: sscott@slocity.org
FILE NUMBERS: SPEC-0143-2017 / GENP 0737-2019 / EID 0738-2019
RECOMMENDATION: Receive a presentation regarding an overview of the Draft EIR for the Froom
Ranch Specific Plan project and provide comments to staff on any additional analysis needed to
adequately evaluate the potential for significant environmental impacts in the EIR for the proposed
project.
SITE DATA
Applicant JM Development Group, Inc.
Representative Pam Ricci and Victor Montgomery,
RRM Design Group
Proposed
Zoning/General
Plan
SP‐3 Madonna on LOVR, would
require pre‐zoning for Specific
Plan. Proposes Medium‐High
Density Residential, High Density
Residential, Commercial Retail,
Conservation/Open Space, and
Public Facilities
Site Area Approximately 110 acres
Environmental
Status
A Draft EIR is now under public
review. The public review period
will extend through December 23,
2019.
Item 2
Packet Page 5
SPEC-0143-2017 / GENP 0737-2019 / EID 0738-2019
Froom Ranch Specific Plan (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Road)
Page 2
1.0 BACKGROUND/SUMMARY
On April 5, 2016, the City Council authorized initiation of the Madonna on Los Osos Valley Road
(LOVR) Specific Plan (currently referred to as the Froom Ranch Specific Plan).1 The project includes a
Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and related actions that would allow for development of
approximately 50 acres of the 109.7-acre Froom Ranch Specific Plan area. Amendments to the General
Plan would include a change in the land uses to include a senior residential community (Villaggio) and
to allow development above 150 feet in elevation, since hillside development is regulated by several
General Plan policies and programs, including Land Use Element Policy 6.4.7(H), which specifies that
no building sites should be allowed above the 150-foot elevation line in the Irish Hills area. As part of
its initiation of the Specific Plan, the City Council required that the project applicant also develop a
feasible “actionable alternative” that locates all development below the 150-foot elevation. Both the
proposed project and the actionable alternative are evaluated in the Draft EIR.
The Planning Commission previously reviewed this project as part of an EIR scoping meeting held on
July 26, 2017 and during a January 24, 2018 conceptual review. Additional guidance on the project has
been (and will continue to be) provided by other City advisory bodies, including the Cultural Heritage
Committee (CHC), Architectural Review Commission (ARC), Parks and Recreation Committee (PRC),
and Active Transportation Committee (ATC). To the extent possible, the project analysis in this staff
report reflects direction received by those advisory bodies.
The Planning Commission provided the following preliminary feedback regarding the proposed project
at its January 24, 2018 conceptual review:
Commission would like to receive substantial presentations on the progress of the Draft EIR.
Concern about development above the 150-foot elevation, some Commissioners noted this is a
“non-starter.”
Concern about the size of the affordable housing site.
Concern about the proposed creek re-alignment and groundwater recharge.
Concern about cumulative effect on traffic.
Table 2-2 parameters don’t currently translate to the exhibit/concept plan; Commission would
like to see product/unit types, standards for private open space, and parking standards.
Suggest extending bike lanes to connect to park and multi-family units.
Commission wants to see alternatives site layouts and full policy analysis.
Consider size of median (is 10 feet necessary.)
Look closer at need for the proposed cottages.
Consider wildland/fire interface and need for open/usable secondary access.
Consider effects to wildlife corridors, including fencing.
Install story poles (as required by Specific Plan Initiation Resolution)
Implications with the community being gated.
o Is it locking community members in?
o Gates are appropriate but would like to see samples.
Concerns expressed with community as a whole being fenced and gated.
1 Froom Ranch Specific Plan available online: https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-
development/planning-zoning/specific-area-plans/froom-ranch
Item 2
Packet Page 6
SPEC-0143-2017 / GENP 0737-2019 / EID 0738-2019
Froom Ranch Specific Plan (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Road)
Page 3
No connections, walk thru, or otherwise to adjacent commercial.
Fee ownership lot plans are encouraged, and commission would like to see charts; support for
small lot concepts/smaller homes.
Commission is concerned with siting a Life Plan Community at this project’s location.
Proximity of commercial and residential units may be an issue.
Detailed minutes and Commission comments are included as Attachment 1, Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes January 24, 2018.
Proposed Project. The Froom Ranch
Specific Plan proposes a mix of land
uses, including a Life Plan
Community with 404 units of
independent and assisted senior
housing known as Villaggio, up to
174 multi-family residential units,
100,000 square feet of retail-
commercial uses (including a 70,000-
square foot hotel), open space (54% of
the project site), and a public park (see
Figure 1 Conceptual Site Plan).
Both the proposed project and the
actionable alternative propose to
reconstruct, relocate, and reuse four
historic structures within the Froom
Ranch Dairy complex to the new
public park, including the main
residence, creamery/house, dairy
(round-nose) barn, and granary. The
project and actionable alternative also
propose to relocate approximately
2,145 linear feet of Froom Creek
within the Specific Plan area.
Actionable Alternative. The
actionable alternative (Alternative 1)
proposes the same type and amount of
development within the Specific Plan
area; however, it includes a major reconfiguration of the proposed land use plan and redesign of key
project elements specifically to cluster proposed land uses into a smaller development footprint by
relocating proposed development in the Upper Terrace portion of Villaggio down to the lower portion
of the proposed Life Plan Community located below the 150-foot elevation.
The actionable alternative was developed in large part based on a revised site plan prepared by the project
applicant. However, one significant change to what was proposed by the applicant was made through
Figure 1. Conceptual Land Use Plan
Item 2
Packet Page 7
SPEC-0143-2017 / GENP 0737-2019 / EID 0738-2019
Froom Ranch Specific Plan (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Road)
Page 4
the evaluation of alternatives in the Draft
EIR: the location of the public park
(incorporating the four historic structures
to be relocated/reconstructed) was
relocated to the area above the 150-foot
elevation in the northwest portion of the
site (refer to Figure 2, Alternative 1
Conceptual Land Use Plan). This area is
heavily disturbed as a result of its use as an
active permitted quarry and is also
currently being used for construction
staging. The multi-family residential uses
proposed by the applicant at this location
were moved downhill to the lower portions
of the site below the 150-foot elevation.
This key change was made and included as
part of the actionable alternative because it
resulted in a substantial reduction to the
level of impacts associated with Aesthetics
and Visual Resources, Biological
Resources, Cultural and Tribal Cultural
Resources, Land Use and Policy
Consistency, and Wildfire. Refer to Figure
2, Alternative 1 Conceptual Land Use
Plan.
Alternative 1 is identified in the Draft EIR
as the environmentally preferred alternative.
The Draft EIR includes evaluation of potential environmental effects of the proposed project and the
actionable alternative. The Draft EIR has been referred to the Planning Commission to receive comments
on the environmental analysis which can be incorporated into the Final EIR and included with the
discussion when the Planning Commission and City Council consider certification of the Final EIR and
project approval. The Draft EIR and supporting technical reports are available on the City’s website:
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/documents-
online/environmental-review-documents/-folder-2018
2.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The Planning Commission’s role is to review the Draft EIR and provide any feedback regarding the
adequacy of the environmental analysis and additional needed information or modifications or issues which
should be addressed in mitigation measures.
Staff and the City’s EIR consultant (Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.) will be available
to clarify information contained in the Draft EIR. All comments received in this review will be responded
to and included in the Final EIR. The public comment period for the EIR closes on December 23, 2019.
Figure 2. Alternative 1 Conceptual Land Use Plan
Item 2
Packet Page 8
SPEC-0143-2017 / GENP 0737-2019 / EID 0738-2019
Froom Ranch Specific Plan (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Road)
Page 5
3.0 SITE INFORMATION
The project site consists of two parcels totaling
approximately 109.7 acres (APNs 067-241-030 and
067-241-031) within unincorporated San Luis
Obispo County, and adjacent to City of San Luis
Obispo city limits. The site is located immediately
west of Los Osos Valley Road between U.S.
Highway 101 and the Irish Hills Plaza. These parcels
are identified for future annexation in the Land Use
Element (LUE) as the Madonna on Los Osos Valley
Road (LOVR) Specific Plan Area (SP-3).
Dominant features at the site include the Froom
Ranch Dairy complex, stormwater basins, John
Madonna Construction office (within the dairy
complex), staging and materials storage, quarry area,
wetlands adjacent to Calle Joaquin, grasslands, and
Froom Creek and associated tributaries (refer to
Figure 3, Existing Site Conditions). Surrounding uses
include Irish Hills Plaza (including the Costco/Home
Depot shopping center) to the north, Los Osos Valley
Road and auto dealerships to the east, hotels along
Calle Joaquin and Mountainbrook Church to the
south, and the Irish Hills Natural Reserve and
associated trails and open space to the west.
4.0 GENERAL PLAN GUIDANCE
The Froom Ranch Specific Plan area was one of three Specific Plan areas designated for development in
the General Plan Land Use (LUE) and Circulation Elements update (adopted by the City Council in
December 2014). The project is intended to be predominantly consistent with policy direction for the area
included in the General Plan by providing a mixed-use project that provides workforce housing options and
preserves at least 50% of the site as open space. However, the applicant has requested modifications to the
range of land uses currently designated in the LUE for the Specific Plan area, including the proposed
Villaggio life plan community, an increase in the number of allowable residential units, and a requested
modification to allow some development above the 150-foot elevation, subject to certain performance
standards.
5.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
The Draft EIR includes an evaluation of all environmental issue areas required to be considered under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This report focuses on what are anticipated to be the
most critical issues associated with the project and/or issue areas where the EIR determined impacts be
substantially reduced under Alternative 1: Aesthetic and Visual Resources, Biological Resources,
Historic Resources, Land Use and Planning, Transportation, and Wildfire. The applicant stated in a
public meeting of the Architectural Review Committee on December 2, 2019 that upon review of the
Figure 3. Existing Site Conditions
Item 2
Packet Page 9
SPEC-0143-2017 / GENP 0737-2019 / EID 0738-2019
Froom Ranch Specific Plan (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Road)
Page 6
Draft EIR, they have decided to focus on pursuing the actionable alternative (Alternative 1) through the
public hearing process. Therefore, this discussion focuses primarily on the potential impacts associated
with implementation of Alternative 1.
Aesthetics and Visual Resources. Table 1 summarizes the project’s potential impacts on aesthetics and
visual resources and associated mitigation measures. The complete analysis is available on the City’s
website: https://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=24490
Table 1. Summary of Impacts to Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Aesthetics and Visual Resources Impacts Mitigation
Measures Residual Impact
VIS-1. Project implementation would change views of
scenic resources, including hillsides, rock outcroppings,
open space, and historic buildings, from a State Scenic
Highway or local scenic roadway.
MM VIS-1 Less than Significant
with Mitigation
VIS-2. The Project would significantly impact the
existing visual character of the site by changing a rural
setting to a commercial and residential setting,
particularly as viewed from the Irish Hills Natural
Reserve trail system.
MM VIS-1 Significant and
Unavoidable
VIS-3. The Project would introduce a new source of
nighttime light, impacting the quality of the nighttime sky
and increasing ambient light.
None Less than Significant
Architectural Design and Visual Character. The Draft EIR determined that visual character of the project,
including the architectural style, height, bulk, scale, and landscaping would be generally consistent with
architectural styles and scale of adjacent commercial development in the Irish Hills Plaza to the north,
the four multi-story hotels to the south, and the automobile dealerships and service centers to the east.
The Design Guidelines for residential and commercial architectural design aim to adhere to the policies
in the City’s General Plan, including Policy LU 1.4, Urban Edges, which requires development to
maintain a clear boundary between urban development and undeveloped open space; and Policy COS
2.3.7, Natural Features, which requires residential developments to preserve natural site features such as
vegetation and ridgelines.
Views from Public Roadways. Views of the proposed development would be limited from U.S. Highway
101, as most of the project site is shielded by existing vegetation, topography, and/or development.
Existing views from LOVR and the LOVR Overpass are similarly obstructed by multi-story
development or thick vegetation. Therefore, the project would only result in a substantial change to
existing views from U.S. 101, LOVR, and the LOVR Overpass in limited places, including identified
Key Viewing Areas KVA1, KVA 2, and KVA 3. With the loss of vegetation, mid-range views of the
project site from public roadways would become urbanized similar to adjacent development in Irish Hills
Plaza or the existing hotels on Calle Joaquin. However, while mid-range views would change, views of
scenic resources, including the Irish Hills ridgelines and outcroppings, would remain.
Item 2
Packet Page 10
SPEC-0143-2017 / GENP 0737-2019 / EID 0738-2019
Froom Ranch Specific Plan (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Road)
Page 7
The Draft EIR concluded that the project would not eliminate or change views of scenic resources, such
as Irish Hills ridgelines, outcroppings, and vegetation, and the loss of views of the Froom Ranch Dairy
complex in the background would not be substantially perceptible from U.S. 101. However, even though
the project’s impacts would be limited to development in the mid-range that would not obscure important
scenic resources, the impact on views from LOVR and the LOVR Overpass would be substantial due to
the potential loss of vegetation currently providing visual shielding for the project site, as well as the
loss of distant views of the Froom Ranch Dairy complex. Because LOVR and the LOVR Overpass are
considered scenic roadways by the City, and the project would expose viewers to a replacement of open
space and vegetation with urban development, the impact to scenic resources is considered potentially
significant. Mitigation was identified in the Draft EIR requiring revision of the Draft Specific Plan to
incorporate Landscape Screening Guidelines to provide effective screening of proposed structural
massing as experienced from public roadways (refer to MM VIS-1 on page 3.1-31 and 3.1-32 of the
Draft EIR). With implementation of this mitigation, residual impacts on visual resources from public
roadways were determined to be less than significant with mitigation.
Visual Character. The proposed development would transition the project site from predominantly open
space and grazing uses to dense multi-story development creating a continuous swath of urban
development at the base of the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. The Draft EIR determined that, while the
scale and style of the project would be generally visually compatible with surrounding commercial
development to the south, east, and north, development of the project site would substantially change
the visual character of the area from the loss of open space and vegetation, particularly as viewed from
hillsides in the Irish Hills. This change in character would be substantial and development would be
highly visible from several public trails within the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, including the Froom
Creek Connector, Neil Havlik Way, and Ocean View trails, as well as the existing City-designated scenic
vista located 0.35 mile southwest of the project site near Filipponi Ranch, behind Mountainbrook
Church. Development of the Upper Terrace of Villaggio and upper elevations of Madonna Froom Ranch
would cause the most dramatic change to site character on the project site’s highly visible hillsides (refer
to KVA 4 on page 3.1-35 and KVA 5 on page 3.1-37 of the Draft EIR).
The Draft EIR determined that, while development of the Lower Area would eliminate open grazing
lands that are highly visible from the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, the development would occur in visual
context with the Irish Hills Plaza, the four multi-story hotels, and automobile dealerships and service
centers. In this context, development of the Lower Area would be visually compatible with surrounding
development and would not substantially change the character of the area, including for viewers within
the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. However, the project would include substantial development above 150
feet in elevation within the Upper Terrace and portions of Madonna Froom Ranch and place urban
development in visual context with the undeveloped Irish Hills Natural Reserve. While open space
maintained in the Upper Terrace would buffer proposed development from the project site boundary
with the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, the visual result of this development would intrude into or obstruct
views of the Irish Hills Natural Reserve natural open spaces.
Although adherence to City policies and regulation, as well as the architectural and landscape Design
Guidelines in the Draft Specific Plan, would ensure compatibility of the project with surrounding
commercial development, analysis of both visual susceptibility and visual severity of project impacts
indicated a high potential for substantial impacts to the visual character of the site, including public
perception from the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. As depicted by KVA 4 and KVA 5, the project site
Item 2
Packet Page 11
SPEC-0143-2017 / GENP 0737-2019 / EID 0738-2019
Froom Ranch Specific Plan (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Road)
Page 8
would be extremely visible and would replace existing scenic views of grazing land and riparian habitat.
The project design and style would be compatible with adjacent development in the Lower Area, but
because the project would substantially degrade the visual quality of the site’s hillsides and upper
elevations, aesthetic impacts would be considered potentially significant. The Draft EIR determined that
even with implementation of identified mitigation (incorporation of Landscape Screening Guidelines),
this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Nighttime Lighting. Development of the project site would increase the amount of exterior lighting
fixtures and light produced on the project site. However, light from surrounding land uses already
dominates the night sky and the project site would not be highly visible from surrounding roadways. The
Irish Hills Natural Reserve is closed at night and would not be affected by additional lighting. Therefore,
the EIR determined that potential impacts related to nighttime lighting would be less than significant.
Aesthetics and Visual Resources – Alternative 1. Potential impacts on aesthetics and visual resources
that would result from Alternative 1 (compared to the proposed project) are summarized in Table 2. The
complete analysis is available on the City’s website:
https://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=24506
Table 2. Summary of Impacts to Aesthetics and Visual Resources – Alternative 1
Aesthetics and Visual Resources Impacts Mitigation
Measures Residual Impact
VIS-1. Alternative 1 implementation would change views
of scenic resources, including hillsides, rock
outcroppings, open space, and historic buildings, from a
State Scenic Highway or local scenic roadway.
MM VIS-1
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
(Incrementally Less)
VIS-2. Alternative 1 would significantly impact the
existing visual character of the site by changing a rural
setting to a commercial and residential setting,
particularly as viewed from the Irish Hills Natural
Reserve trail system.
MM VIS-1 Less than Significant
with Mitigation (Less)
VIS-3. Alternative 1 would introduce a major new source
of nighttime light, impacting the quality of the nighttime
sky and increasing ambient light.
None required Less than Significant
(Similar)
The modified land use configuration under Alternative 1 would substantially reduce aesthetic impacts in
comparison to the proposed project. Although total residential units and commercial square footage
would remain the same, only public park uses would occur above the 150-foot elevation line in the
current quarry/construction staging area. Avoiding development of the Upper Terrace of Villaggio would
reduce impacts to scenic resources (including natural habitats, onsite historic resources, and rock
outcroppings) that are visible to viewers in the surrounding area, including from within the public trail
system of the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. Alternative 1 would substantially reduce the adverse change
in visual character as viewed from the Irish Hills and would avoid identified significant and unavoidable
Class I impacts associated with urban development above the 150-foot elevation (refer to KVA 4 on
page 5-48 and KVA 5 on page 5-49 of the Draft EIR).
Item 2
Packet Page 12
SPEC-0143-2017 / GENP 0737-2019 / EID 0738-2019
Froom Ranch Specific Plan (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Road)
Page 9
Biological Resources. Permanent and temporary impacts to biological resources within the Specific Plan
area are summarized in Table 3. The complete analysis is available on the City’s website:
https://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=24493
Table 3. Summary of Impacts to Biological Resources
Biological Resources Impacts Mitigation
Measures Residual Impact
BIO-1. Project implementation would impact sensitive
riparian, wetland, and native grassland habitats identified
as sensitive natural communities under state and City
policy.
MM HAZ-2
MM BIO-1
MM BIO-2
MM BIO-3
MM BIO-4
MM BIO-5
MM BIO-6
MM BIO-7
MM BIO-8
Significant and
Unavoidable
BIO-2. Project implementation would have substantial
direct and indirect adverse impacts on candidate,
sensitive, or special-status species that are known to or
may occur on the Project site.
MM HAZ-2
MM BIO-1
MM BIO-9
MM BIO-10
MM BIO-11
MM BIO-12
Significant and
Unavoidable
BIO-3. Project implementation would have a substantial
adverse impact on state and federally protected wetlands.
MM BIO-1
MM BIO-2
MM BIO-4
MM BIO-5
MM BIO-6
MM BIO-7
MM BIO-8
Significant and
Unavoidable
BIO-4. Project construction and operation would have a
substantial adverse impact on the movement of resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or resident and
migratory wildlife corridors along Froom Creek,
Drainages 1, 2, and 3 and across open grasslands on the
Upper Terrace of the Project site.
MM BIO-1
MM BIO-2
MM BIO-3
MM BIO-4
MM BIO-5
MM BIO-6
MM BIO-9
MM BIO-11
MM BIO-12
MM BIO-13
MM BIO-14
Significant and
Unavoidable
BIO-5. Project construction would result in the potential
disturbance, trimming, or removal of up to 75 mature
trees.
MM BIO-15 Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Item 2
Packet Page 13
SPEC-0143-2017 / GENP 0737-2019 / EID 0738-2019
Froom Ranch Specific Plan (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Road)
Page 10
Substantial adverse impacts to biological
resources would result from
implementation of the proposed project,
including grading, fill import, realignment
of Froom Creek, and vegetation/habitat
removal, as well as operational generation
of new light and noise, and increased
human activity. The project would result in
significant and unavoidable impacts on
sensitive habitats (riparian, wetland, and
native grassland, predominantly in the
Upper Terrace of Villaggio) identified
under state and City policy. Substantial
direct and indirect adverse impacts would
occur to sensitive species, federally
protected wetlands, and the movement of
species along wildlife corridors. To
mitigate these impacts, the Draft EIR
identifies mitigation measures requiring
the applicant to prepare and implement a
City-approved Biological Mitigation Plan
(BMP) that identifies both construction
and operational related mitigation
measures for impacts to sensitive
communities and species. The BMP is
required to include a Habitat Mitigation
and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) and to
address the movement of special-status
species within the site. Sensitive natural
communities outside of approved development footprints are required to be avoided. Chorro Creek Bog
Thistle Management and the preparation of a Community Fire Protection Plan are also required.
However, despite implementation of identified mitigation, the proposed project would result in the direct
and indirect loss or disturbance of sensitive species for which the avoidance, replacement, and/or
additional mitigation is not considered feasible. Multiple Class I significant and unavoidable impacts
associated with the project were identified, particularly associated with the highly sensitive biological
resource areas in the Upper Terrace portion of the Villaggio Life Plan Community (refer to Figure 4,
Existing Biological Constraints).
The Draft EIR determined that the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts
to sensitive riparian, wetland, and native grassland habitats; sensitive and special-status species; state
and federally protected wetlands; and migratory wildlife corridors along Froom Creek, the three
drainages in the Upper Terrace portion of Villaggio, and the open native grasslands on the Upper Terrace
portion of the site.
Figure 4. Existing Biological Constraints
Item 2
Packet Page 14
SPEC-0143-2017 / GENP 0737-2019 / EID 0738-2019
Froom Ranch Specific Plan (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Road)
Page 11
Biological Resources – Alternative 1. By removing proposed development from the highly sensitive
Upper Terrace area of the project site, Alternative 1 would avoid or minimize almost all potentially
significant impacts to Biological Resources to less than significant with mitigation. The only remaining
significant and unavoidable impact identified under Alternative 1 is associated with the potential change
in wetland habitats and characteristics resulting from the interruption or redirection of ground and surface
water sources to the wetlands adjacent to Calle Joaquin. Potential impacts on biological resources that
would result from Alternative 1 (compared to the proposed project) are summarized in Table 4. The
complete analysis is available on the City’s website:
https://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=24506
Table 4. Summary of Impacts to Biological Resources – Alternative 1
Biological Resources Impacts Mitigation
Measures Residual Impact
BIO-1. Alternative 1 implementation would impact
sensitive riparian, wetland, and native grassland habitats
identified as sensitive natural communities under state
and City policy.
MM BIO-1
MM BIO-2
MM BIO-3
MM BIO-4
MM BIO-5
MM BIO-6
MM BIO-7
MM BIO-8
MM BIO-Alt. 1
MM HAZ-2
Less than Significant
with Mitigation (Less)
BIO-2. Alternative 1 implementation would have
substantial direct and indirect adverse impacts on
candidate, sensitive, or special-status species that are
known to or may occur on the Project site.
MM BIO-1
MM BIO-9
MM BIO-10
MM BIO-11
MM BIO-12
MM HAZ-2
Less than Significant
with Mitigation (Less)
BIO-3. Alternative 1 implementation would have a
substantial adverse impact on state and federally
protected wetlands.
MM BIO-1
MM BIO-2
MM BIO-4
MM BIO-5
MM BIO-6
MM BIO-7
MM BIO-Alt. 1
Significant and
Unavoidable (Less)
BIO-4. Alternative 1 construction and operation would
have a substantial adverse impact on the movement of
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or resident
and migratory wildlife corridors along Froom Creek,
Drainages 1, 2, and 3 and across open grasslands on the
Upper Terrace of the Project site.
MM BIO-1
MM BIO-2
MM BIO-3
MM BIO-4
MM BIO-5
MM BIO-6
MM BIO-9
MM BIO-11
Less than Significant
with Mitigation (Less)
Item 2
Packet Page 15
SPEC-0143-2017 / GENP 0737-2019 / EID 0738-2019
Froom Ranch Specific Plan (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Road)
Page 12
MM BIO-12
MM BIO-14
BIO-5. Alternative 1 construction would result in the
potential disturbance, trimming, or removal of up to 75
mature trees.
MM BIO-15
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
(Incrementally Less)
Under Alternative 1, biological resource impacts related to loss of wetland, riparian, and upland habitats
and potential effects on sensitive, threatened, and endangered species would be substantially reduced
compared to the project. Residences and related infrastructure would not be constructed within the highly
sensitive Upper Terrace portion of Villaggio, which would substantially reduce impacts to serpentine
native bunchgrass grassland habitats and minimize impacts to springs, seeps, and wetland habitats along
Drainages 1, 2, and 3. The removal of development within the Upper Terrace would also substantially
reduce impacts to 12 special status plant species identified in the Upper Terrace. Impacts to wildlife
movement and wildlife corridors would also be substantially reduced and consistency with the policies
of the City General Plan would be substantially increased. In particular, consistency with LUE Policies
1.8.6, Wildlife Habitats, and 6.4.7, Hillside Planning Areas, and COSE Policies 7.3.1, Protect Listed
Species, 7.3.2, Protect Species of Local Concern, 7.3.3, Wildlife Habitat and Corridors, and 7.7.7,
Preserve Ecotones, would be improved.
Implementation of identified mitigation measures was determined to be adequate in reducing potentially
significant impacts to sensitive riparian and native grassland habitats, sensitive and special-status
species, and migratory wildlife corridors along Froom Creek, the three drainages in the Upper Terrace,
and the open native grasslands on the Upper Terrace. In addition, an additional mitigation measure (MM
BIO-Alt. 1) was identified to ensure impacts to biological resources associated with additional
emergency access roadways proposed under Alternative 1 would be minimized to less than significant
with mitigation.
Impact BIO-3, addressing project-related impacts to federally-protected wetlands, would be decreased
as compared to the proposed project. Unlike the project, Alternative 1 would not include installation of
culvert-headwalls or otherwise disturb Drainages 1, 2, or 3 except near the convergence of these
drainages, and would avoid approximately 0.25 acres of rare seep wetlands in the Upper Terrace, as well
as water sources for adjacent and downstream riparian and wetland habitat. However, jurisdictional
wetlands, including the LOVR ditch and Calle Joaquin wetlands, would continue to be impacted as a
result of LOVR frontage improvements, emergency access road construction, and Froom Creek
realignment. As under the project, implementation of MM BIO-4 would preserve open space at the
confluence of Drainages 1, 2, and 3 and would greatly enhance hydrologic connectivity between the
Upper Terrace and downstream wetlands. Additionally, geotechnical recommendations required in MM
BIO-7 to reduce potential for horizontal directional drilling operations to adversely affect Calle Joaquin
wetlands would still be required.
However, the Draft EIR determined that interruption or redirection of ground and surface water sources
for onsite wetlands adjacent to Calle Joaquin from realignment of Froom Creek and adjacent
development could still result in changes in wetland habitats and characteristics to the Calle Joaquin
wetlands. While implementation of MM BIO-1 through -3, MM BIO-5 through -7, and MM BIO-13
would partially reduce impacts to jurisdictional wetland areas through avoidance to the maximum extent
feasible of onsite wetlands, full replacement of equivalent wetland values if wetlands are affected would
Item 2
Packet Page 16
SPEC-0143-2017 / GENP 0737-2019 / EID 0738-2019
Froom Ranch Specific Plan (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Road)
Page 13
be challenging, particularly for jurisdictional wetlands and other waters along Drainages 1, 2, and 3 and
their confluence with Froom Creek. Although impacts to wetlands in the Upper Terrace area of Villaggio
would be substantially avoided and minimized than under the proposed project, the potential for direct
and indirect impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and other waters would continue; therefore, the Draft EIR
determined potential impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Historic Resources. Table 5 summarizes the project’s potential impacts on historic resources and
associated mitigation measures. The complete analysis is available on the City’s website:
https://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=24494
Table 5. Summary of Impacts to Historic Resources
Historic Resources Impacts Mitigation
Measures Residual Impact
CR-3. The Project would result in relocation, demolition,
disturbance, and/or removal of historic resources onsite,
including individually eligible historic resources and a
historic district.
MM CR-9
MM CR-10
MM CR-11
MM CR-12
MM CR-13
MM CR-14
Significant and
Unavoidable
The project would relocate and adaptively reuse (within the proposed public park) four historic structures
within the Froom Ranch Dairy complex (i.e., main residence, creamery, dairy barn, and granary) that are
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historic
Resources (CRHR), and City’s Master List of Historic Resources (refer to Figure 5, Comparative
Conceptual Relocation of Dairy Barn, Creamery/House, Main Residence, and Granary).
The EIR determined that the
proposed relocation and
reconstruction of four of the
Froom Ranch Dairy complex
buildings within the public park
would maintain the character-
defining features of the four
structures to be retained,
including the existence,
orientation, relative horizontal
and vertical relationship of the
main residence, creamery, dairy
barn, and granary, and the
relative open space and
minimally landscaped setting.
The main residence would be
rehabilitated consistent with the
Rehabilitation Standards of the
Secretary of the Interior’s
Figure 5. Comparative Conceptual Relocation of Dairy Barn,
Creamery/House, Main Residence, and Granary
Item 2
Packet Page 17
SPEC-0143-2017 / GENP 0737-2019 / EID 0738-2019
Froom Ranch Specific Plan (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Road)
Page 14
Standards and the creamery, dairy barn, and granary would be reconstructed consistent with the
Reconstruction Standards of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, requiring minimal changes to the
distinctive materials, finishes, features, or construction techniques.
However, the EIR identified impacts associated to the potential for conflict between the design and
character of the surrounding commercial development within Madonna Froom Ranch and the
rehabilitated main residence. Incompatible design of adjacent new development has the potential to
reduce or inhibit the historic quality, character, and context of the relocated and rehabilitated main
residence. The project would also result in the demolition and permanent loss of three contributors to the
Froom Ranch Dairy historic district (i.e., the shed, bunkhouse, and old barn). These structures contribute
to the historic setting and integrity of the Froom Ranch Dairy complex based upon their association with
the Froom family, connection to the historic dairy operation, character-defining features of Craftsman-
style or vernacular architecture, and good integrity (condition) of location, design, materials,
workmanship, feeling, association, and overall historic integrity.
Mitigation measures were identified to avoid, reduce, and mitigate potentially significant impacts to
historic resources, including design and construction drawing review and monitoring by a qualified
professional historic architect, Historic American Building Survey (HABS) documentation of all seven
contributing structures of the Froom Ranch Dairy complex, requirements for the reuse of original
material, and preparation of design guidelines and a review process for new construction adjacent to the
main residence.
Even with implementation of identified mitigation measures, the EIR identified a Class I significant and
unavoidable impact associated with the loss of the shed, bunkhouse, and old barn, which would reduce
the concentration of physical features that make up the character and appearance of the Froom Ranch
Dairy complex. While the proposal for relocation and reconstruction of the Froom Ranch Dairy complex
would continue to retain sufficient integrity to convey its significant association with the dairy industry
and the Froom family, the project would result in the loss of historic materials and character defining
features that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Therefore, impacts to the historic
district were determined to be significant and unavoidable.
Historic Resources – Alternative 1. While the Draft EIR determined that Alternative 1 would avoid or
reduce several significant impacts to historic resources, impacts to historic resources under Alternative
1 were determined to remain significant and unavoidable, similar to the proposed project. Impacts
(compared to the proposed project) are summarized in Table 6. The complete analysis is available on the
City’s website: https://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=24506
Table 6. Summary of Impacts to Historic Resources – Alternative 1
Historic Resources Impacts Mitigation
Measures Residual Impact
CR-3. Alternative 1 would result in relocation,
demolition, disturbance, and/or removal of historic
resources onsite, including individually eligible historic
resources and a historic district.
MM CR-9
MM CR-10
MM CR-11
MM CR-12
Significant and
Unavoidable (Similar)
Item 2
Packet Page 18
SPEC-0143-2017 / GENP 0737-2019 / EID 0738-2019
Froom Ranch Specific Plan (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Road)
Page 15
MM CR-13
MM CR-14
Alternative 1 would retain, relocate, and restore the same four historic structures within the proposed
public park located in the quarry area (above the 150-foot elevation on the Madonna Froom Ranch
portion of the site). The Draft EIR concluded that retaining the four historic structures that contribute to
the potential historic district within the public park and in a natural setting more reminiscent of their
historic past than the proposed project (i.e., set atop a rise against the natural hillside of the Irish Hills
rather than set amongst multi-family housing units and commercial buildings) would lessen the potential
impact to historic resources. However, similar to the project, proposed relocation of historic structures
within the Froom Ranch Dairy complex would adversely affect significant historic resources, including
through the significant and unavoidable loss of three structures contributing to the historic district (a
Class I impact). Mitigation measures would be implemented to minimize potential impacts of
development and operation on historic resources, but potential impacts were determined to remain
significant and unavoidable.
Flooding. Table 7 summarizes the project’s potential impacts related to hydrology/flooding and
associated mitigation measures. The complete analysis is available on the City’s website:
https://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=24497
Table 7. Summary of Impacts Related to Flooding
Flooding Impacts Mitigation
Measures Residual Impact
HYD-2. The Project would potentially exacerbate
flooding and erosion hazards onsite and in areas
downstream, particularly related to the proposed
realignment and design of Froom Creek and developed
areas of the site.
MM HYD-4 Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Project development would substantially alter onsite drainage patterns through realignment of Froom
Creek, reconstruction of LOVR ditch, installation of the Home Depot ditch, replacement of the existing
onsite detention basin with the proposed stormwater detention basin on Mountainbrook Church property,
increases in development and impervious surfaces, and fill of the Lower Area and Madonna Froom
Ranch areas to raise the site elevation by approximately one foot. In addition, project construction and
proposed stormwater conveyance systems would substantially alter the volume and velocity of surface
water flows and runoff. Further, the existing stormwater detention basin serving adjacent development
would be removed and a new detention basin would be constructed within the southern downstream
portion of the project site adjacent to Calle Joaquin to detain flood flows from the proposed project, as
well as those from Irish Hills Plaza and Mountainbrook Church. These changes to the creek and proposed
new stormwater conveyance system would substantially alter surface water flows through the site, as
well as peak surface flows downstream.
The direct effects of development of the project would result from replacement of approximately 50.7
acres of undeveloped land with residential, commercial, and recreational development. Substantial areas
of new impervious surfaces would increase both the total volume of stormwater runoff and the peak flow
Item 2
Packet Page 19
SPEC-0143-2017 / GENP 0737-2019 / EID 0738-2019
Froom Ranch Specific Plan (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Road)
Page 16
of runoff. Project design features such as the ditches, retention and detention basins, parks, planted
parkways, and the drainage conveyance system are proposed to avoid flooding and retain runoff to meet
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Post Construction Requirements (PCRs) for peak
flow and water quality.
Removal of the 2,145 linear feet of Froom Creek through the project site and construction of a new
3,745-foot-long realigned creek channel of an average of 65 feet in width and varying depths are major
project features. At the downstream end of the project site adjacent to the proposed stormwater detention
basin, the existing creek channel would be widened to 5 feet with a spill-over feature to allow conveyance
of storm flows in excess of a 10-year event to flow to the stormwater basin. These proposals are
developed at a conceptual level as described in the Preliminary Hydrologic and Hydraulic Calculations
report and Draft Specific Plan (see also Figures 2-5, 2-15, and 2-16 of the Draft EIR). These proposed
changes to site hydrology would occur during Phase 1 of project implementation between the months of
February to September.
The new creek would feature substantial bioengineered water flow and bank erosion control features,
including restored in-channel and creek bank riparian habitat, installation of 2,300 cy of boulders along
the toe of creek banks to reduce erosion from high-velocity flows and flooding within the creek channel
and Calle Joaquin wetlands, and creation of pool and riffle sequences in the channel bottom to slow
flows and create aquatic habitat, particularly for the Southern steelhead trout (see also, Section 3.4,
Biological Resources). Although detailed specifications and design are not yet fully developed, the
resiliency of these proposed improvements to survive high-velocity flows and flood volumes during
storm events, reduce or avoid creek bank erosion, and provide habitat mitigation and benefits are central
to successful creek realignment and redesign (see also, Section 3.4, Biological Resources).
Based on the preliminary design of the realigned Froom Creek corridor, the improved and realigned
Froom Creek would result in a net increase in peak flow capacity, increasing the ability of Froom Creek
to accommodate flows during large storm events and resulting runoff caused by increased impervious
surfaces at the project site. Under the project, Froom Creek would overbank only after the 2-year peak
flow is achieved. Flows greater than a 2-year storm would overbank to the Calle Joaquin wetlands or be
contained within the channel when not adjacent to the wetland, where the creek channel would be sized
to handle up to a 100-year storm event with a minimum of one foot of freeboard.
The proposed stormwater detention basin would provide additional “surge” storage for flows larger than
2-year storm events, where the existing box culverts overtop Calle Joaquin during 10-year events. The
proposed stormwater detention basin would allow for storage to allow the 25-year event to pass entirely
through the culverts. The 50-year and 100-year events are prohibitively large to allow for storage during
these events and overtop Calle Joaquin as safe overflow.
The Froom Creek watershed can experience high intensity rainfall events that can result in short duration
high intensity flows of up to 1,241 cfs under 100-year storm conditions, with potential for scouring of
the channel bottom and erosion along the banks of the newly realigned creek. Similar conditions are
frequently experienced within the existing Froom Creek, which demonstrated deep incising and scouring
of creek banks. To address this concern for the proposed alignment, the project includes use of 2,300 cy
of imported rock to create a series of channel bottom pools along upper reaches of the creek within the
Specific Plan area. This creek design would retain and slow flows and to provide slope protection toe
Item 2
Packet Page 20
SPEC-0143-2017 / GENP 0737-2019 / EID 0738-2019
Froom Ranch Specific Plan (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Road)
Page 17
rock (i.e., boulders) along the base of the creek bank to prevent or minimize bank erosion, along with
in-channel and creek bank revegetation. Based on an analysis of sedimentation and erosion of the
proposed Froom Creek realignment, it is anticipated that installation of proposed features to reduce flow
velocity (e.g., channel bottom pools) and stabilize channel banks would be effective at reducing or
preventing scour and bank erosion (Draft EIR Appendix J; Preliminary Sediment Transport Analysis
and Calculations).
The Preliminary Hydrologic and Hydraulic Calculations report prepared by RRM Design Group and
reviewed by the City notes the flow velocities of the proposed Froom Creek channel would range from
2 – 8 feet per second (fps). Based on an analysis of sedimentation and erosion of the proposed Froom
Creek realignment, these proposed velocities, as well as installation of bank stabilization features, would
be effective at reducing scour and bank erosion.
Where the realigned Froom Creek bends to the south and runs adjacent to the Calle Joaquin wetlands,
the realigned creek channel would be constructed with an approximately 1,500-foot-long low-flow
channel. A low berm would separate the low-flow channel from the Calle Joaquin wetlands. The low-
flow channel would be designed to handle normal flow events but flows in excess of a 2-year storm
event would overtop the low-flow channel and spread laterally to and flood the Calle Joaquin wetlands,
submerging the low berm. Effectively, the low-flow channel at the Calle Joaquin wetlands would allow
the realigned creek to expand into a wide floodplain area in the Calle Joaquin wetlands. The frequency
of bank overtopping of the realigned creek channel at this segment is intended to mimic the historic
frequency of bank overtopping of the existing Froom Creek prior to 2013 when an artificial earthen berm
was installed immediately downslope of the existing channel to reduce potential overtopping. Flow
velocity along this portion of the creek during large flow events would be less than 1 foot per second,
which would not result in substantial erosion of the low-flow channel, low berm, or the Calle Joaquin
wetlands (refer also to Section 3.4, Biological Resources).
Based on the findings of the Preliminary Hydrologic and Hydraulic Calculations prepared by RRM
Design Group and reviewed by the City, using the City Watershed Management Zones (WMZ) rainfall
mapping, and a 24-hour storm event which equates to 1.9 inches of rainfall over the WMZ development
area, implementation of the project would result in generation of an additional 4.9 acre-feet (AF) of
runoff, which would be detained and treated within the proposed onsite stormwater treatment areas.
Based on the combined runoff generated by offsite development during such a storm event (4.0 AF) and
natural Froom Creek flood flows entering the project site (16.9 AF), the flows being conveyed via Froom
Creek through the site under the project would equate to 20.9 AF. Based on this analysis, all on- and
offsite stormwater detention and control measures would be adequately sized to detain on- and offsite
flows, consistent with the City’s Drainage Design Manual requirements for attenuation of runoff from
2-year through 100-year events. Implementation of identified measures would adequately attenuate all
project stormwater peak flows and even slightly reduce peak flows at the U.S. 101 double box culvert;
however, peak flow at the U.S. 101 double box culvert would continue to exceed capacity during storm
events greater than 10-year event.
Most of the low elevation areas of the project site are currently located within a designated floodplain,
Zone A, and development of the project within this area could pose risk of new development to flooding
hazards. However, as discussed above, the project would relocate and redesign Froom Creek to provide
additional flood-flow capacity and would fill the Lower Area and Madonna Froom Ranch portions of
Item 2
Packet Page 21
SPEC-0143-2017 / GENP 0737-2019 / EID 0738-2019
Froom Ranch Specific Plan (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Road)
Page 18
the site within these flood zones to engineered elevations above the 100-year floodplain. Implementation
of the proposed improvements would remove the site development area from the FEMA floodplain and
require a Conditional Letter of Map Revision/Letter of Map Revision from FEMA.
The proposed stormwater management system would be sized and designed to accommodate and
attenuate 100-year storm event flood waters to ensure proposed development would lie outside a flood
hazard zone and the project would not change the potential for flooding offsite; the existing flood risks
associated with 10-year storm events due to the existing box culvert under U.S. 101 would remain under
the project. However, the proposed design of Froom Creek would not ensure a fixed location and high
velocity flows would potentially cause erosion, scouring, and bank undercutting, which would lead to
creek rerouting and bank destabilization with unpredictable effects on flows, flooding, and
sedimentation. This impact would be potentially significant.
Implementation of MM HYD-4, requiring revised Froom Creek realignment plans and additional
supporting technical studies would ensure the realigned creek and erosion protection features are
sufficient to prevent or significantly reduce erosion and destruction of the creek channel and bank.
Implementation of this measure would also ensure stability of proposed in-stream fish habitat
improvements (e.g., for Southern steelhead), supporting the success and longevity of improved habitat;
therefore, the Draft EIR determined potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Flooding – Alternative 1. Impacts (compared to the proposed project) are summarized in Table 8. The
complete analysis is available on the City’s website:
https://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=24506
Table 8. Summary of Impacts Related to Flooding – Alternative 1
Flooding Impacts Mitigation
Measures Residual Impact
HYD-2. Alternative 1 would potentially exacerbate
flooding and erosion hazards onsite and in areas
downstream, particularly related to the proposed
alignment and design of Froom Creek and developed
areas of the site.
MM HYD-4
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
(Similar)
Impact HYD-2, addressing potential onsite flooding and erosion hazards, would be similar when
compared to the proposed project since the proposed stormwater system for Alternative 1 would involve
the same components. Froom Creek realignment would be similar to the design under the project.
Preliminary calculations prepared by the Applicant and peer-reviewed by the City’s EIR consultant,
indicate the stormwater management system would be capable of accommodating a 100-year storm
event. Development under Alternative 1 would be clustered, so the acreage of impervious surfaces would
be less severe when compared to the project. Replacement of approximately 8.2 acres of residential
development with open space in the Upper Terrace would decrease potential stormwater surface flows.
Implementation of MM HYD-4 requiring creek bank and channel bottom stability and avoidance or
reduction of further erosion would continue to apply, and impacts were determined to be less than
significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project.
Item 2
Packet Page 22
SPEC-0143-2017 / GENP 0737-2019 / EID 0738-2019
Froom Ranch Specific Plan (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Road)
Page 19
Land Use and Planning. Implementation of the project that would allow development above the 150-
foot elevation, and more specifically development within the environmentally sensitive Upper Terrace,
would result in potentially significant and unavoidable impacts to aesthetic and visual resources,
biological resources, and emergency access and fire hazards. Table 9 summarizes the project’s potential
impacts related to land use and policy consistency and associated mitigation measures. The complete
analysis is available on the City’s website: https://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=24498
Table 9. Summary of Impacts to Land Use and Planning
Land Use Impacts Mitigation
Measures Residual Impact
LU-1. The Project would allow urban development above
the 150-foot elevation and would relocate portions of the
Froom Ranch Dairy complex, which would potentially
conflict with City General Plan policies adopted for the
purpose of avoiding impacts to visual, biological, and
cultural resources and wildfire hazards.
MM BIO-1
MM BIO-2
MM BIO-3
MM BIO-4
MM BIO-5
MM BIO-6
MM BIO-9
MM BIO-10
MM BIO-11
MM BIO-12
MM BIO-13
MMBIO-14
MM CR-9
MM CR-10
MM CR-11
MM CR-12
MM CR-13
MM CR-14
MM HAZ-2
MM HAZ-3
MM HAZ-4
MM HAZ-5
MM TRANS-21
MM TRANS-22
MM TRANS-23
Significant and
Unavoidable
LU-2. The Project would potentially be inconsistent with
existing easements and setback requirements onsite. None Required Less than Significant
After a review for consistency with City General Plan policies, the Draft EIR determined the project
would be potentially inconsistent with City LUCE and General Plan COSE policies that protect sensitive
biological, open space, and visual resources, including protections reflected in Policy 6.4.7, Hillside
Planning Areas, which prohibits development above the 150-foot elevation within the Irish Hills area.
Due to the extent of significant environmental effects associated with the proposed project’s
inconsistency with Policy 6.4.7, impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable.
Item 2
Packet Page 23
SPEC-0143-2017 / GENP 0737-2019 / EID 0738-2019
Froom Ranch Specific Plan (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Road)
Page 20
Land Use and Planning – Alternative 1. Under Alternative 1, the layout, acreage, and placement of
residential and commercial development, as well as parkland and roadways, within the project site would
substantially differ from the project. While the total number of residential units and square footage of
commercial land uses would remain the same as the proposed project, Alternative 1 would be more
consistent with policies within the General Plan LUE that prohibit development above the 150-foot
elevation line and protect sensitive resources. Overall, the Draft EIR determined impacts related to Land
Use and policy consistency would be substantially reduced under Alternative 1. These impacts
(compared to the proposed project) are summarized in Table 10. The complete analysis is available on
the City’s website: https://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=24506
Table 10. Summary of Impacts to Land Use and Planning – Alternative 1
Land Use and Planning Impacts Mitigation
Measures Residual Impact
LU-1. Alternative 1 would allow urban development
above the 150-foot elevation and would relocate portions
of the Froom Ranch Dairy complex, which would
potentially conflict with City General Plan policies
adopted for the purpose of avoiding impacts to visual,
biological, and cultural resources and wildfire hazards.
MM BIO-1
MM BIO-2
MM BIO-3
MM BIO-4
MM BIO-5
MM BIO-6
MM BIO-9
MM BIO-10
MM BIO-11
MM BIO-12
MM BIO-13
MM BIO-14
MM CR-9
MM CR-10
MM CR-11
MM CR-12
MM CR-13
MM CR-14
MM HAZ-1
MM HAZ-2
MM HAZ-3
MM HAZ-4
MM HAZ-5
Significant and
Unavoidable (Less)
LU-2. Alternative 1 would potentially be inconsistent
with existing easements and setback requirements onsite. None Required Less than Significant
(Incrementally Less)
Alternative 1 would relocate proposed residential development above 150 feet in elevation within the
Villaggio and Madonna Froom Ranch portions of the site to lower elevations of the site and proposes to
limit development above 150 feet in elevation on the Madonna Froom Ranch portion of the project site
(within the existing quarry area) to public park uses. Residential and commercial development would be
tightly clustered within approximately 30 percent of the site (e.g., 36 acres), with over 60 acres of
contiguous open space provided on the Upper Terrace and public park uses within the upper reaches of
Madonna Froom Ranch.
Item 2
Packet Page 24
SPEC-0143-2017 / GENP 0737-2019 / EID 0738-2019
Froom Ranch Specific Plan (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Road)
Page 21
Impact LU-1, regarding conflicts with City General Plan policies for visual, biological, and cultural
resources and wildfire hazards, would be substantially reduced compared to the proposed project. Unlike
the project, urban development above the 150-foot elevation would not be permitted under Alternative
1, providing increased consistency with the City General Plan. This alternative would be substantially
more consistent with the General Plan LUE and COSE policies that protect sensitive biological, cultural,
open space, and visual resources. These policies include LUE Policies 1.8.6, Wildlife Habitats, and 6.4.7,
Hillside Planning Areas, and COSE Policies 7.3.1, Protect Listed Species, 7.3.2, Protect Species of Local
Concern, and 9.2.1, Views to and from public places, including scenic roadways. However, development
of 12 villas in the southwest corner of Villaggio’s Lower Area would continue to substantially impact
onsite biological habitat connectivity between the Froom Creek corridor and grassland within the Upper
Terrace, and would be potentially inconsistent with COSE Policies, including 7.3.3, Wildlife Habitat and
Corridors, and 7.7.7, Preserve Ecotones.
Full compliance with the General Plan LUE and COSE would protect sensitive biological, open space,
and visual resources, and reduce potential fire hazards. Avoidance of development within the Upper
Terrace would protect biological resources, including state and federal jurisdictional areas and 12 special
status plant species. Required implementation of MM BIO-4 would result in relocation of residential
uses in the southwest portion of Villaggio to maintain a buffer on the centerline of the confluence of
Drainages 1, 2, and 3, and would reduce potential inconsistencies with General Plan policies designed
to protect wildlife corridors and ecotones, as discussed above. By relocating residential structures in the
northwestern portion of the project site and Upper Terrace of Villaggio, the visual transition between the
Irish Hills Natural Reserve and the Project site would be improved, substantially reducing visual impacts
(refer to KVA-4 and -5, above). Removing urban development above the 150-foot elevation line would
also greatly increase open space buffers between development in Madonna Froom Ranch and Villaggio,
improving safety from potential wildfire hazards onsite. Additionally, implementation of MM BIO-1
through -7 and -10 through -12 and MM HAZ-1 through -5 would further reduce potential impacts to
biological resources and wildfire hazards. In contrast with the proposed project, Alternative 1 would
avoid the significant land use and planning impacts related to General Plan policy consistency by
eliminating urban development above the 150-foot elevation line onsite.
However, the Project site also supports the historic Froom Ranch Dairy complex, including seven
existing structures associated with the historic dairy and Froom family. These structures constitute a
potential historic district under the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and the CRHR. As under the
proposed project, retention and relocation of four structures (i.e., main residence, creamery, dairy barn,
and granary) and demolition of three contributors to the Froom Ranch Dairy historic district (i.e., the
shed, bunkhouse, and old barn) would result in a significant impact to historic resources. While
implementation of MM CR-7 through -14 would reduce potential impacts, the permanent loss of the
historic integrity and contributing structures of the potential historic district would result in significant
and unavoidable impacts and potentially conflict with City policies for historic resource protection.
Therefore, the Draft EIR determined this impact, while substantially reduced, would remain significant
and unavoidable.
Transportation. Table 11 summarizes the project’s potential impacts related to transportation and
associated mitigation measures. The complete analysis is available on the City’s website:
https://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=24502
Item 2
Packet Page 25
SPEC-0143-2017 / GENP 0737-2019 / EID 0738-2019
Froom Ranch Specific Plan (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Road)
Page 22
The Traffic Impact Study is available in the Draft EIR Appendix, on the City’s website:
https://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=24519
Table 11. Summary of Impacts to Transportation
Transportation Impacts Mitigation
Measures
Residual
Impact TIS Impact
TRANS-1. Project construction activities
would potentially create traffic impacts due to
congestion from construction vehicles (e.g.,
construction trucks, construction worker
vehicles, equipment, etc.) as well as
temporary traffic lane and sidewalk closures.
MM TRANS-1
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
‐‐
TRANS-2. Under Existing plus Project
conditions, the addition of Project traffic
would exacerbate existing queuing and peak
hour traffic for automobiles, and poor levels
of service for pedestrians and bicycle modes
of transportation, causing transportation
deficiencies in the Project vicinity.
MM TRANS-2
MM TRANS-3
MM TRANS-4
MM TRANS-5
MM TRANS-6
MM TRANS-7
MM TRANS-8
MM TRANS-9
MM TRANS-10
MM TRANS-11
MM AQ-6
Significant and
Unavoidable
Existing plus
Project Impacts
TRANS-3. Under Near-Term plus Project
(Scenario 2) conditions, the addition of
Project traffic would exacerbate existing
queuing and peak hour traffic for automobiles
and poor levels of service for pedestrians and
bike modes of transportation, causing
transportation deficiencies in the Project
vicinity.
MM TRANS-2
MM TRANS-5
MM TRANS-6
MM TRANS-8
MM TRANS-9
MM TRANS-12
MM TRANS-13
MM TRANS-14
MM TRANS-15
MM TRANS-16
MM TRANS-17
MM TRANS-18
Significant and
Unavoidable
Near-Term plus
Project Impacts
TRANS-4. The Project would result in traffic
safety impacts and inadequate emergency
access and evacuation options, resulting in
potential for structural damage, injuries, or
loss of life due to wildland fires or other
emergency situations.
MM HAZ-4
MM TRANS-19
MM TRANS-20
MM TRANS-21
MM TRANS-22
MM TRANS-23
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Emergency
Vehicle Access
Impacts
TRANS-5. Onsite circulation would result in
safety impacts to pedestrian and bicycle
access.
MM TRANS-24
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Access
Management
Assessment
Item 2
Packet Page 26
SPEC-0143-2017 / GENP 0737-2019 / EID 0738-2019
Froom Ranch Specific Plan (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Road)
Page 23
TRANS-6. Under long-term Cumulative plus
Project conditions, Project-generated traffic
would result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to traffic for automobiles and
poor levels of service for pedestrians and bike
modes of transportation, causing
transportation deficiencies in the Project
vicinity.
MM TRANS-8
MM TRANS-9
MM TRANS-13
MM TRANS-23
MM TRANS-25
MM TRANS-26
MM TRANS-27
MM TRANS-28
MM TRANS-29
MM TRANS-30
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Cumulative plus
Project Impacts
Impacts to traffic and transportation upon implementation of the proposed project would consist of
delays and/or exceedance of intersection capacities, resulting in poor levels of service for automobiles,
pedestrians, and bicycle modes of transportation. More specifically, project-generated traffic would
cause exceedance of intersection capacities at various intersections not subject to the City’s authority or
requiring completion of the Prado Road Overpass/Interchange project to adequately reduce impacts.
Although the project would implement mitigation measures and the applicant would pay a fair share fee
to offset project contributions to this impact, as no County or Caltrans program for improvements is
currently adopted, potential impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable.
Transportation – Alternative 1. Impacts related to transportation and traffic would not substantially vary
in comparison to the proposed project due to the identical levels of residential and commercial
development proposed under Alternative 1 and consistent anticipated generation of 2,700 daily vehicle
trips. However, emergency access points would potentially be altered as compared to the proposed
project, lessening potential evacuation impacts. Alternative 1 would include similar road and
transportation improvements as proposed under the project:
1. A signalized intersection with LOVR that would provide four-way pedestrian crosswalks and
access to a new two-lane road (Collector “A”) that would serve as the primary access to the
Specific Plan area;
2. Widening of LOVR along a portion of the project site’s frontage;
3. Proposed internal roadway network consisting of public and private roads;
4. Proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities throughout the Specific Plan area;
5. Parking facilities to accommodate residents, employees, and visitors within the Specific Plan
area; and
6. A new bus stop that would be integrated into the regional public transportation system.
Table 12 summarizes potential impacts related to transportation and associated mitigation measures
associated with the implementation of Alternative 1. The complete analysis is available on the City’s
website: https://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=24506
Item 2
Packet Page 27
SPEC-0143-2017 / GENP 0737-2019 / EID 0738-2019
Froom Ranch Specific Plan (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Road)
Page 24
Table 12. Summary of Impacts to Transportation – Alternative 1
Transportation Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
TRANS-1. Alternative 1 construction
activities would potentially create traffic
impacts due to congestion from construction
vehicles (e.g., construction trucks,
construction worker vehicles, equipment, etc.)
as well as temporary traffic lane and sidewalk
closures.
MM TRANS-1
Less than Significant with
Mitigation (Incrementally
Less)
TRANS-2. Under Existing plus Project
conditions, the addition of Alternative 1 traffic
would exacerbate existing queuing and peak
hour traffic for automobiles, and poor levels
of service for pedestrians and bicycle modes
of transportation, causing transportation
deficiencies in the Project vicinity.
MM AQ-6
MM TRANS-2
MM TRANS-3
MM TRANS-4
MM TRANS-5
MM TRANS-6
MM TRANS-7
MM TRANS-8
MM TRANS-9
MM TRANS-10
MM TRANS-11
Significant and
Unavoidable (Similar)
TRANS-3. Under Near-Term plus Project
(Scenario 2) conditions, the addition of
Alternative 1 traffic would exacerbate existing
queuing and peak hour traffic for automobiles
and poor levels of service for pedestrians and
bike modes of transportation, causing
transportation deficiencies in the Project
vicinity.
MM TRANS-2
MM TRANS-5
MM TRANS-6
MM TRANS-8
MM TRANS-9
MM TRANS-12
MM TRANS-13
MM TRANS-14
MM TRANS-15
MM TRANS-16
MM TRANS-17
MM TRANS-18
MM TRANS-19
MM TRANS-20
Significant and
Unavoidable (Similar)
TRANS-4. Alternative 1 would result in
traffic safety impacts and inadequate
emergency access and evacuation options,
resulting in potential for structural damage,
injuries, or loss of life due to wildland fires or
other emergency situations.
MM HAZ-4
MM TRANS-21
MM TRANS-22
MM TRANS-23
Less than Significant with
Mitigation (Incrementally
Less)
TRANS-5. Onsite circulation would result in
safety impacts to pedestrian and bicycle
access.
MM TRANS-24
Less than Significant with
Mitigation (Incrementally
Less)
TRANS-6. Under long-term Cumulative plus
Project conditions, Alternative 1-generated
MM TRANS-8
MM TRANS-9
MM TRANS-13
Less than Significant with
Mitigation (Incrementally
Less)
Item 2
Packet Page 28
SPEC-0143-2017 / GENP 0737-2019 / EID 0738-2019
Froom Ranch Specific Plan (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Road)
Page 25
traffic would result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution to
traffic for automobiles and poor levels of
service for pedestrians and bike modes of
transportation, causing transportation
deficiencies in the Project vicinity.
MM TRANS-25
MM TRANS-26
MM TRANS-27
MM TRANS-28
MM TRANS-29
MM TRANS-30
Impact TRANS-1, associated with construction traffic impacts, would be less severe when compared to
those associated with the proposed project because removal of development in the Upper Terrace would
eliminate the need for construction vehicles to travel along Calle Joaquin and within proposed local roads
within the project site. Construction timing under Alternative 1 would change to avoid overlap between
occupancy of Villaggio and construction activities in the Upper Terrace, as proposed by the project,
reducing construction related traffic impacts on the Villaggio population. Alternative 1 would result in
construction traffic being separated from occupied portions of the site in Villaggio and Madonna Froom
Ranch and would shorten the time in which construction vehicles would interfere with regular roadway
traffic. As under the proposed project, this Alternative would implement MM TRANS-1 requiring
preparation of a Construction Transportation Management Plan for all phases of development, to be
reviewed and approved by the City. Given substantial reductions in development footprint and
implementation of required mitigation measures, this impact would be incrementally less severe when
compared to the project and would be less than significant with mitigation.
Impact TRANS-2, regarding exacerbation of queuing and peak hour traffic for automobiles and poor
levels of service for pedestrians and bicycle modes of transportation under Existing plus Alternative 1
conditions, would be similar to the proposed project. The anticipated residential population of
Alternative 1 is the same as the project and roadway intersecti ons impacted by the project would continue
to be impacted by Alternative 1. Although fewer internal roadways would be required as a result of
removal of residential uses in the Upper Terrace, internal traffic would continue to be potentially
significant at occupation of Madonna Froom Ranch; similar to the proposed project, MM TRANS-11
requiring use of traffic calming measures on Local Street “A” would reduce this impact to less than
significant. Although required implementation of MM TRANS-2 through -5 and MM TRANS-7 through
-11 would reduce other impacts under Existing plus Alternative 1 conditions to less than significant, MM
TRANS-6 requiring payment of fair share costs for the completion of the Prado Road
Overpass/Interchange project would not mitigate potential impacts until this infrastructure project is
complete. Therefore, similar to the project, if the Prado Road Overpass/Interchange project is not in
place by occupancy of Alternative 1, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact TRANS-3, which addresses exacerbation of existing queuing and peak hour traffic for
automobiles and poor levels of service for pedestrians and bicyclists under Near-Term plus Alternative
1 conditions, would be similar to the project. As discussed above, Alternative 1 would generate similar
population increases and associated traffic as the proposed project. Although required implementation
of MM TRANS-2, -5, -8, -9, -12, -13, and -15 through -18 would reduce impacts under Near-Term plus
Alternative 1, completion of MM TRANS-6 and MM TRANS-14 require completion of the Prado Road
Overpass/Interchange project, which cannot be ensured by this alternative. Therefore, if the Prado Road
Overpass/Interchange project is not in place by occupancy of Alternative 1, this impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Item 2
Packet Page 29
SPEC-0143-2017 / GENP 0737-2019 / EID 0738-2019
Froom Ranch Specific Plan (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Road)
Page 26
Impact TRANS-4, addressing inadequate emergency access and evacuations in areas of high and very
high fire hazard, would be less severe when compared to the project, as additional emergency evacuation
options would be provided under Alternative 1 and development would be reduced to lower risk areas
of the site. Similar to the project, Alternative 1 would continue to provide an emergency access route
between Madonna Froom Ranch and Irish Hills Plaza. Unlike the proposed project, Alternative 1 would
not provide an emergency access route through the Mountainbrook Church private road and would
instead provide one emergency access route along the proposed stormwater basin and/or another across
the realigned Froom Creek channel to connect to LOVR, thereby improving options for emergency
access and evacuation. The access route adjacent to the stormwater basin would allow evacuees located
within the southwestern portion of Villaggio to evacuate without further exacerbating potential
congestion along LOVR, as well as provide additional ingress and egress points for emergency
responders. Additionally, Alternative 1 would require MM TRANS-19, inclusion of an emergency
access point from the Lower Area to the existing dirt access road that connects to the utility power line
structures at the top of the ridgelines, and MM TRANS-22, requiring provision of emergency respondent
access to project site perimeters, which would increase emergency access to the site and reduce potential
impacts to less than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project.
Impact TRANS-5, regarding pedestrian and bicycle circulation safety issues, would be similar to the
project, as anticipated generation of internal roadway trips would be the same. MM TRANS-24 would
continue to be required, ensuring Alternative 1 would include design guidance published by the National
Association of City Transportation Officials and the Federal Highway Administration, including
installation of American Disabilities Act-compliant sidewalks, Lead Pedestrian Intervals and pedestrian
refuges at the LOVR/Auto Park Way intersection, and Class IV bikeways along LOVR
approaching/departing this intersection. Implementation of this mitigation measure would ensure
residual impacts to onsite circulation for pedestrians, and bicyclists would be less than significant with
mitigation, similar to the proposed project.
Impact TRANS-6 regarding Cumulative plus Project conditions, would be similar when compared to the
proposed project. As under the project, potentially significant impacts could occur to 14 separate
intersections and roadway segments due to increased automobile, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic under
Cumulative plus Project conditions (see Table 3.13-16 in Section 3.13, Transportation and Traffic, of
the Draft EIR). However, required implementation of MM TRANS-25 through -30, as well as MM
TRANS-8, -9, and -13, would reduce cumulative impacts to less than significant with mitigation, similar
to the proposed project.
Wildfire. The project would place residential and commercial development in a location that is
vulnerable to wildfires. Potential impacts related to Wildfire are summarized in Table 13. The complete
analysis is available on the City’s website: https://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=24496
Item 2
Packet Page 30
SPEC-0143-2017 / GENP 0737-2019 / EID 0738-2019
Froom Ranch Specific Plan (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Road)
Page 27
Table 13. Summary of Wildfire Impacts
Wildfire Impacts Mitigation
Measures Residual Impact
HAZ-1. The Project would exacerbate wildfire risks,
thereby exposing occupants to wildfire hazards, and
impair emergency response, and would require wildfire
fuel management in the Irish Hills Natural Reserve.
MM HAZ-1
MM HAZ-2
MM HAZ-3
MM HAZ-4
MM HAZ-5
Significant and
Unavoidable
The project site is located in a region with very high to moderate fire hazard potential, including the
western 1-mile-long perimeter of the site that borders and includes very high fire hazard areas. Adjacent
grassland, coastal sage scrub, oak woodland and chaparral vegetation within the Irish Hills Natural
Reserve provides substantial flammable natural fuels for future potential wildfires. The project site also
lies at the base of the Froom Creek watershed with steep slopes in the Irish Hills Natural Reserve creating
wind channels; prevailing winds generally blow northwest up the slopes but periodically reverse and
blow southeast downslope toward the project site (Western Regional Climate Center 2018). In addition,
grasslands and vegetation along slopes and within drainage channels within the project site would serve
as fuels that contribute to potential fire hazards for future development.
As part of the project, 39.1 acres of residential uses, 3.1 acres of commercial uses, and 2.9 acres of public
facilities are proposed within the CALFIRE-designated Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ).
While approximately 13 acres of the Very High FHSZ exist within the project site, no development is
proposed within this zone; proposed development within the Upper Terrace of Villaggio would be
located approximately 200 feet from the Very High FHSZ. Further, along approximately 1,000 feet of
the project site’s western perimeter, residential land uses within Madonna Froom Ranch are proposed
directly adjacent to Very High FHSZ within the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, though these residential
uses would be buffered by the existing Froom Creek alignment.
Exacerbated fire hazards that could occur during construction and operation of the project would require
implementation of MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-5 to reduce potentially significant impacts. MM
HAZ-1 would be required to reduce impacts from the risk of fire ignition from construction activities,
limiting the potential for fires ignited by construction activities to the furthest extent feasible.
Implementation of mitigating fire protection measures during construction phases would reduce the risk
of fire caused by construction activities through personnel briefings and provision of fire safety
equipment such as extinguishers, designated smoking areas, and access to water tenders during
construction. MM HAZ-2 would reduce the potential impacts associated with the proximity of
development to biofuels that may cause a wildfire incident, reducing fire hazards associated with
vegetation and biofuel mass. This would require defensible space around the project’s habitable
structures, which has the potential to affect the adjacent Irish Hills Natural Reserve if the defensible
space is not confined to the project site. Implementation of MM HAZ-3 would be required to reduce the
risk of wildfire from smoking by residents of the project. This mitigation would maintain consistency
with the City-wide smoking policies, ensuring that smoking within privately and publicly maintained
spaces does not occur adjacent to areas with high fire hazards (City Municipal Code Section 8.16).
Item 2
Packet Page 31
SPEC-0143-2017 / GENP 0737-2019 / EID 0738-2019
Froom Ranch Specific Plan (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Road)
Page 28
To ensure that the project would not substantially impair an emergency operation or evacuation plan,
MM HAZ-4 would require the development and implementation of a project-specific Evacuation Plan,
ensuring resources are available to safely evacuate persons within the project site, with consideration for
changes to the anticipated construction schedule or potential development activities. Finally, MM HAZ-
5 would ensure emergency responders can directly access the Irish Hills through the project site in the
event of wildfire, including personnel and equipment. However, compared to existing conditions in
which firefighters are currently able to stage at the project site and are allowed full, unhindered access
to the Irish Hills, the project would continue to impair access for fire-fighting personnel even with
implementation of these measures.
These measures would reduce the range of wildfire risks associated with the Project. However, given the
location of the site at the base of the Irish Hills with slopes, vegetation, and winds that put the Project
site and surrounding areas at risk for wildfire impacts, the mitigation measures would not reduce the
potential impact to a level of insignificance. Occupants would still be exposed to wildfire hazards and
secondary impacts to the Irish Hills would continue to occur from offsite fuel management (refer to
Section 3.4 of the Draft EIR, Biological Resources), and emergency response to wildfire in the Irish
Hills would continue to be impaired by the project as currently designed. Therefore, with implementation
of the above mitigation, impacts related to wildland fires with associated threat of damage to structures
and loss of life, were determined to be significant and unavoidable.
Wildfire – Alternative 1. Under Alternative 1, impacts related to wildfire hazards would be substantially
reduced due to reconfiguration of proposed habitable structures to more defensible locations within the
site and provision of additional emergency access options for emergency responders. While the Draft
EIR determined that Alternative 1 would avoid or reduce several significant impacts that would result
from the proposed project associated with wildfire risks, exposure of occupants to wildfire hazards, and
impairment of emergency response and access, impacts associated with Wildfire under Alternative 1
would remain significant and unavoidable. Impacts (compared to the proposed project) are summarized
in Table 14. The complete analysis is available on the City’s website:
https://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=24506
Table 14. Summary of Wildfire Impacts – Alternative 1
Wildfire Impacts Mitigation
Measures Residual Impact
HAZ-1. Alternative 1 would exacerbate wildfire risks by
exposing occupants to wildfire hazards and impairing
emergency response and would require wildfire fuel
management in the Irish Hills Natural Reserve.
MM HAZ-1
MM HAZ-2
MM HAZ-3
MM HAZ-4
MM HAZ-5
Significant and
Unavoidable (Less)
Impact HAZ-1, addressing exposure of wildfire hazards and emergency response access, would be
substantially reduced. The project site is located in an area with moderate to very high fire hazards due
to flammable vegetation onsite and within the adjacent Irish Hills Natural Reserve, as well as due to
winds that periodically blow southeast downslope toward the project site. As under the project,
adherence to applicable requirements to minimize the risk from accidental construction- and operation-
Item 2
Packet Page 32
SPEC-0143-2017 / GENP 0737-2019 / EID 0738-2019
Froom Ranch Specific Plan (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Road)
Page 29
related wildfires, including clearance or management of flammable vegetation within 100 feet of
residential development (including within the Irish Hills Natural Reserve), would mitigate this impact.
Unlike the project, all residential development within the Upper Terrace and in the northwestern portion
of the site within Madonna Froom Ranch would be retained as open space and/or public park uses,
reducing wildland-urban interface by approximately 4,750 feet (50 percent of wildland-urban interface
under the project). This increased clustering within lower hazard areas in the lower portion of the site
would increase the buffer between new development and very high fire hazard areas.
Impacts resulting from impaired emergency evacuation and exposure of residents and visitors to wildfire
hazards would be reduced. Unlike the project, this alternative proposes emergency ingress to the project
site from a new emergency access road and bridge across the LOVR ditch to LOVR approximately 800
feet southeast of the main project entrance and/or a new emergency access road to Calle Joaquin located
along the western edge of the proposed stormwater detention basin (see EIR Figure 5-1). Emergency
access through the Irish Hills Plaza would also be included. Therefore, a total of up to four access routes,
including the primary entrance, would provide for evacuation and less congested access to the site for
emergency responders in the case of an emergency.
Under Alternative 1, security fencing, retaining walls, and closely spaced residential units in Villaggio
would continue to limit access for firefighters to attack fires threatening residential units adjacent to the
Irish Hills Natural Reserve. As under the project, implementation of several mitigation measures would
avoid or reduce impacts. MM HAZ-1, requiring construction measures to reduce the potential for brush
or grass fires, MM HAZ-2, requiring preparation of a Community Fire Protection Plan, and MM HAZ-
3, requiring designation of smoking areas away from onsite fire hazards would all reduce these impacts.
MM HAZ-4, requiring preparation and implementation of an Evacuation Plan, and MM HAZ-5,
requiring that design of the Lower Area provides direct access for emergency response vehicles to the
Irish Hills Natural Reserve bordering the project site to the west, would further reduce impacts. Despite
these measures, the Draft EIR determined that, because Alternative 1 would continue to be located in an
area highly susceptible to potential fire hazards, potential impacts would remain significant and
unavoidable.
6.0 NEXT STEPS
Provide any feedback regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR, environmental analysis, and/or additional
needed information or modifications or issues which should be addressed in mitigation measures and/or
the Final EIR. All comments received in this review will be responded to and included in the Final EIR.
When the Final EIR is complete, the Planning Commission and City Council will consider the following
entitlements: Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, Pre-Zoning, Vesting Tentative Map, Annexation,
and certification of the FEIR.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. PC Meeting Minutes January 24, 2018
Item 2
Packet Page 33
Minutes
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
Wednesday, January 24, 2018
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order on
Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 6:01 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Stevenson.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Staff:
Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Ronald Malak, Nicholas Ostebur, Mike
Wulkan, Vice-Chair John Fowler, and Chair Charles Stevenson.
Community Development Deputy Director Davidson, Assistant City Attorney
Jon Ansolabehere, Associate Planner Shawna Scott, Associate Planner Kyle
Bell, and Recording Secretary Summer Aburashed
Pledge of Allegiance
Chair Stevenson led the Pledge of Allegiance.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Kim Bisheff
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. 12165 and 12393 Los Osos Valley Road: Preliminary review of the following Froom Ranch
Specific Plan Chapters: Land Use, Zoning, and Development Standards; Conservation, Open
Space, and Recreation; and Circulation. Case #: SPEC-0143-2017, Madonna on LOVR
Specific Plan Area 3; JM Development Group Inc., applicant.
Consultant, Emily Creel, summarized the project; presented the staff report and responded to
Commission inquiries. Shawna Scott, Associate Planner responded to Commission inquiries.
ATTACHMENT 1Item 2
Packet Page 34
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 24, 2018
Page 2 of 4
Applicant Representatives Pam Ricci, Rebecca Gruett, Robert Richmond, and Victor
Montgomery provided an overview of the project and responded to questions from the
Commission.
Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing.
Public Comments
John Eichler
Carole Moran
Russ Howard
Carolyn Harvey
Mia Simmons
Dave Romero
Gwen Maclane
Don Maclane
Lea Brooks
Ken Riener
JudyRiener
Neil Havlik
David Chipping
Sarah Flickinger
Cadence Flickinger
Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing
ACTION: The Commission provided the following preliminary feedback regarding the
proposed project:
•Commission would like to receive substantial presentations on the progress of the Draft
EIRs.
•Concern about development above the 150-foot elevation, some Commissioners noted
this is a "non-starter."
•Concern about the size of the affordable housing site.
•Concern about proposed creek re-alignment and groundwater recharge.
•Concern about cumulative effect on traffic.
•Table 2-2 parameters don't currently translate to the exhibit/concept plan; Commission
would like to see product/unit types, standards for private open space, and parking
standards.
•Suggest extending bike lanes to connect to park and multi-family units.
•Commission wants to see alternatives site layouts and full policy analysis.
•Consider size of median (is 10 feet necessary.)
•Look closer at need for the size of proposed cottages.
•Consider wildland/fire interface and need for open/usable secondary access.
•Consider effects to wildlife corridors, including fencing.
ATTACHMENT 1Item 2
Packet Page 35
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 24, 2018
Page 3 of 4
•Install story poles (as required by Specific Plan Initiation Resolution.)
•Implications with the community being gated.
o Is it locking community members in?
o Gates are appropriate but would like to see samples.
•Concerns expressed with community as a whole being fenced and gated.
•No connections, walk thru, or otherwise to adjacent commercial.
•Fee ownership lot plans are encouraged, and commission would like to see charts;
support for small lot concepts/smaller homes.
•Commission is concerned with siting a Life Plan Community at this project's location.
•Proximity of commercial and residential units may be an issue.
RECESS:
The Commission recessed at 8:25 p.m. and reconvened at 8:39 p.m. with all Commissioners
present.
BUSINESS ITEMS
3.Zoning Regulations Update. The Zoning Regulations Update is focused on implementing
the policies and programs of the Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE). This will be a
standing item on the Planning Commission agenda from June 14, 2017 through completion
of the Update of the Zoning Regulations, tentatively scheduled for completion in March
2018. This will be an opportunity for staff to update the Commission on the status of the
Zoning Regulations Update and for the Commission to listen to ongoing public testimony
and discuss any such updates as they come forward. As a standing item, sometimes there will
be nothing to report; other times staff will give a brief update with limited discussion; and at
certain points, such as review of the Land Use Table, Parking Requirements, and the
Reformatted Outline, there will be more substantive discussion on the item. When materials
are associated with the Update, as with the White Papers associated with the Update, such
information will be made available to the public and Commission prior to the meeting.
Specific Items for Consideration are:
a.Continued discussion on alcohol-related safety problems in Downtown
b.Exploring additional S Overlay zones, including, but not limited to, Lincoln St., Dana
St., Upper Monterey, and North Chorro/North Broad St.
c.Review of Draft Article 1 (Enactment, Applicability, and Enforcement)
d.Review of Draft Article 5 (Nonconformities)
e.Review of Draft Article 8 (Housing Related Regulations)
Doug Davidson, Deputy Director and Kyle Bell Associate Planner presented the staff report
and responded to Commission inquiries.
Captain Jeff Smith responded to Commission inquiries
ATTACHMENT 1Item 2
Packet Page 36
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 24, 2018
Page 4 of 4
,Public Comments
Allen Cooper
Dominic Tartigalia
The following comments were provided:
•Last sentence of page 3-53 seems redundant
•PC3-35: One proposed change appears to make all fractional units round up to the nearest
whole number. Ask staff for clarification about how this will work. Additionally, request
clarification as to what income category the additional unit falls into and advocate for the
lowest income category.
•PC3-46: Staff included a new section to create new incentives and concessions for
projects that include transitional foster youth, disabled veterans, and Homeless Persons.
This is a great effort to make the City of SLO a more inclusive place to live.
•PC3-46: This change would reduce the parking requirement for seniors. Lowering
parking requirements for such projects is a practical step, as this population typically does
not need all of the spaces required.
•PC3-46: Lower-income households typically utilize public transportation at higher rates
and have lower rates of car ownership. Our parking requirements should reflect this
reality and should also have a lower parking requirement for deed-restricted units. Not
only would this make it easier for HASLO and nonprofit developers to produce
affordable housing, but it would also incentivize market-rate developers to build
affordable housing on-site by allowing such developers to receive this benefit without
using an incentive or concession.
•PC3-54: Does the elimination of required findings under the conditions of approval
strengthen a housing application for a given developer?
•PC3-59: There are changes being made related to High Occupancy Residential Use, but
are any efforts underway to create an efficient process for "tiny home" approval or
zoning?
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
4.Agenda Forecast -Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson provided an
update of upcoming projects .
. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:48 p.m. The next Regular meeting of the Planning Commission
is scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m., in the location, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California.
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: 02/28/2018
ATTACHMENT 1Item 2
Packet Page 37
Packet Page 38
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Development review of a three-story affordable housing project consisting of 68
residential units, including a density bonus of 40 percent and an affordable housing incentive to allow
for a maximum height of 45 feet where 35 is normally required, and a determination that the project
is consistent with the certified Final EIR for Orcutt Area Specific Plan and exempt from
environmental review (CEQA).
PROJECT ADDRESS: 3750 Bullock Lane BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7524
E-mail: kbell@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0148-2019 FROM: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) that allows the approval of the project subject to findings
and conditions of approval.
SITE DATA
SUMMARY
The proposed project is a three-story residential development consisting of 68 residential dwellings,
with 67 rental units designated for affordable housing (with varying income levels from extremely
low to very low to low), including a request for a sign exception, as described in the previous ARC
report. The project includes two affordable housing alternative incentive requests (§ 17.140.070) for
a 40% density bonus and relief of site development standards to allow a maximum height of 45 feet,
where normally limited to 35 feet (Attachment 2, Project Description), (Attachment 3, Affordable
Housing Incentives Letter). The project site has been designated as the affordable housing
development site to satisfy the requirements for Tract 3063 (Righetti Ranch), Tract 3066 (Jones
Property), Tract 3095 (Imel), and Tract 3111 (Pratt Property), located at 3750 Bullock Lane within
the Orcutt Area Specific Plan. The proposed project also includes site improvements such as parking
and site access upgrades, and landscaping upgrades (Attachment 4, Project Plans).
Applicant Peoples’ Self-Help Housing Corp.
Representative Rigoberto Guzman
Zoning R-3-SP (Medium-High Density
Residential within the Orcutt Area
Specific Plan)
General Plan Medium-High Density Residential
Site Area ~80,586 square feet.
Environmental
Status
Statutory Exemption from
Environmental Review
Government Code Section 65457
Meeting Date: December 11, 2019
Item Number: 3
Item 3
Packet Page 39
ARCH-0148-2019
3750 Bullock Lane
Page 2
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
Review project for consistency with the General Plan, Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP), Zoning
Regulations, Sign Regulations, and applicable City development standards and guidelines. Planning
Commission (PC) review is required for projects which include more than 10 residential units. As
noted above, the proposed affordable housing incentives are included for final determination by the
Planning Commission.
2.0 PREVIOUS REVIEW
The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviewed the proposed project on October 21, 2019
for consistency with the OASP Design Guidelines and Community Design Guidelines. During their
review the ARC provided two directional items to the applicant to address specific concerns related
to building and site design (Attachment 5, ARC Staff Report and Meeting Minutes).
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The proposed improvements must conform to the standards and limitations of the Zoning Regulations,
Sign Regulations, and Engineering Standards and be consistent with the applicable standards within
the OASP. Staff has evaluated the project and identified discussion items for the PC to consider in
order to ensure the project responds to ARC direction and is in substantial compliance with the
applicable standards, as discussed in this analysis.
3.1 Consistency with the General Plan
The General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) provides policies for the conservation and development
of residential neighborhoods. The project is consistent with LUE policies pertaining to affordable
housing and density bonuses1.The Housing Element provides policies and programs that speak
specifically to supporting affordable housing projects and increasing density bonuses above state
allowances where appropriate2. Granting a density bonus in excess of State allowances and allowing
1 LUE Policy 2.4.2. The City shall approve a density bonus for projects that: B. Include affordable housing for seniors
or lower income households consistent with the requirements of State Law
2 Housing Element Policy 6.10. To help meet the Quantified Objectives, the City will support residential infill
development and promote higher residential density where appropriate.
Figure 1: Rendering of project design from Tiburon Road.
Item 3
Packet Page 40
ARCH-0148-2019
3750 Bullock Lane
Page 3
a reduction in site development standards for building height are consistent with the Housing Element
programs and policies to provide additional housing for very-low income households.
3.2 Consistency with the Zoning Regulations
In accordance with Table 2-1 of the Zoning Regulations, multi-unit residential projects are an allowed
use within the R-3 zone. The project design complies with lot coverage, floor area ratios, and setback
requirements for the (R-3) zone (see Section 4.0 Project Statistics). The project is requesting an
affordable housing alternative incentive to increase the maximum height for the project to 45 feet
where normally limited to 35 feet, as discussed in more detail in the section below.
3.3 Affordable Housing Alternative Incentives
The City has recognized housing as an important issue. The City’s 2017-19 Financial Plan identifies
affordable housing as a Major City Goal. The City’s Housing Element includes numerous policies
and programs that support incentives, such as density bonuses, to provide housing for low, very low
and extremely low-income households. Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.140.070(A) states that three
incentives or concessions shall be granted for housing developments that include at least 15% for
very-low income households. The proposed project provides 100% of the total units to be dedicated
to very low-income households (excluding the managers unit). Per State law, projects that provide
affordable housing are allowed up to a 35 percent density bonus based on the number of deed-
restricted affordable units provided in the project. Chapter 17.140 of the Zoning Regulations
(Affordable Housing Incentives) outlines various incentives for affordable housing projects that
developers can request. Some of the alternative incentive examples called out in the Chapter include
granting of a density bonus in excess of State allowances and allowing a reduction in site development
standards.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Housing Accountability Act and Density
Bonus Law provide protections for housing development projects which include density bonuses.
Government Code § 65915(d) (1)(B) and (d)(3) prevent an agency from denying the density bonus or
the incentive or concession or refusing to waive or reduce development standards, unless the agency
can make a finding based on substantial evidence that the density units, the incentive or concession
or the waiver or reduction in a development standard causes a “specific, adverse impact” upon the
public health, safety, or the physical environment, and for which there is no feasible method to
satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact3.
Alternative Incentive Request #1: Density Bonus: The site, zoned R-3, has an allowable density of
33.3 units based on the site’s net acreage (18 units per acre). The applicant is requesting a 40% density
bonus that would increase the total number of density units to 46.62, rounded up to 47 density units
pursuant to Section 17.140.040.B. To receive a 40% density bonus, the applicant must provide at least
24% of base units restricted to low income households, as outlined in Zoning Regulations Chapter
17.140.040(E). The applicant has proposed 67 units to be dedicated to extremely low, very-low, and
low-income units (excluding one two-bedroom managers unit; totaling in 68 units). See breakdown
of the density units in the table below;
3 Government Code § 65589.5(j)(1). Definition of ‘Specific, Adverse Impact’: Significant, quantifiable, direct, and
unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policie s, or conditions
as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete
Item 3
Packet Page 41
ARCH-0148-2019
3750 Bullock Lane
Page 4
Unit Type Density Unit Allocation Number of Units Total Density Units
Studio < 600 SF 0.5 18 9
1 Bed < 600 SF 0.5 24 12
2 Bed 1 26 26
Total: 68 47
Density per R-3 zone (18/acre): 33.3
Total including Density Bonus (40%): 46.62 rounds to 47
Alternative Incentive Request #2: Reduction to Site Development Standards: The applicant is
requesting an alternative incentive to reduce site development standards to allow for a building height
of 45 feet where 35 feet is normally required within the R-3 zone. The proposed building height of
45 feet is appropriate for this site and location because the height, mass, and scale of the project will
not negatively alter the overall character of the neighborhood. The project is consistent with the design
objectives within the Community Design Guidelines (CDG) because the development is designed in
a manner that does not deprive reasonable solar access to adjacent properties; by positioning the
majority of the building mass along the street frontage that incorporates vertical and horizontal wall
plan offsets that provide high-quality and aesthetically pleasing architectural design (CDG 5.4).
3.4 Consistency with the Orcutt Area Specific Plan
The project has been reviewed for consistency with the OASP policies, in order to present a project
that meets the intent of the Specific Plan and fully implements the goals for development of the Orcutt
Area. The applicant has provided a letter describing the project’s response to the OASP Design
Objectives (Attachment 6, Applicant Response to Design Objectives). The ARC has reviewed the
applicant’s letter and did not identify any concerns regarding the project design.
3.5 Architectural Review Commission Directional Items
The ARC recommended two directional items to be reviewed and evaluated prior to taking final action
on the project. The applicant has made the following changes in response to the directional items:
ARC Directional Item #1: Plans submitted for the Planning Commission hearing should provide
additional color elevations of the proposed buildings, to the extent feasible.
Response: The applicant has provided four additional color elevations of the project to provide greater
context, as presented in the project plans (Attachment 4, Project Plans Sheets 11, 12, 15, 16, 23, &
24).
ARC Directional Item #2: The applicant shall explore options to reduce the height of the roof
parapet, to the greatest extent feasible.
Response: The applicant has reduced the parapet in strategic areas by approximately two feet,
effectively reducing the perceived mass of the structure. Other constraints such as adequate screening
of mechanical equipment and safety requirements prevented the parapet from being reduced any
further (Attachment 4, Project Plans Sheets A1.5a, A1.6a, B1.5a)
Item 3
Packet Page 42
ARCH-0148-2019
3750 Bullock Lane
Page 5
3.6 Consistency with the Sign Regulations
The Sign Regulations are intended to protect and enhance the character of the community against
visual blight and the proliferation of signs, which can seriously detract from the pleasure of observing
the natural scenic beauty of San Luis Obispo. Signs have an important design component and must
be architecturally compatible with the character of surrounding development. It is the intent of these
regulations to regulate the time, place and manner under which signs are permitted, and not the
content of signage. Content shall not be used as a basis for determining whether or not a proposed
sign may be permitted.
The 2004 Sign Regulations Section 15.40.470.M (Residential Subdivision Signs) identifies the size
limitations for residential subdivision signs (the 2004 Sign Regulations were used because the project
was deemed complete prior to the effective date of the updated 2019 Sign Regulations). The applicant
has proposed a residential subdivision sign for 22.5 sq. ft., where normally limited to 20 sq. ft., and a
maximum height of 6 feet, where normally limited to 4 feet (Attachment 7, Monument Sign).
Exceptions to the Sign Regulations are subject to Section 15.40.610 (Findings for Approval of an
Exception) and granting an exception must be based on at least one of the required findings 4. The
ARC reviewed the sign exceptions at the October 21, 2019 hearing, and did not identify any concerns
with the proposal; therefore, staff has incorporated the required findings as part of the draft resolution
to this report for the PC’s consideration.
4.0 PROJECT STATISTICS
Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required*
Setbacks 10 feet 10 feet
Monument Sign
Max Height
Max Area
6 feet
22.5 sq. ft.
4 feet
20 sq. ft.
Density Units 47 (40% Bonus) 33.3
Maximum Height of Structures 45 feet 35 feet
Max Building Coverage 27.8% 60%
Public Art Will Provide Optional
Total # Parking Spaces
Electric Vehicle Parking
Bicycle Parking
73
8 EV Ready
82
68
7 EV Ready
82
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is consistent with the certified Final EIR for OASP and exempt from the CEQA, pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182(c) (Residential Projects Implementing Specific Plans). On March
2, 2010, the City Council certified the Final EIR for the OASP and approved the OASP through
Council Resolution 10154 (2010 Series). All mitigation measures adopted as part of the OASP FEIR
that are applicable to the proposed project are carried forward and applied to the proposed project to
4 Sign Regulations Section 15.40.610: Findings for Approval of an Exception: C: The exception is consistent with the
intent and purpose of the sign regulations (see Section 15.40.110) and will not constitute a grant of special privilege
or entitlement inconsistent with limitations applied to other properties in the vicinity with t he same zoning. D: The
sign exception is for superior design will not result in visual clutter and is consistent with the intent and purpose of
these Sign Regulations.
Item 3
Packet Page 43
ARCH-0148-2019
3750 Bullock Lane
Page 6
effectively mitigate the impacts that were previously identified (Attachment 8, OASP FEIR Council
Resolution No. 10154 (2010 Series)). The project is exempt from the provisions of the CEQA under
Government Code §65457 because the project consists of a residential development and is consistent
with the OASP, which was approved following certification of the OASP FEIR in 2010. No
supplemental environmental impact report is required pursuant to Public Resources Code §21166 and
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 because: 1) the project does not include or require any
revisions to the certified OASP FEIR; 2) no substantial changes would occur with respect to the
circumstances under which the project is being undertaken, and no revisions to the OASP FEIR are
required; and 3) no new information of substantial importance is available that was not already known
at the time the OASP FEIR was certified.
6.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The project has been reviewed by various City departments and divisions including; Planning,
Engineering, Transportation, Natural Resources, Building, Utilities, and Fire. Staff has not identified
any unusual site conditions or circumstances that would require special conditions. Comments have
been incorporated into the draft resolution as conditions of approval.
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
7.1 Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional
information or analysis required.
7.2 Deny the project. An action denying the application should include findings that cite the basis
for denial and should reference inconsistency with the General Plan, Community Design
Guidelines, OASP, Zoning Regulations or other policy documents. Should the PC want to
pursue this alternative, Staff recommends that the specific findings under Government Code
§ 65915(d)(1)(B) and (d)(3) are adequately addressed.
8.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Project Description
3. Affordable Housing Incentives Letter
4. Project Plans
5. ARC Staff Report and Draft Meeting Minutes 10.21.19
6. Applicant Response to Design Objectives
7. Monument Sign
8. OASP FEIR Council Resolution No. 10154 (2010 Series)
9. Biological Reconnaissance Survey
Item 3
Packet Page 44
RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-19
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A THREE-STORY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT CONSISTING OF 68 RESIDENTIAL
UNITS, INCLUDING A DENSITY BONUS OF 40 PERCENT AND AN
AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVE TO ALLOW FOR A MAXIMUM
HEIGHT OF 45 FEET WHERE 35 IS NORMALLY REQUIRED,
EXCEPTION TO THE SIGN REGULATIONS, AND A DETERMINATION
THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CERTIFIED FINAL
EIR FOR ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AND EXEMPT FROM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW; AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF
REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED DECEMBER 11, 2019 (3750
BULLOCK, ARCH-0148-2019)
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, on October 21, 2019, recommending directional items and approval of the
project to the Planning Commission based on consistency with the Community Design Guidelines
and Orcutt Areas Specific Plan (OASP), pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0148-
2018, Peoples’ Self Help Housing Corp., applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
December 11, 2019, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0148-2019, Peoples’ Self
Help Housing Corp., applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly considered
all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and
recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Planning Commission hereby grants final approval to the
project (ARCH-0148-2019), based on the following findings:
1. As conditioned, the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons
living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project respects site constraints and
will be compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood.
2. The project is consistent with the General Plan because it promotes policies related to
compatible development (LUE 2.3.9), residential project objectives (LUE 2.3.11), and
Item 3
Packet Page 45
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19
3750 Bullock Lane, ARCH-0148-2019
Page 2
housing production (HE 6.10).
3. The project is consistent with the Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 4.4.3 because
the project promotes higher-density, compact housing to achieve more efficient use of public
facilities and services and to improve the City’s jobs/housing balance.
4. The project is consistent with Housing Element Policies 6.1 and 7.4 because the project
supports the development of more housing in accordance with the assigned Regional Housing
Needs Allocation and establishes a new neighborhood, with pedestrian and bicycle linkages
that provide direct, convenient and safe access to adjacent neighborhoods consistent with the
OASP.
Architectural Review Findings
5. As conditioned, the project design is consistent with the Community Design standards of the
OASP, and consistent with the Community Design Guidelines for multi-family housing
design and Infill Development because the architectural styles are complementary to the
surrounding neighborhood including site design, roofing style, front porches, balconies,
siding materials, finish, and scale. The project design incorporates articulation, massing, and
a mix of color/finish materials that are compatible with the neighborhood and complementary
to other development within the immediate vicinity.
6. The proposed height, mass and scale of the project will not negatively alter the overall
character of the neighborhood or the streets appearance because the development is designed
in a manner that does not deprive reasonable solar access to adjacent properties by positioning
the majority of the building mass along the street frontage that incorporates vertical and
horizontal wall plan offsets providing a high-quality and aesthetically pleasing architectural
design.
7. The proposed height, mass and scale of the project is necessary to provide additional dwelling
units to be dedicated affordable for “extremely-low, very-low, and low” income households.
Density Bonus and Alternative Incentives Findings
8. The proposed project will provide quality affordable housing consistent with the intent of
Chapter 17.140 of the Zoning Regulations, and the requested density bonus and reduction to
site development standards are necessary to facilitate the production of affordable housing
units.
9. The requests for a density bonus and reduction to site development standards for location of
residential units are consistent with the intent of Housing Element Programs 2.17, 6.10, and
6.19, and the alternative affordable housing incentives outlined in Section 17.140.070 of the
Zoning Regulations.
Item 3
Packet Page 46
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19
3750 Bullock Lane, ARCH-0148-2019
Page 3
Sign Regulations Exception
10. The sign exception is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Sign Regulations and will
not constitute a grant of special privilege, because the exception is minor in nature and of
similar size as other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning, the exception provides
for a superior design that does not result in visual clutter on the property.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is consistent with the certified Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for OASP and exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182(c) (Residential Projects
Implementing Specific Plans). On March 2, 2010, the City Council certified the FEIR for the
OASP and approved the OASP through Council Resolution 10154 (2010 Series). All mitigation
measures adopted as part of the OASP FEIR that are applicable to the proposed project are carried
forward and applied to the proposed project to effectively mitigate the impacts that were previously
identified. The project is exempt from the provisions of the CEQA under Government Code
§65457 because the project consists of a residential development and is consistent with the OASP,
which was approved following certification of the OASP FEIR in 2010. No supplemental
environmental impact report is required pursuant to Public Resources Code §21166 and State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 because: 1) the project does not include or require any revisions
to the certified OASP FEIR; 2) no substantial changes would occur with respect to the
circumstances under which the project is being undertaken, and no revisions to the OASP FEIR
are required; and 3) no new information of substantial importance is available that was not already
known at the time the OASP FEIR was certified.
SECTION 3. Action. The project conditions of approval do not include mandatory code
requirements. Code compliance will be verified during the plan check process, which may include
additional requirements applicable to the project. The Planning Commission hereby grants final
approval to the project with incorporation of the following conditions:
Planning Division
1. Final project design and construction drawings submitted for a building permit shall be in
substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the Planning Commission (ARCH-
0148-2018). A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for
a building permit that lists all conditions and code requirements of project approval listed as
sheet number 2. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans
requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping,
or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review
Commission, as deemed appropriate.
2. The project shall comply with all mitigation measures and conditions, appl icable to the
project site, established under City Council Resolution No. 10154 (2010 Series).
3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all proposed
building surfaces and other improvements. Colors and materials shall be consistent with the
Item 3
Packet Page 47
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19
3750 Bullock Lane, ARCH-0148-2019
Page 4
color and material board submitted with Architectural Review application. The applicant shall
note the use of smooth finish stucco on the building plans to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director.
4. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include recessed window details and all other
details including but not limited to awnings, and railings. Plans shall indicate the type of
materials for the window frames and mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Plans shall
include the materials and dimensions of all lintels, sills, surrounds recesses and other related
window features. Plans shall demonstrate the use of high-quality materials for all design
features that reflect the architectural style of the project and are compatible with the
neighborhood character, to the approval of the Community Development Director.
5. Plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly depict the location of all required short and
long-term bicycle parking for all intended uses, plans submitted for construction permits shall
include bicycle lockers or interior space within each residential unit or parking area for the
storage of at least two bicycle per residential unit. Sufficient detail shall be provided about
the placement and design of bike racks and lockers to demonstrate compliance with relevant
Engineering Standards and Community Design Guidelines, to the satisfaction of the Public
Works and Community Development Directors.
6. Plans submitted for building permit shall include a photometric plan, demonstrating
compliance with maximum light intensity standards not to exceed a maintained value of 10
foot-candles. The locations of all lighting, including bollard style landscaping or path lighting,
shall be included in plans submitted for a building permit. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures
shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All
wall-mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the
building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut-sheets
on the submitted building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to ensure that light
is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City’s Night Sky Preservation
standards contained in Chapter §17.70.100 of the Zoning Regulations.
7. Mechanical and electrical equipment shall be located internally to the building. With submittal
of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building, which clearly
show the sizes of any proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment. If any
condensers or other mechanical equipment is to be placed on the roof, plans submitted for a
building permit shall confirm that parapets and other roof features will adequately screen
them. A line-of-sight diagram may be required to confirm that proposed screening will be
adequate. This condition applies to initial construction and later improvements
8. The storage area for trash and recycling cans shall be screened from the public right -of-way
consistent with §17.70.200 of the Zoning Regulations. The subject property shall be
maintained in a clean and orderly manner at all times; free of excessive leaves, branches, and
other landscape material. The applicant shall be responsible for the clean-up of any landscape
material in the public right-of-way.
Item 3
Packet Page 48
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19
3750 Bullock Lane, ARCH-0148-2019
Page 5
9. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department along with working drawings. The legend for the
landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees with
corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on plans.
Landscaping plans shall include the following information, at a minimum:
a. The species, diameter at breast height, location, and condition of all existing trees;
b. Identification of trees that will be retained, removed, or relocated;
c. Location and size of plant and tree species proposed to be planted;
d. The location of proposed utilities, driveways, street tree locations, and the size and
species of proposed street trees; and
e. A reclaimed water irrigation plan.
10. Plans submitted for construction permits shall include elevation and detail drawings of all
walls and fences. Fences, walls, and hedges will comply with the development standards
described in the Zoning Regulations (§17.70.070 –Fences, Walls, and Hedges).
11. The location of any required backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall be shown
on all site plans submitted for a building permit, including the landscaping plan. Construction
plans shall also include a scaled diagram of the equipment proposed. Where possible, as
determined by the Utilities Director, equipment shall be located inside the building within 20
feet of the front property line. Where this is not possible, as determined by the Utilities
Director, the back-flow preventer and double-check assembly shall be located in the street
yard and screened using a combination of paint color, landscaping and, if deemed appropriate
by the Community Development Director, a low wall. The size and configuration of such
equipment shall be subject to review and approval by the Utilities and Community
Development Directors.
12. The design of proposed structures will incorporate noise attenuating construction techniques
that reduces noise exposure to acceptable levels. Exposure in outdoor activity areas must not
exceed 60 dB and indoor exposure must not exceed 45 dB consistent with the City’s Noise
Ordinance. Plans submitted for construction permits must clearly indicate and describe noise
attenuation measures, techniques, and materials, and demonstrates their compliance with
noise levels limits.
13. Prior to occupancy, an overflight notification shall be recorded and appear with the property
deed. The applicant shall also record a covenant with the City to ensure that disclosure is
provided to all buyers and lessees at the subject property. Notice form and content shall be to
the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and include the following language:
NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY: This property is presently located in the vicinity of an
airport, within what is known as the airport influence area. For that reason, the property may
be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport
operations (for example: noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those
annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport
Item 3
Packet Page 49
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19
3750 Bullock Lane, ARCH-0148-2019
Page 6
annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and
determine whether they are acceptable to you.
Affordable Housing – Community Development
14. Prior to issuance of building permits, the City and the applicant shall enter into an Affordable
Housing Agreement, to be recorded in the office of the county recorder. The agreement shall
specify mechanisms or procedures to assure the continued affordability and availability of the
extremely- low, very-low, and low income households, to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director.
Engineering Division – Public Works/Community Development
15. The building plan submittal shall show and note compliance with the conditions of approval
for Tentative Parcel Map SLO 17-0127. The plans shall show the limits of the subdivision
improvements installed by others, utility connections/stubs, and any new work within the
public right-of-way.
16. The building plan submittal shall show and reference the interface with public and p rivate
improvements for adjoining Tract 3111. The site development and grading plans shall show
and honor the match lines for any previously entitled, permitted, or developed site
improvements accordingly.
17. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan and report.
The plans and report shall show and note compliance with the drainage requirements of the
OASP, Drainage Design Manual, and the Post Construction Stormwater Regulations (PCR’s).
18. A separate PCR checklist and stormwater control plan will be required for this development.
Some compliance components may reference subdivision and/or regional improvements
constructed by others in the development of Righetti Ranch.
19. If spring water or perched water is encountered, the grading and drainage plan and strategy
shall clarify how the runoff will be retained on site or conveyed safely to an approved outlet
per City Engineering Standards.
20. A separate Private Stormwater Conveyance Agreement and Operations and Maintenance
Manual shall be provided in conjunction with the building permit submittal to cover the on-
site stormwater systems.
21. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site development and site utility plan.
The site plan shall show and note compliance with the Parking and Driveway Standards.
Include all parking lot materials, space and bay widths, striping, and signage for reference.
Concrete paving is required for any designated motorcycle parking spaces and for the apron
at the trash enclosure areas. The trash apron shall extend into the drive aisle to support the
operations of the trash and recycle trucks. Drainage from the trash enclosure areas shall be
Item 3
Packet Page 50
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19
3750 Bullock Lane, ARCH-0148-2019
Page 7
treated prior to discharge from the site in accordance with City Engineering Standards for
point source pollution control.
Building Division – Community Development
22. Construction plans submitted for building permits shall be designed in accordance with the
applicable codes in effect at time of submittal. Review of the general information provided
for entitlement is cursory and does not guarantee code compliance for a future construction
submittal.
Utilities Department
23. The proposed utility infrastructure shall comply with the latest engineering design standards
effective at the time the building permit is obtained and shall have reasonable alignments
needed for maintenance of public infrastructure along public roads.
24. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include calculations for the proposed sewer
generations based on Section 7 of the City’s 2018 Engineering Design Standards.
25. The project must be served by a publicly owned water master meter off the northwest corner
of the parcel from Bullock Lane. Privately owned sub-meters may be provided for residential
apartments upon approval of the Utilities Director or designee.
26. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include calculations for the proposed water
demands per Section 6 of the City’s 2018 Engineering Design Standards.
27. Building permit submittal shall clarify size of existing and proposed water services and water
meters for the project, including both potable and recycled water.
28. Private fire hydrants shall require a detector assembly shall be installed on the double check
backflow preventor (RPDA - Reduced Pressure Detector Assembly) for the fire line.
29. Plans submitted for a building permit shall demonstrate a safe turnaround area for the contract
refuse service, San Luis Garbage Company for collection access, as referenced in the service
letter.
30. Trash enclosure(s) shall conform the requirements by the San Luis Garbage Company and
refuse bins shall be sized to provide a reasonable level of service. Separate refuse bins shall
be accommodated within the site for the three (3) waste streams; trash, recycling, and organics
and clearly depicted on the plans.
31. Building permit submittal shall include a letter of service from San Luis Garbage Company
pasted on the plans.
32. The project shall submit trash enclosure details and the required level of information
regarding refuse services as required by the City’s Development Standards for Solid Waste
Item 3
Packet Page 51
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19
3750 Bullock Lane, ARCH-0148-2019
Page 8
Services.
33. The project’s estimated total water use (ETWU) to support new ornamental landscaping shall
not exceed the project’s maximum applied water allowance (MAWA). Information shall be
submitted during the Building Permit Review Process for review and approval by the Utilities
Department prior to issuance of a building permit to support required water demand of the
project’s proposed landscaping.
34. The recycled water permit application shall be submitted with the building plans.
35. Recycled water shall be used for major construction activities, such as grading and dust
control as required under Prohibited Water Uses; Chapter 13.07.070.C of the City’s
Municipal Code. Recycled water is available through the City’s Construction Water Permit
program.
Transportation Division – Public Works
36. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall be responsible for paying applicable
transportation impact fees (TIF).
37. Building permit submittal shall identify on-site parking stall dimensions consistent with City
Engineering Standards.
38. Building permit submittal shall include designs for ADA-compliant pedestrian connection
between project site and adjacent property to the east (Parcel 2). Plans shall identify whether
changes are required to the approved on-site improvement plans for Parcel 2 to accommodate
this connection.
Fire Department
39. Due to the height of the structure and area per floor a construction type of V-A minimum with
a full National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 13 fire sprinkler is required, to the
satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.
40. Plans submitted for a building permit shall provide an interior fire sprinkler location for
Building ‘C’.
Indemnification
41. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers
and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents,
officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this
project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review
(“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified
Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate in
the defense against an Indemnified Claim.
Item 3
Packet Page 52
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19
3750 Bullock Lane, ARCH-0148-2019
Page 9
On motion by Commissioner ___________, seconded by Commissioner _____________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 11th day of December, 2019.
_____________________________
Shawna Scott, Secretary
Planning Commission
Item 3
Packet Page 53
People’s Self‐Help Housing Corporation
Tiburon Place
3533 Empleo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 781‐3088 phone • (805) 544‐1901 fax
info@pshhc.org • www.pshhc.org
26 E.Victoria Street, Santa Barbara,CA 93101
(805) 962‐5152 phone • (805) 962‐8152 fax
info@pshhc.org • www.pshhc.org
Tiburon Place Summary Project Description
Construction and Design Description
Tiburon Place encompasses new construction of sixty‐seven (67) rental units and one on‐site manager’s
unit. The apartment units are affordable to qualifying households earning at or below 60% of the area
median income for the County of San Luis Obispo as defined by the CA Tax Credit Allocation Committee
(TCAC). The development is pursuant to collaboration with Righetti Ranch, LP, which serves as master
developer of the approximately 230‐acre “Orcutt Area” site. The development provides a mix of
affordability to meet community need.
Pursuant to annexation, in 2010 the City of San Luis Obispo adopted and included into its General Plan
the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP), which governs land use, zoning, open space, recreation,
transportation and circulation, and public facilities and utilities development for this specific plan area.
Tiburon Place will rest on an approximately 2.1‐acre parcel at the western edge of the greater project
site; while (54) units are required of the developer to meet inclusionary housing requirements, the
development will incorporate fourteen (14) additional units pursuant to Density Bonus provisions
bringing the total to (67) affordable apartment units and one on‐site manager’s unit.
The design development team is under leadership of architectural firm CSA Architects, with principal
architect Natalie Phillips, who will oversee and manage related professional team members, including
engineering, landscape design, and wet and dry utility planning and coordination.
Land Use and Zoning
Tiburon Place will provide the affordable rental component on the subject site pursuant to land
donation to PSHH from private developer Righetti Ranch LP; it will be developed under a separate
design review process. The land use is subject to the Orcutt Area Specific Plan and is a permitted use per
Vesting Tract Map 3111, approved by the San Luis Obispo City Council at its May 1, 2018, public
meeting.
In terms of zoning for this parcel and currently existing/surrounding uses, these are as follows:
Land Use: Residential Neighborhood
Zoning: R‐3: Medium‐High Density Residential, up to 18 du/acre
Item 3
Packet Page 54
3533 Empleo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 781‐3088 phone • (805) 544‐1901 fax
info@pshhc.org • www.pshhc.org
26 E.Victoria Street, Santa Barbara,CA 93101
(805) 962‐5152 phone • (805) 962‐8152 fax
info@pshhc.org • www.pshhc.org
Existing/Surrounding Land Uses
West: Union Pacific Railroad
South: Residential Subdivisions
East: Rural Residential development/ unincorporated County
North: Residential development, three (3) existing mobile home/manufactured housing parks.
PSHH plans to commence construction in November 2020, PSHH will serve as general partner in a to‐be
formed Limited Partnership that will own and oversee construction, property, asset management, and
operations, we will also serve as the general contractor.
Project Design:
The Tiburon Place site design incorporates a mix of Studio, 1‐, and 2‐bedroom apartment units in a
three‐story, two‐building configuration traversing the site’s southern and western edges. The plans
include a 4,464 square foot Community Center oriented roughly in the center of the site, along with two
elevators that will serve upper‐floor units.
Within the Community Center will be a management office, office space for PSHH on‐site resident
supportive services staff, a classroom for PSHH’s Youth Education Enhancement Program (YEEP) and a
community kitchen for resident activities and events provided by PSHH. A playground for children will
also be incorporated into the adjacent common space.
Seventy‐three (73) parking spaces are included for residents and guests along the northern and eastern
perimeter of the site. Allowable parking for the public benefit affordable component is one‐to‐one for a
minimum requirement of sixty‐eight (68) spaces.
Sixty‐Eight (68) resident bike parking spots will be provided in a separate, ground floor bike storage
building. There will also be an additional fourteen (14) guest bike spaces in bike storage racks located
conveniently throughout the development. As the OASP calls for integration of bike and walking paths
and trails into the overall development, this will serve to encourage consideration of use of alternative
transportation for day‐to‐day and recreational activities, as these paths will connect to existing
city/public bicycle infrastructure.
Signage is included with the ARC review package, sign location, dimensions of monument sign and sign
area are provided in the drawings submitted with the ARC review package. As shown in the drawings,
the monument sign does not obstruct the line of sight along the driveway.
Peoples’ Self‐Help Housing intends to provide Public Art in our Private Development as stated in the City
of San Luis Obispo’s Public Art Program. The proposed location identified for potential installation of
the art piece is at the Tiburon Way streetscape interface between Buildings ‘A’ and ‘B’ and will be visible
from the public way. We have begun the conversation with city staff and interested parties, we intend
to provide the public art prior to the project’s completion.
In regard to streets, curbs and gutters, dry and wet utilities, and wastewater/stormwater facilities, the
donated land for the Tiburon Place Apartments will be conveyed in buildable pad‐graded condition. In
Item 3
Packet Page 55
3533 Empleo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 781‐3088 phone • (805) 544‐1901 fax
info@pshhc.org • www.pshhc.org
26 E.Victoria Street, Santa Barbara,CA 93101
(805) 962‐5152 phone • (805) 962‐8152 fax
info@pshhc.org • www.pshhc.org
this regard these off‐site improvements will be constructed and provided for tie‐in to the project site as
part of the overall OASP public utilities and facilities financing plan. (Please refer to Exhibit 1 below).
Exhibit 1: Tiburon Place Site Plan
In terms of the unit distribution, construction and building standards, these are as follows:
Unit Type Number of Units Unit Square Footage
Studio/One Bath 18 386 sq. ft.
One‐Bedroom/One Bath 24 562 sq. ft.
Two‐Bedroom/One‐Bath 25 727 sq. ft.
Two‐Bedroom Manager’s Unit 1 727 sq. Ft.
Item 3
Packet Page 56
3533 Empleo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 781‐3088 phone • (805) 544‐1901 fax
info@pshhc.org • www.pshhc.org
26 E.Victoria Street, Santa Barbara,CA 93101
(805) 962‐5152 phone • (805) 962‐8152 fax
info@pshhc.org • www.pshhc.org
With respect to affordability targeting and unit distribution this is as reflected below.
Required AMI Targets by City of SLO Proposed AMI
AMI # of Units AMI # of Units Units
Extremely Low Income 30% 30% 15 4 Studios, 5 1‐bd, 6 2‐bd
Very Low Income 45% 45% 8 2 Studios, 3 1‐bd, 3 2‐bd
Very Low Income 50% 50% 6 2 Studios, 2 1‐bd, 2 2‐bd
Low Income 55% 55% 8 2 Studios, 3 1‐bd, 3 2‐bd
Low Income 60% 60% 30 6 Studios, 12 1‐bd, 12 2‐bd
Low Income 80% 42 80%
Moderate Income 120% 12 120%
Total 54 67*
* 68 units total including 1 2‐bd managers unit.
On‐Site and Off‐Site Services and Amenities
The land parcel associated with Righetti Ranch is situated within Census Tract 115.03, which is within an
area TCAC defines as “Highest Resource.” This underlines that it is in a desirable area for consideration
of enhanced opportunity for social integration, mobility, and potential increased economic self‐
sufficiency. Environmentally and in terms of economic development this area is also resource rich and
will prove beneficial to future residents.
A public park, John Park is within .8 miles of the project site; Mission View Health Center .7 miles;
Sinsheimer Elementary School .9 miles; and a public bus stop .5 miles from the project site.
Projected Schedule
Date Milestone
January, 2020 Entitlements Approved
February, 2020 Submit AHSC Application for financing
June, 2020 AHSC Award
August, 2020 Submit TCAC Application for 4% tax credit financing
October, 2020 TCAC 4% Award
November, 2020 Commencement of Construction (17 months Construction)
March, 2022 Construction Completion
April, 2022 Qualified Occupancy of All Units
Item 3
Packet Page 57
Item 3Packet Page 58
Item 3Packet Page 59
Item 3Packet Page 60
Item 3Packet Page 61
Item 3Packet Page 62
Item 3Packet Page 63
Item 3Packet Page 64
Item 3Packet Page 65
Item 3Packet Page 66
Item 3Packet Page 67
Item 3Packet Page 68
Item 3Packet Page 69
Item 3Packet Page 70
Item 3Packet Page 71
Item 3Packet Page 72
Item 3Packet Page 73
Item 3Packet Page 74
Item 3Packet Page 75
Item 3Packet Page 76
Item 3Packet Page 77
Item 3Packet Page 78
Item 3Packet Page 79
Item 3Packet Page 80
Item 3Packet Page 81
Item 3Packet Page 82
Item 3Packet Page 83
Item 3Packet Page 84
Item 3Packet Page 85
Item 3Packet Page 86
Item 3Packet Page 87
Item 3Packet Page 88
Item 3Packet Page 89
Item 3Packet Page 90
Item 3Packet Page 91
Item 3Packet Page 92
Item 3Packet Page 93
Item 3Packet Page 94
Item 3Packet Page 95
Item 3Packet Page 96
Item 3Packet Page 97
Item 3Packet Page 98
Item 3Packet Page 99
Project:Revisions:Proj. Engr.:Proj. Mngr.:Date:A&V Job No.:Scale:PER PLANABCDEFGHIABCDEFGHI1234567J:\Egnyte\Shared\Sun\All Jobs\2017 All Jobs\171198 - Righetti Ranch Apartments (Civil) - CSA\02_Working Drawings\Construction\02_ONSITE\GRADING SHEET.dwg, C-1.1, Aug 19, 2019 4:39pm, JuanPhone Ext.:Phone Ext.:Plan Prepared By:The use of these plans and specifications shall berestricted to the original site for which they wereprepared and publication thereof is expressly limited tosuch use. Reproduction or publication by any method, inwhole or in part, is prohibited. Title to these plans andspecifications remain with Ashley & Vance Engineering,Inc. without prejudice. Visual contact with these plansand specifications shall constitute prima facie evidenceof the acceptance of these restrictions.Ashley&VanceG, C1413 Monterey StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 545-0010 (323) 744-0010www.ashleyvance.comC I V I L S T R U C T U R A L-PRELIMINARY PLANS-020 20 40HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" =20'NSITE CONSTRUCTION NOTES:PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVEMENTCONSTRUCT TRASH ENCLOSURE WITH CONCRETE APRONPROPOSED CONCRETE WALKPROPOSED CURB RAMP FOR ADA ACCESSEXISTING DRIVEWAY RAMPUPWARD DRIVEWAY PER CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD 2130PROPOSED 6-INCH CONCRETE CURBPROPOSED RETAINING WALL (3 FEET MAX) WITH SHORT SCREEN WALLPROPOSED SWALEPROPOSED DRAIN INLETEXISTING DRAIN INLETPROPOSED CONCRETE SWALEPROPOSED RETAINING CURBPROPOSED SHORT SCREEN WALLSTOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE.123456789101112131415TIBURON PLACE3750 BULLOCK LANESAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405JMAKBB08.12.2019171198GRADING ANDDRAINAGE SHEETC-1.11.2.3.4.5.156SIGHT DISTANCE ANALYSIS AT DRIVEWAY020 20 40HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 20' FEETNItem 3Packet Page 100
Project:Revisions:Proj. Engr.:Proj. Mngr.:Date:A&V Job No.:Scale:PER PLANABCDEFGHIABCDEFGHI1234567J:\Egnyte\Shared\Sun\All Jobs\2017 All Jobs\171198 - Righetti Ranch Apartments (Civil) - CSA\02_Working Drawings\Construction\02_ONSITE\PROFILE SHEET.dwg, C-1.2, Aug 12, 2019 9:42am, JuanPhone Ext.:Phone Ext.:Plan Prepared By:The use of these plans and specifications shall berestricted to the original site for which they wereprepared and publication thereof is expressly limited tosuch use. Reproduction or publication by any method, inwhole or in part, is prohibited. Title to these plans andspecifications remain with Ashley & Vance Engineering,Inc. without prejudice. Visual contact with these plansand specifications shall constitute prima facie evidenceof the acceptance of these restrictions.Ashley&VanceG, C1413 Monterey StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 545-0010 (323) 744-0010www.ashleyvance.comC I V I L S T R U C T U R A L-PRELIMINARY PLANS-TIBURON PLACE3750 BULLOCK LANESAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405JMAKBB08.12.2019171198PROFILE SHEETC-1.21.2.3.4.5.156119ASITE SECTION - STA 1+00 THROUGH 3+20SCALE: 1" = 10' HORIZONTAL1" = 5' VERTICALASITE SECTION - STA 3+20 THROUGH 5+20SCALE: 1" = 10' HORIZONTAL1" = 5' VERTICALItem 3Packet Page 101
Project:Revisions:Proj. Engr.:Proj. Mngr.:Date:A&V Job No.:Scale:PER PLANABCDEFGHIABCDEFGHI1234567J:\Egnyte\Shared\Sun\All Jobs\2017 All Jobs\171198 - Righetti Ranch Apartments (Civil) - CSA\02_Working Drawings\Construction\02_ONSITE\PROFILE SHEET.dwg, C-1.3, Aug 12, 2019 9:42am, JuanPhone Ext.:Phone Ext.:Plan Prepared By:The use of these plans and specifications shall berestricted to the original site for which they wereprepared and publication thereof is expressly limited tosuch use. Reproduction or publication by any method, inwhole or in part, is prohibited. Title to these plans andspecifications remain with Ashley & Vance Engineering,Inc. without prejudice. Visual contact with these plansand specifications shall constitute prima facie evidenceof the acceptance of these restrictions.Ashley&VanceG, C1413 Monterey StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 545-0010 (323) 744-0010www.ashleyvance.comC I V I L S T R U C T U R A L-PRELIMINARY PLANS-TIBURON PLACE3750 BULLOCK LANESAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405JMAKBB08.12.2019171198PROFILE SHEETC-1.31.2.3.4.5.156119BSITE SECTIONSCALE: 1" = 10' HORIZONTAL1" = 5' VERTICALCSITE SECTIONSCALE: 1" = 10' HORIZONTAL1" = 5' VERTICALItem 3Packet Page 102
Project:Revisions:Proj. Engr.:Proj. Mngr.:Date:A&V Job No.:Scale:PER PLANABCDEFGHIABCDEFGHI1234567J:\Egnyte\Shared\Sun\All Jobs\2017 All Jobs\171198 - Righetti Ranch Apartments (Civil) - CSA\02_Working Drawings\Construction\02_ONSITE\UTILITY SHEET.dwg, C-2.1, Aug 12, 2019 9:45am, JuanPhone Ext.:Phone Ext.:Plan Prepared By:The use of these plans and specifications shall berestricted to the original site for which they wereprepared and publication thereof is expressly limited tosuch use. Reproduction or publication by any method, inwhole or in part, is prohibited. Title to these plans andspecifications remain with Ashley & Vance Engineering,Inc. without prejudice. Visual contact with these plansand specifications shall constitute prima facie evidenceof the acceptance of these restrictions.Ashley&VanceG, C1413 Monterey StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 545-0010 (323) 744-0010www.ashleyvance.comC I V I L S T R U C T U R A L-PRELIMINARY PLANS-020 20 40HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 20'NDIAL TOLL FREE811 OR(1-800-227-2600)AT LEAST TWO DAYSBEFORE YOU DIGUTILITY NOTES:CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LATERALPROPOSED 6" HDPE SANITARY SEWER LATERALPROPOSED SEWER CLEANOUTPROPOSED SEWER CONNECTION TO BUILDINGPROPOSED BACKWATER VALVEPROPOSED DOUBLE DETECTOR CHECK VALVEPROPOSED FIRE WATER LINEPROPOSED FIRE WATER BUILDING CONNECTION POINTPROPOSED FIRE HYDRANTPROPOSED WATER SERVICE WITH BACKFLOW PREVENTER TO SERVE AS MASTER METER TOAPARTMENT UNITSPROPOSED WATER SERVICE STUB TO BE CONNECTED TO FUTURE SUB METERSPROPOSED 1" WATER SERVICE WITH BACKFLOW PREVENTER TO SERVE COMMUNITY AREAEXISTING METER TO BE USED FOR LANDSCAPING. METER CONNECTED TO RECYCLED WATERMAIN.PROPOSED DRAIN INLETPROPOSED 4" PVC STORM DRAINPROPOSED 6" PVC STORM DRAINPROPOSED STORM DRAIN CONNECTION TO EXISTING CATCH BASINPROPOSED TRENCH DRAINPROPOSED JUNCTION BOXSS1SS2SS3SS4SS5W1W2W3W4W5W6W7W8SD1SD2SD3SD4SD5SD6TIBURON PLACE3750 BULLOCK LANESAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405JMAKBB08.12.2019171198UTILITY SHEETC-2.11.2.3.4.5.156###Item 3Packet Page 103
Item 3Packet Page 104
Meeting Date: October 21, 2019
Item Number: 2
Item No. 1
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION REPORT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING
The proposed project is a three-story residential development consisting of 68 residential dwellings,
with 67 rental units designated for affordable housing (with varying income levels from extremely low
to low), including a request for a sign exception, as described in the report below. The project includes
three affordable housing alternative incentive requests (§ 17.140.070) for a 40% density bonus and
relief of site development standards to allow a maximum height of 51 feet, where normally limited to
35 feet, and flexibility from parking space dimensions (Attachment 1, Project Description). The project
site has been designated as the affordable housing development site to satisfy the requirements for
Tract 3063 (Righetti Ranch), Tract 3066 (Jones Property), Tract 3095 (Imel), and Tract 3111 (Pratt
Property), located at 3750 Bullock Lane within the Orcutt Area Specific Plan. The proposed project also
includes site improvements such as parking and site access upgrades, and landscaping upgrades
(Attachment 2, Project Plans).
General Location: The 80,586-square foot
project site is located on a vacant parcel along
the intersection of Tiburon Road and Bullock
Lane, with direct access from both street
frontages.
Present Use: Vacant Land
Zoning: Medium-High Residential (R-3)
General Plan: Medium-High Residential
Surrounding Uses:
East: Residential Multi-Unit Development
West: Union Pacific Railroad
North: Existing Residential Uses
South: Residential Single Unit Subdivision
PROPOSED DESIGN
Architecture: Mission Revival Architectural Design
Design details: Community room, outdoor play area, bike storage facility, trash enclosures, mailbox
kiosks, exposed rafter tails, awnings, curved parapets, monument sign.
Materials: Stucco, decorative tile work, red clay tile roof, fabric awnings, and wood window headers.
Colors: Primary ivory-white, secondary beige & light-brown accent color, and teal awnings.
FROM: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
PROJECT ADDRESS: 3750 Bullock Lane FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0148-2019
APPLICANT: People’s Self-Help Housing REPRESENTATIVE: Rigoberto Guzman
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
For more information contact: (Kyle Bell) at 781-7524 or kbell@slocity.org
Figure 1: Subject Property
Item 3
Packet Page 105
ARCH-0148-2019 (3750 Bullock Lane)
Page 2
FOCUS OF REVIEW
The ARC’s role is to 1) review the proposed project in terms of its consistency with the Orcutt Area
Specific Plan (OASP), Community Design Guidelines (CDG), Sign Regulations and applicable City
Standards and 2) provide comments and recommendations to the Planning Commission.
Orcutt Area Specific Plan: http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4262
Community Design Guidelines: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2104
Sign Regulations: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4306
DESIGN GUIDELINES/DISCUSSION ITEMS
The proposed development must be consistent wi th the requirements of the General Plan, Zoning
Regulations, OASP, and CDG. Staff has identified the discussion items below related to consistency
with OASP Chapter 4 (Community Design), CDG Chapter 5.4 (Multi-Family and Clustered Housing
Design), and Sign Regulations Article 4 (Sign Standards).
Highlighted Sections Discussion Items
OASP Chapter 4 – Design Guidelines
§ 4.1.1d: DS-7 Ground Floor Entry The ARC should discuss if the proposed project incorporates and is
consistent with the OASP Design Guidelines. For additional information,
please refer to the applicant’s letter regarding consistency with the
OASP (Attachment 3, Applicant Response to Design Objectives).
§ 4.1.1e: DG 4.3 Scale
§ 4.1.1e: DG 4.4 Façade Elements
CDG Chapter 5 – Residential Project Design Guidelines
§ 5.4.C.2 Scale
The ARC should discuss if the proposed project incorporates and is
consistent with the CDG. For additional information, please refer to the
applicant’s letter regarding consistency with the CDG (Attachment 3,
Applicant Response to Design Objectives).
Sign Regulations Article IV. Sign Standards
§ 15.40.470.M Residential
Subdivision Signs
The ARC should discuss whether the requested sign exceptions for a
residential subdivision sign for 22.5 sq. ft., where normally limited to 20
sq. ft., and a maximum height of 6 feet, where normally limited to 4
feet, are consistent with the intent of the Sign Regulations*.
*Sign Regulations. Article VI. Section 15.40.610 Exceptions to Sign Standards (Attachment 4)
Figure 2: Elevation of project design from Tiburon Road.
Item 3
Packet Page 106
ARCH-0148-2019 (3750 Bullock Lane)
Page 3
PROJECT STATISTICS
Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required*
Setbacks 10 feet 10 feet
Monument Sign
Max Height
Max Area
6 feet
22.5 sq. ft.
4 feet
20 sq. ft.
Density Units 47 (40% Bonus) 33.3
Maximum Height of Structures 51 feet 35 feet
Max Building Coverage 27.8% 60%
Public Art Provided Optional
Total # Parking Spaces
Electric Vehicle Parking
Bicycle Parking
73
8 EV Ready
82
68
7 EV Ready
82
Environmental Status
Project is consistent with the certified Final EIR for Orcutt Area Specific
Plan and Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182 (Residential Projects
Implementing Specific Plans).
*2019 Zoning Regulations & 2004 Sign Regulations
ACTION ALTERNATIVES
6.1 Recommend approval of the project. An action recommending approval of the application
will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for final action. This action may include
recommendations for conditions to address consistency with the OASP Design Guidelines
and Community Design Guidelines.
6.2 Continue the project. An action continuing the application should include direction to th e
applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
6.3 Recommend denial the project. An action recommending denial of the application should
include findings that cite the basis for denial and should reference inconsistency with the
General Plan, OASP, CDG, Zoning Regulations or other policy documents.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Description
2. Project Plans
3. Applicant Response to Design Objectives
4. Excerpt – Exceptions to Sign Regulations
Item 3
Packet Page 107
Minutes - DRAFT
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
Monday, October 21, 2019
Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission was called to order on Monday,
October 21, 2019 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, by Chair Allen Root.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Richard Beller, Michael DeMartini, Mandi Pickens, Micah Smith,
Christie Withers, Vice-Chair Amy Nemcik and Chair Allen Root
Absent: None
Staff: Senior Planner Shawna Scott, Associate Planner Kyle Bell and Deputy City Clerk
Megan Wilbanks
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
James Papp
--End of Public Comment--
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Consideration of Minutes of the Regular Architectural Review Commission Meetings of
September 16, 2019 and October 7, 2019.
Pulled Item: The draft minutes of the Architectural Review Commission meeting on October
7, 2019 were pulled from consideration, pending further review and input from staff.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BELLER, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
WITHERS, CARRIED 7-0-0 (Commissioners Pickens and Nemcik abstaining), to approve the
minutes of the Regular Architectural Review Commission meeting of September 16, 2019 with
the following addition to Item 2:
My intent is that it is direction to the applicant. But I want the direction to be specific enough
that it considers the changes in the materials on the black box theater and also the change in
material on the facade at the upper portion of the walls that project above the roof deck level.
Item 3
Packet Page 108
DRAFT Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of October 21, 2019 Page 2
And if it is open ended, they could make a small change in materials at one of the connection
points and that would be enough to satisfy that direction to the applicant.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. Project Address: 486 Marsh St. and 545 Higuera St.; Case#: ARCH-0017-2019; Zone: C-
D; Marsh Higuera Mixed Use LLC, owner/applicant. Continued design review of a four-
story mixed-use project consisting of approximately 5,209 square feet of commercial use
on the ground floor and 56 residential units above, including provision of 10 percent low-
income affordable units, an associated 19 percent density bonus, and a request for a
standard incentive to apply affordable housing parking standards identified in Zoning
Regulations Section 17.140.040.K. Project includes: a request for a mechanical parking
lift; parking, landscaping, and site improvements; tree removals; and a categorical
exemption from environmental review (CEQA).
Senior Planner Shawna Scott presented the staff report and responded to Commissioner
inquiries.
Applicant representative, Joel Snyder with Tenover Studio, responded to Commissioner
inquiries.
Public Comments:
Carolyn Schively
Jean Martin
James Papp
James Lopes
--End of Public Comment--
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER PICKENS, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
BELLER, CARRIED 7-0-0 to approve the project and forward it to the Planning Commission
approve the project with the recommended direction:
• Incorporate decorative features in the door entryways, either through materials or
colors, showing variation between the two buildings
• Add color to the band around the second story
3. Project Address: 3750 Bullock Lane; Case#: ARCH-0148-2019; Zones: C-C-MU, R-3-
SP, PF-SP; Peoples Self Help Housing Corp., applicant; Righetti Ranch LP, owner.
Development review of a three-story affordable housing project consisting of 68
residential units, including a density bonus of 35 percent and an affordable housing
incentive to allow for a maximum height of 45 feet where 35 is normally required, and a
determination that the project is consistent with the certified Final EIR for Orcutt Area
Specific Plan and exempt from environmental review (CEQA).
Item 3
Packet Page 109
DRAFT Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of October 21, 2019 Page 3
Associate Planner Kyle Bell presented the staff report and responded to Commissioner
inquiries.
Applicant representative, Rigoberto Guzman with Peoples’ Self-Help Housing; Elsa Reader
and Natalie Phillips with CSA Architects; Pierre Radimaker with Radimaker Designs; Gary
Glandon, Landscape Architect; Juan Alvarez and Ken Brown, Civil Engineers, responded to
Commissioner inquiries.
Public Comments:
James Lopes
--End of Public Comment--
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WITHERS (DIED FOR LACK OF SECOND)
To recommend that the Planning Commission approve the project as presented.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER PICKENS, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
SMITH, CARRIED 7-0-0, to approve the project and to forward it to the Planning Commission
with the following recommended conditions:
• Plans submitted for the Planning Commission hearing should provide additional color
elevations of the proposed buildings, to the extent feasible.
• The applicant shall explore options to reduce the height of the roof parapet, to the greatest
extent feasible.
RECESS
The Commission recessed at 7:19 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:25 p.m. with all ARC
members present.
4. Project Address: 1236 Archer Street; Case #: ARCH-0368-2019, Zone: C-S; RETWIST,
Cecilia Reyes, applicant; Mary Anne Reyes, owner. Development review of a mixed-use
project consisting of four residential units and 540 square feet of commercial space,
including a request for a 20 percent parking reduction. Project is categorically exempt
from environmental review (CEQA).
Associate Planner Kyle Bell presented the staff report and responded to Commissioner
inquiries.
Applicant representative, Joel Snyder with Tenover Studio, and owner, CeeCee Reyes,
responded to Commissioner inquiries.
Public Comments:
Ken Herrmann
Item 3
Packet Page 110
DRAFT Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of October 21, 2019 Page 4
--End of Public Comment—
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SMITH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
DEMARTINI, CARRIED 5-2-0 (Commissioners Beller and Withers voting no) to recommend
that the Community Development Director approve of the project with the following direction to
the applicant:
• The applicant shall explore opportunities to enhance the elevations of the residential structures
in terms of window placement to provide a more consistent and appropriate rhythm.
• The project shall be conditioned to require an additional tree in the planting strip along Pacific
Street, near the parking space identified as #1 (ADA accessible parking space), as indicated in
the project renderings.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
Senior Planner Shawna Scott provided a brief agenda forecast.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. The next Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review
Commission is scheduled for Monday, November 4, 2019 at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing
Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: XX/XX/2019
Item 3
Packet Page 111
Item 3Packet Page 112
Item 3Packet Page 113
Item 3Packet Page 114
Item 3Packet Page 115
Item 3Packet Page 116
Item 3Packet Page 117
Item 3Packet Page 118
3600 BU LLOC K L ANE
Tiburon Place Monument Sign
Scale: 3/4"= 1'-0"
ALL IDEAS, DESIGNS, ARRANGEMENTS, AND PLANS INDICATED OR
REPRESENTED BY THIS DRAWING ARE OWNED BY AND THE
PROPERTY OF PIERRE RADEMAKER DESIGN, AND WERE CREATED,
EVOLVED, AND DEVELOPED FOR USE ON AND IN CONNECTION WITH
THE SPECIFIED PROJECT. NONE OF SUCH IDEAS, DESIGNS,
ARRANGEMENTS OR PLANS SHALL BE USED BY OR DISCLOSED TO
ANY PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSO-
EVER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF PIERRE RADEMAKER
DESIGN. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS ON THESE DRAWINGS SHALL HAVE
PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS. CONTRACTORS SHALL
VERIFY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS AND
CONDITIONS ON THE JOB, AND THIS OFFICE MUST BE NOTIFIED OF
ANY VARIATIONS FROM THE DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN
BY THESE DRAWINGS. SHOP DETAILS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE
OFFICE FOR APPROVAL BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH FABRICATION.
Monument Sign
Specifications
PR/KS/KT
PR
8-21-19
10-10-19
Tiburon Place
Monument Sign
San Luis Obispo, CA
PSH-1805
1 1
1041 CHORRO STREET, SUITE 230SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401rademakerdesign.com
TELEPHONE: 805/544-7774
Note: Fabricator to contact
Pierre Rademaker Design
for production-ready vector
files for all sign graphics.
3533 Empleo Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Side view
(both sides)6'-0''3'-9''9''1'-6''6'-6''1'-6''1'-6''
9'-6''
Smooth troweled
plaster over CMU
structure
Daltile®
semi-gloss
4 1/4" wall tile
Grout color:
Laticrete #39
“Mushroom”
8x8 “Villafranca
3” Terra Nova
Hacienda ceramic
tile
Front view (sign is single sided)Precast stone base
and caps
Sherwin Williams
flat exterior finish
paint colors:
SW6113
“Interactive Cream”
Digitally printed
full-color sign panel
Sign Area: 22.5 sq. ft.
Sign to be externally illuminated
Hubble Lighting ALF-12LU-5K-BZ
Ground Mounted Fixture
SW2835
“Craftsman Brown
1'-6''
1'-0''
Rear View
Scale: 3/8"= 1'-0"
Item 3
Packet Page 119
Item 3
Packet Page 120
0 0
RESOLUTION NO. 10154 (2010 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CERTIFYING THE FINAL
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ORCUTT AREA
SPECIFIC PLAN, ADOPTING THE ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND
APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE LAND USES
APPROVED IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN (SP, ER 209 -98)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo met in the Council
Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California on March 2, 2010, for the
purpose of considering a recommendation made by the Planning Commission to certify the Final
Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP), adopt
the OASP, and approve associated General Plan amendments to implement the land uses shown
in the GASP; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommendation was based on public input
received over the course of eight public hearings, and the advice and recommendations of other
City advisory bodies including the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Bicycle. Advisory
Committee, the Cultural Heritage Committee and the Architectural Review Commission; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the project have been evaluated in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Review
Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, development of the Orcutt Area is expected to occur over a twenty to thirty
year horizon, and therefore requires an intergenerational look at infrastructure requirements and
planning for long -term City goals; and
WHEREAS, development of the Orcutt Area will be better served by City infrastructure,
including police, fire, water and sewer service, and City streets, and described in the OASP; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff presented at
said meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. EIR Certification. The City Council does hereby certify the EIR based
on the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations included in Exhibit A, and
subject to a Mitigation Measure Monitoring Plan maintained on file in the Community
Development Department.
R 10154
Item 3
Packet Page 121
Resolution No. 10154 (20 10 Series)
Page 2
SECTION 2. Adoption of the OASP. The City Council does hereby adopt the
Planning Commission Draft of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan and directs the Community
Development Director to begin implementation of the Plan by working with property owners to
develop a boundary map for a one -time, City- sponsored annexation, with the following changes:
1. References in the document to Skinner as a prior owner of the Righetti Ranch Housing
property shall be replaced with the correct surname, Jacobson.
2. Chapter 5, Transportation, Policy 5.1c shall be revised as follows: New individual
driveway access onto Orcutt Road shall be prohibited under the Specific Plan. Existing
driveways with access onto Orcutt Road may be used either for the existing number of units
already constructed on land under one ownership or up to a total of two units for each
existing ownership if not now constructed. Additional units above these thresholds shall
require new road and intersection improvements as provided in this Specific Plan.
Exceptions to this provision may be approved by the City Council for interim facilities
approved as part of a subdivision phasing plan or development plan.
3. Appendix A shall be revised with updated property information for the Taylor Property,
as shown in Exhibit B.
4. Section 3.2.6 of the OASP shall be updated, as shown in Exhibit C, except the following
sentence shall be inserted as the third to last sentence of the last paragraph: The City does
not support Site C.
5. Chapter 8 shall be revised to incorporate a 50% obligation for the Orcutt Area to pay for
the grade- separated railroad crossing at Industrial Way, with direction to City staff to pursue
grants to fund the remaining 50% of the facility cost.
SECTION 3. Airport Land Use Commission. The adoption of the OASP shall become
effective immediately following a determination by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)
that the OASP is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). An ALUP consistency
hearing is scheduled for March 17, 2010. In the event the ALUC conditions its determination of
consistency on amendments to the OASP, the Community Development Director is authorized to
make minor changes to the OASP to respond to concerns expressed by members of the ALUC
relative to airport compatibility during the hearing. If the ALUC determines that substantial
changes to the OASP are needed to achieve consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan, the
adoption of the OASP shall not become effective until such time as the City Council has
reviewed and approved those changes at a noticed public hearing.
SECTION 4. General Plan Amendments. The City Council does hereby amend the
General Plan Land Use Map to implement the land use designations approved as part of the
Orcutt Area Specific Plan, as shown in Exhibit D. Figure 2 of the Land Use Element shall be
revised amending the location of the Urban Reserve Line, as shown in Exhibit E. These General
Plan amendments are approved based on the following findings:
Item 3
Packet Page 122
Resolution No. 10154 (201100 Series) O
Page 3
1. The proposed amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map implement the Orcutt Area
Specific Plan, by updating the General Plan with the land uses identified in the specific plan
for Orcutt Area properties.
2. The land uses proposed for the Orcutt Area are consistent with the General Plan, which
identifies the Orcutt Area as a residential expansion area.
3. The proposed amendments are necessary to implement the General Plan, which says that
development in any part of the Orcutt Area may not occur until a specific plan has been
adopted for the whole area.
4. The proposed Urban Reserve Line (URL) expansion is justified because the revised URL
incorporates relatively flat land on the north side of Righetti Hill that is suitable for
development, and excludes a similarly sized area on the upper slopes of the west side of
Righetti Hill, which is not suitable for development.
Upon motion of Vice Mayor Carter, seconded by Council Member Ashbaugh, and on the
following vote:
AYES: Council Members Ashbaugh and Settle, Vice Mayor Carter, and Mayor
Romero
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RECUSED: Council Member Marx
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 2nd day of March 2010.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Elaina Cano
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO
istine Dietrick
City Attorney
Item 3
Packet Page 123
i
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
The City of San Luis Obispo (City) has decided to approve the Orcutt Area Specific Plan
project). The City is the lead agency under the California. Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
and has certified a program environmental impact report (EIR) for the project.
Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR]) and
Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code require a lead agency to adopt findings for each
significant environmental impact disclosed in an EIR. Specifically, for each significant impact,
the lead agency must find that:
Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project to avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effects identified in the EIR;
Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and should be adopted by that agency; or
Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make the mitigation
measures or alternatives identified in the ER infeasible.
In addition to making a finding for each significant impact, if the lead agency approves a project
without mitigating all of the significant impacts, it must prepare a statement of overriding
considerations, in which it balances the benefits of the project against the unavoidable
environmental risks. The statement of overriding considerations must explain the social,
economic, or other reasons for approving the project despite its environmental impacts (14 CCR
15093, Pub. Res. Code 21081).
This document contains the findings and statement of overriding considerations for the
approval of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan and reflects the City's independent judgment. This
document incorporates by reference the program EIR. The EIR, specific plan, and other
portions of the administrative record are available for review at:
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Contact: Michael Codron
805)781 -7175
SECTION 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A PROTECT OBJECTIVES
As required by the City General Plan, the specific plan is intended to contain policies and
standards that will facilitate appropriate development of land, protection of open space, and
provision of adequate public facilities. The specific plan is more detailed than the general plan
but less precise than subdivision maps or construction plans. The overall objective of the
City of San Luis Obispo A
December 2009
Item 3
Packet Page 124
Findings of Fact and Statement Overriding Considerations v
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
project is to adopt a specific plan for the Orcutt area, pursuant to the City General Plan. Orcutt
Area Specific Plan objectives include:
1. Develop a new residential neighborhood to meet the City's housing needs and that designates
sufficient land for neighborhood serving commercial uses to reduce vehicle trips and provide for
the convenience of area residents.
2. Provide a variety of housing types and costs to meet the needs of renters and buyers with a
variety of income - levels, including inclusionary affordable housing for residents with moderate,
low and very -low income levels.
3. Protect and enhance Righetti Hill, creek /wetland habitats, and visual resources in open space
areas.
4. Provide a variety of park and recreational facilities for residents of the Orcutt Area, such as parks,
recreational facilities, public squares, plazas and green spaces.
5. Phase the proposed development so that public facilities are developed concurrently with each new
phase in a rational and cost effective fashion.
6. Encourage the use of bicycles and walking within the Plan Area by including specific policies or
development standards that will result in subdivision and building designs that facilitate bike use
and pedestrian access. Incorporate all classes of bike lanes and include bike and pedestrian paths
through the parks and open space areas.
7. Protect the new residents from railroad noise through a variety of measures consistent with Noise
Element Policies 1.8.2, Mitigating Outdoor Noise Exposure, and 18.3 Mitigating Indoor Noise
Exposure.
8. Create a regional detention system to facilitate drainage solutions for future subdivisions.
B. PROPOSED PROTECT
The proposed project includes implementation of the goals and policies contained in the Orcutt
Area Specific Plan. The Orcutt Area Specific Plan is a specific plan that would guide the
annexation and development of the Plan Area. The Plan Area is 231 acres of property east of
the southern portion of the City. The proposed Specific Plan designates the land.for 113 acres of
residential, 0.25 acres of neighborhood commercial, 81 acres of open space, 21 acres of parks,
and a 5 acre school site. Urban infrastructure to support this development would also be
included in the near term. Infrastructure requirements include roads, water and wastewater
conveyance systems, and stormwater conveyance systems. The Specific Plan proposes an
adjustment of the Urban Reserve Line (URL) to include the entire Plan Area within the City's
Urban Reserve Area.
SECTION 3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
A. BACKGROUND
The program EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines. As
such, the EIR contains analysis, at a program level, of the basic issues that will be used in
conjunction with subsequent tiered environmental documents for specific projects related to the
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
2
Item 3
Packet Page 125
Findings of Fact and StatemenOverriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
Orcutt Area Specific Plan. Once the Orcutt Area Specific Plan is adopted by the City, the basic
policy issues will not need to be revisited by subsequent (second -tier) documents.
The DEIR, dated December 2007, was circulated to appropriate public agencies, organizations,
and interested groups and individuals for a period of 60 days (through February 28, 2008).
Between February and June 2008, the Planning Commission held six public hearings to discuss
the Public Hearing Draft of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan and the Draft EIR for the project.
Based on comments received during this period, portions of the DEIR were revised to address
technical issues raised in several letters. The City recirculated these portions of the Revised
DEIR, which included the Agricultural Resources section, Water and Wastewater section, as
well as the Executive Summary. The City extended the public review period through June 2008
and received several additional comments on the Revised DEIR.
B. IMPACT ANALYSIS
Three categories of impacts are identified in the Environmental Impact Report:
Class I. Class I impacts are significant and unavoidable. To approve a project resulting in
Class I impacts, the CEQA Guidelines require decision makers to make findings of
overriding consideration that "specific legal, technological, economic, social, or other
considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR"
Class R. Class II impacts are significant but can be mitigated to a level of insignificance by
measures identified in this EIR and the project description. When approving a
project with Class II impacts, the decision- makers must make findings that changes
or alternatives to the project have been incorporated that reduce the impacts to a less
than significant level.
Class III. Class III impacts are adverse but not significant.
SECTION 4. FINDINGS FOR LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The City Council has concluded that the following effects are not considered significant.
A. AGRICULTURE
1. Impact AG -1 Although the proposed project would permanently' convert soils that have
been defined by the City as prime agriculture lands, the value of the Orcutt Area's
agricultural land resources, as measured by the LESA Model, is not considered significant.
Therefore, the project would result in Class III, less than significant, impacts related to
agricultural conversion.
a. Mitigation: None
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
3
Item 3
Packet Page 126
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overrlding Considerations O
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
b. Fdin : The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
B. AIR QUALITY
1. Impact AQ -2 Specific Plan traffic generation, together with other cumulative traffic
associated with foreseeable development would not result in CO "hotspots ". Therefore, the
Specific Plan's potential to generate CO "hotspots" is considered to be a Class III, less than
significant impact.
a. Mitigation: None
b. Finding: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant..
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Impact B -1 Development under the proposed Specific Plan would result in the conversion
of non -native annual grassland habitat to urban uses. This is considered a Class III, less
than significant impact.
a. Mitt agtion: None
b. Finding: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
D. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
1. Impact G -1 Seismically induced ground shaking could destroy or damage structures and
infrastructure developed for the project site, resulting in loss of property or risk to human
health. This is considered a Class III, less than significant impact.
a. Mitigation: None
b. Fes: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
E. NOISE
1. Impact N -2 Specific plan - generated traffic would incrementally increase noise levels along
roads in the Specific Plan vicinity. The effect of this noise on off -site sensitive receptors in
the area, and also within the Specific Plan area, is considered a Class III, less than
significant impact.
a. Mitigation: None
b. Finding: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
4
Item 3
Packet Page 127
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 0
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
2. Impact N -3 Although noise associated with airport operations would affect sensitive
receptors in the Plan Area, the impact would be considered Class III, less than significant.
a. Miti agtion: None
b. Finding: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
F. PUBLIC SERVICES
1. Impact PS -1 Annexation and development of the Orcutt Area would increase the number
of residents served by the City of San Luis Obispo Police Department. Additional service
needs would decrease the amount of patrol unit available time. This is considered a Class
III, less than significant impact.
a. Mitigation: None
b. Fes: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
G. WATER AND WASTEWATER
1. Impact W -1 The project would increase demand on City of San Luis Obispo potable water
supplies by an estimated 260 AFY. Impacts to the City's water supply are considered Class
I11, less than significant, with payment of Water Impact Fees..
c. Miti a'g tion: None
d. Findin g: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
2. Impact W -2 Buildout of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan would generate an estimated 162;856
gallons of wastewater per day, which would be treated by the City's Water Reclamation
Facility. Because this facility has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed project,
this impact is considered Class III, less than significant.
c. Mitigation: None
d. Fes: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
SECTION 5. FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT THAT HAVE BEEN
MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
This section presents the project's significant environmental impacts and feasible mitigation
measures. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations
CCR]) and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code require a lead agency to make findings
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
5
Item 3
Packet Page 128
Findings of Fact and Statement Overriding Considerations v
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
for each significant environmental impact disclosed in an EIR. Specifically, for each significant
impact, the lead agency must find that:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adapted by such other
agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
Each of these findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.
This section identifies impacts that can be fully avoided or reduced to a less - than- significant
level through the incorporation of feasible mitigation measures into the project, as identified in
the program EIR. The impacts identified in this section are considered in the same sequence in
which they appear in the draft EIR.
A. AESTHETICS
1. Impact AES -3:. Light and glare produced from the proposed project would extend the area
of night light across the project site, altering the nighttime sky due to lighting and daytime
glare associated with plaster -type walls and /or brightly painted surfaces. This may affect
the residences in the vicinity of the site and views from local roadways. This is considered a
Class II, significant but mitigable impact.
a. Mitigation: The proposed Specific Plan includes the following goals, policies and
programs which are intended to address potential impacts associated with this issue:
Goal 4.4, Policies 4.4.1 through 4.4.3, and Program 4.4.3a. Implementation of these
provisions of the Specific Plan would reduce impacts to some extent. However, impacts
would remain significant. The following mitigation measures are required to fully
mitigate potential light and glare impacts.
Mitigation Measure AES -3(a) Minimize Lighting on Public Areas. Lighting shall be
shielded as shown in the Specific Plan and directed downward. Lighting shall not be
mounted more than 16 feet high. Streetlights, where they are included, shall be
primarily for pedestrian safety, and shall not provide widespread illumination
unless necessary to comply with safety requirements, as determined by the Public
Works Director. Street lighting should focus on intersections and should be placed
between intersections only when it is necessary to comply with safety requirements,
as determined by the Public Works Director. Trail lighting shall be at a scale
appropriate for pedestrians, utilizing bollards, although overhead lighting may be
used where vandalism of bollard lights is a concern. Prior to development of
individual lots, proposed lighting shall be indicated on site plans and shall
demonstrate that spill-over of lighting would not affect nearby residential areas.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
6
Item 3
Packet Page 129
Findings of Fact and Statement of Considerations O
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment - Exhibit A
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted.
Implementation of the applicable provisions of the Specific Plan, in combination with
the proposed mitigation measure, would reduce project - specific impacts to a less than
significant level.
B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Impact AG -2: Development may result in land use conflicts between existing residential
uses and agricultural operations on -site as well as off -site on adjacent properties. This is
considered a Class H, significant but mitigable, impact.
a. Mitigation: The proposed Specific Plan incorporates the following provisions intended
to help reduce agricultural impacts: Policy 3.2.25, Program 3.2.25a, and Program
3.2.25b. Implementation of the above provisions would reduce impacts between
agriculture and adjacent planned residential uses, however the notification requirements
specified in Program 3.2.25a would place an unnecessary burden on agriculture, rather
than protecting it. The existing requirements of the County's Right -to -Farm Ordinance
are more fair to agriculture, while still providing reasonable notice to future residents.
The following mitigation measures are required to fully mitigate potential impacts
related to this issue.
Mitigation Measure AG -2(a) Maintain 100 -Foot Agricultural Buffer. If adjacent
land is still used for grazing purposes at the time of subdivision, a minimum 100 -
foot buffer between the Righetti family ranch home site. The buffer shall occur on
any parcel proposed for development that is adjacent to the northern boundary of
the Righetti home site (See Figure 4.2 -3).
Mitigation Measure AG -2(b) Right -to -Farm Notification Requirements. To prevent
unnecessary burdening of agricultural operations, proposed Specific Plan Program
3.2.25a shall be revised as follows:
Program 3.2.25a. In accordance with the County Right to Farm Ordinance (No.
2050), upon the transfer of real property in the Specific Plan area, the transferor shall
deliver to the prospective transferee a written disclosure statement that shall make all
prospective homeowners in the proposed project aware that although potential
impacts or discomforts between agricultural and non - agricultural uses may be
lessened by proper maintenance, some level of incompatibility between the two uses
would remain.
b. Findin The City finds that the mitigation measures are feasible and have been adopted.
With the implementation of the Specific Plan's proposed goals and policies, as well as
the mitigation measures described above, agricultural- related land use compatibility
impacts resulting would be reduced to a less than significant level.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
7
Item 3
Packet Page 130
Findings of Fact and Statement of Considerations 0
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
C. AIR QUALITY
1. Impact AQ -1: Vehicular operations associated with development under the Specific Plan
would result in the emission of levels of air pollutants that would exceed recommended
significance thresholds and are therefore considered to have a Class II, significant but
mitigable, impact.
a. Mitigation: The Specific Plan includes bikeways, pedestrian walkways, and access to
public transit routes that will reduce the need for vehicle transportation and therefore
reduce the amount of emissions (Specific Plan Goal 5.3 and associated policies and
programs). The Specific Plan also encourages the use of solar energy sources for
residential and commercial uses (Specific Plan Policies 4.7.1 and 4.7.2). Finally, bike
lanes have been designed to provide continuous connections through the Specific Plan
area, consistent with regional goals related to reducing dependence on motorized
vehicle travel.
The following standard site design and discretionary energy efficiency mitigation
measures are recommended:
Mitigation Measure AQ -1(a) Energy Efficiency. The building energy efficiency
rating shall be 10% above what is required by Title 24 requirements for all buildings
within the Specific Plan Area. The following energy- conserving techniques shall be
incorporated unless the applicant demonstrates their unfeasibility to the satisfaction
of City Planning and Building Department staff: increase walls and attic insulation
beyond Title 24 requirements; orient buildings to maximize natural heating and
cooling; plant shade trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer
cooling needs; use roof material with a solar reflectance value meeting the
EPA /DOE Energy Star rating; build in energy efficient appliances; use low energy
street lighting and traffic signals; use energy efficient interior lighting; use solar
water heaters; and use double -paned windows.
Mitigation Measure AQ -1(b) Transit. Bus turnouts and shelter improvements with
direct pedestrian access shall be installed at all bus stops.
Mitigation Measure AQ -1(c) Shade Trees. All parking lots shall include shade trees
within the parking area. There shall be at least one shade tree for every six vehicle
parking spaces.
Mitigation Measure AQ -1(d) Telecommuting. All new homes within the Specific
Plan area shall be constructed with internal wiring /cabling that allows
telecommuting, teleconferencing, and teleleaming to occur simultaneously in at least
three locations in each home.
Mitigation Measure AQ -1(e) Pathways. Where feasible, all cul -de -sacs and dead -
end streets shall be links by pathways to encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
8
Item 3
Packet Page 131
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
Mitigation Measure AQ -1(f) Pedestrian Signalization. All new signalized
intersections shall include signalization to accommodate pedestrian crossings.
Pedestrian signalization shall allow pedestrians to call for a traffic signal change.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. Implementation of the above mitigation would reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
2. Impact AQ -3: Development under the proposed Specific Plan has the potential to generate
construction related emissions as the site develops. Although these emissions cannot be
quantified at the Program EIR level, since San Luis Obispo County is currently non-
attainment for PMlo, development under the Specific Plan would contribute to this existing
significant condition. Therefore, construction related emissions are considered to be Class
II, significant but mitigable.
a. Mitigation: Because all construction projects can produce nuisance dust emissions, dust
mitigation measures are required for all construction activities. The following
mitigation measures are recommended to minimize emissions and to reduce the amount
of dust that drifts onto adjacent properties. These measures would apply to both tract
grading and development of individual lots.
Mitigation Measure AQ -3(a) Application of CBACT. The following measures shall
be implemented to reduce combustion emissions from construction equipment
where a project will have an area of disturbance greater than 1 acre, or for all
projects, regardless of the size of ground disturbance, when that disturbance would
be conducted adjacent to sensitive receptors.
Specific Plan applicants shall submit for review by the Community Development
Department and APCD staff a grading plan showing the area to be disturbed
and a description of construction equipment that will be used and pollution
reduction measures that will be implemented. Upon confirmation by the
Community Development Department and APCD, appropriate CBACT features
shall be applied. The application of these features shall occur prior to Specific
Plan construction.
Specific Plan applicants shall be required to ensure that all construction
equipment and portable engines are properly maintained and tuned according to
manufacturer's specifications.
Specific Plan applicants shall be required to ensure that off -road and portable
diesel powered equipment, including but not limited to bulldozers, graders,
cranes, loaders, scrapers, backhoes, generator sets, compressors, auxiliary power
units, shall be fueled exclusively with CARB motor vehicle diesel fuel (non -taxed
off -road diesel is acceptable).
Specific Plan applicants shall be required to install diesel oxidation catalysts on
off -road construction equipment and on -road haul trucks projected to generate
the greatest emissions. The number of catalysts required shall be determined in
consultation with APCD prior to the start of construction. Installations must be
prepared according to manufacturer's specifications.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
9
Item 3
Packet Page 132
Findings of Fact and Statement of Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
Maximize, to the extent feasible, the use of diesel construction equipment
meeting ARB's 1996 and newer certification standard for off -road heavy -duty
diesel engines.
Maximize, to the extent feasible, the use of on -road heavy -duty equipment and
trucks that meet the ARB's 1998 or newer certification standard for on -road
heavy -duty diesel engines.
All on and off -road diesel equipment shall not be allowed to idle for more than 5
minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and on job sites
to remind drivers and operators of the 5 minute idling limit.
Mitigation Measure AQ -3(b) Dust Control. The following measures shall be
implemented to reduce PM10 emissions during all Specific Plan construction:
Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible.
Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne
dust from leaving the site. Water shall be applied as soon as possible whenever
wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed (nonpotable) water should be
used whenever possible.
All dirt- stock -pile areas shall be sprayed daily as needed.
Permanent dust control measures shall be identified in the approved Specific
Plan revegetation and landscape plans and 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 sown with a fast- germinating native 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 APCD.
All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc., to be paved shall be completed as soon
as possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after
grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
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 shall 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 CVC 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.
Mitigation Measure AQ -3(c) Cover Stockpiled Soils. If importation, exportation, or
stockpiling of fill material is involved, soil stockpiled for more than two days shall
be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation.
Trucks transporting material shall be tarped from the point of origin.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
10
Item 3
Packet Page 133
Findings of Fact and Statement of Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
Mitigation Measure AQ -3(d) Dust Control Monitor. On all projects with an area of
disturbance greater than 1 acre, the contractor or builder shall designate a person or
persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering as
necessary to prevent transport of dust off -site. Their duties shall include holiday
and weekend periods when work may not be in progress.
b. Finding: The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. Air quality impacts associated with construction of the Specific Plan would be
adverse but not significant after mitigation measures are applied.
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Impact B -2: Development under the proposed Specific Plan could potentially impact
special- status plant species and plant communities of special concern within the Plan Area.
This is considered a Class II, significant but mitigable impact.
a. Miti agtion: The proposed Specific Plan includes the following goals, policies, and
programs, which are intended to address potential impacts associated with this issue:
Goal 2.2a through Goal 2.2c. Implementation of these provisions of the Specific Plan
would reduce impacts to some extent. However, the following mitigation measures are
required to further reduce impacts to biological resources.
Mitigation Measure B -2( a) Seasonally -Timed Botanical Surveys. When an
applicant requests entitlements from the City under the Specific Plan, the City shall
require the submittal of seasonally timed directed floral surveys based on the target
list of plant species identified in Table 4.4 -2 to be completed in the spring and
summer to determine the presence or absence of these species. The following table
lists each potential on -site special - status plant species and where to survey for the
species:
Special- status plant species Habitat
Adobe sanicle • grassland, isolated seeps on Righetti Hill
Cambria morning -glory • grassland
Jones' layia • grassland
Marsh sandwort • fresh water emergent wetland
Obispo Indian paintbrush • grassland
Rayless ragwort • rocky slopes of Righetti Hill, grassland where weeds are scarce
Saline clover • grassland, wetland
San Luis Obispo sedge • grassland, coastal scrub, isolated seeps on Righetti Hill
The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist verified by the City. Up to
three separate survey visits may be required to capture the flowering period of the
target species. The location and extent of any rare plant occurrences observed on the
site should be documented in a report and accurately mapped onto site - specific
topographic maps and aerial photographs. If special- status plants are identified, the
development pursuant to the Specific Plan shall submit written proof that the CDFG
has been contacted.
San Luis Obispo December 2009
11
Item 3
Packet Page 134
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
Mitigation Measure B -20) Special- Status Plant Buffer. Where special - status plants
are found, site development plans shall be modified to avoid such occurrences with
a minimum buffer of 50 feet. The applicant seeking entitlement shall establish
conservation easements for such preserved areas, prior to issuance of the first
building permit for subsequent tracts. The Specific Plan shall be amended at that
time to place these areas formally into open space, possibly as an overlay area.
If total avoidance is economically or technologically infeasible then plants shall be
salvaged and relocated under direction of an approved botanist, in accordance with
Mitigation Measures 13-2(c) through 13-2(f). If total avoidance can be achieved,
Mitigation Measures 13-2(c) through B-2(f) would not be required. (It should be
noted that avoidance is likely to be more cost effective in the long run compared to
mitigation in the form of salvage and relocation).
If total avoidance of special- status plant species can be achieved through Mitigation Measure 13-
2(b), Mitigation Measures B -2(c) through B -2(f) would not be required.
Mitigation Measure B -2(c) Incidental Take Permit. In the event that state listed
species are discovered, the applicant seeking entitlements shall submit to the City
signed copies of an incidental take permit and enacting agreements from the CDFG
regarding those species as necessary under Section 2081 of the California Fish and
Game Code prior to the initiation of grading. If a plant species that is listed under
the federal Endangered Species Act is discovered, the applicant seeking entitlements
shall provide proof of compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act, inclusive
as necessary of signed copies of incidental take permit and associated enacting
agreements, to the City prior to the initiation of grading.
Mitigation Measure B -2(d) Special- Status Species CDFG- Approved Mitigation
Plan. If total avoidance of the species occurrences is economically or technologically
infeasible, a mitigation program shall be developed by the City in consultation with
CDFG as appropriate. A research study to determine the best mitigation approach
for each particular species to be salvaged shall be conducted. The special - status
plant species mitigation program may include the following:
The overall goal and measurable objectives of the mitigation and monitoring
plan;
Specific areas proposed for revegetation and their size. Potential sites for
mitigation would be any suitable site within proposed open space depending on
the species that is appropriately buffered from development. For a list of
suitable habitats for the mitigation of each species refer to the list in Mitigation
Measure 13-2(a).
Specific habitat management and protection concepts to be used to ensure long-
term maintenance and protection of the special - status plant species to be
included (i.e.: annual population census surveys and habitat assessments;
establishment of monitoring reference sites; fencing of special- status plant
species preserves and signage to identify the environmentally sensitive areas; a
seasonally -timed weed abatement program; and seasonally -timed seed and /or
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
12
Item 3
Packet Page 135
Findings of Fact and Statement Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
topsoil collection, propagation, and reintroduction of special- status plant species
into specified receiver sites);
Success criteria based on the goals and measurable objectives to ensure a viable
population(s) on the project site in perpetuity;
An education program to inform residents of the presence of special - status plant
species and sensitive biological resources on -site, and to provide methods that
residents can employ to reduce impacts to these species/ resources m protected
open space areas;
Reporting requirements to ensure consistent data collection and reporting
methods used by monitoring personnel; and
Funding mechanism.
Mitigation Measure B -2(e) Special- Status Plant Monitoring Frequency. Monitoring
shall occur annually and shall last at least five years to ensure successful
establishment of all re- introduced or salvaged plants and no-net -loss of the species
or its habitat. In the case of annual plants it is difficult to determine if there has been
a net loss or gain in a five year period. Therefore an important component of the
mitigation and monitoring plan shall be adaptive management. The adaptive
management program shall address both foreseen and unforeseen circumstances
relating to the preservation and mitigation programs. The plan shall include follow
up surveys every five years in perpetuity or until a qualified biologist can
demonstrate that the target special - status species has not experienced a net loss. It
shall also include remedial measures to address negative impacts to the special -
status plant species and their habitats (i.e.: removal of weeds, addition of
seeding/ planting efforts) if the species is suffering a net loss at the time of the follow
up surveys.
Mitigation Measure B -2(J) Special- Status Species Habitat Replacement. The
primary goal of the mitigation and monitoring plan is to ensure a viable population
and no-net -loss of special - status species habitat within the project site. To ensure the
no-net -loss of a species, the applicant shall create two acres of occupied special -
status species habitat for every one acre of habitat impacted by project development.
If resource agencies require a higher replacement ratio than 2:1, their requirements
would prevail. The creation of habitat can occur in conjunction with the
mitigation/ relocation of wildflower field habitat if the research study indicates that
the wildflower field and specific special - status plant species can be relocated and
cohabitate.
Mitigation Measure B -2(g) Bunchgrass Survey. When an applicant requests
entitlements from the City under the Specific Plan, the City shall require the
submittal of a survey to identify any native perennial bunchgrass occurrences (this
can be conducted simultaneously with special- status plant species surveys required
in Mitigation Measure B -2(a) above). If occurrences of native perennial bunchgrass
habitat of 0.5 acre or greater containing at least 10% or greater coverage of native
perennial bunchgrass are found that area shall be placed in open space and a deed
restriction placed over the area to protect it in perpetuity. If the area cannot be
avoided for economical or technological reasons, then native grasses including
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
13
Item 3
Packet Page 136
Findings of Fact and Statement or Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Speck Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
perennial bunchgrasses shall be incorporated into the landscaping plant palette and
the erosion control plan to replace the lost habitat: The most effective areas to
receive native grass seed are graded areas that will be revegetated adjacent to open
space. The acreage ratio of lost native perennial bunchgrass habitat to habitat
replaced shall be no less than 1:1. Native perennial bunchgrass material shall come
from locally collected seed stock to avoid contamination of the local gene pool.
Because perennial bunchgrasses grow slowly at first, a "nurse" crop consisting of
Nuttall's fescue (Vulpia microstachys), California brome (Bromus carinatus), and
pinpoint clover (Trifolium gracilentum) shall be added to the mix to stabilize any
graded areas while the bunchgrasses become established. No non -native invasive
plant species shall be used in landscaping. California Invasive Plant Council (Cal -
IPC) maintains a list of the most important invasive plants to avoid. This list shall be
used when creating a plant palette for landscaping. Planting equipment (i.e.:
hydroseeding tank and dispensing mechanism) shall be cleaned of remaining seed
from previous applications prior to use on -site. The hydroseed applicator shall be
responsible for ensuring tanks have been properly cleaned of any seed that is not a
part of the specified mix.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. Implementation of the above mitigation would reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
2. Impact B -3: Development under the proposed Specific Plan could affect locally- designated
protected trees. This is considered a Class II, significant but mitigable impact.
a. Mitigation: The proposed Specific Plan includes the following program, which is
intended to address potential impacts associated with this issue: Program 4.3.4a. In
addition to the above provisions indicated, the applicants under the Specific Plan will be
required to comply with the City's Tree Regulations (City of San Luis Obispo, 1997).
The following mitigation measure is also required to ensure compliance with the City's
Tree Regulations and to reduce potential impacts to trees to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure 13-3(a) Construction Requirements. Development under the
Specific Plan shall abide by the requirements of the City Arborist for construction.
Requirements shall include but not be limited to: the protection of trees with
construction setbacks from trees; construction fencing around trees; grading limits
around the base of trees as required; and a replacement plan for trees removed
including replacement at a minimum 1:1 ratio.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted.
Implementation of the Specific Plan's program as described above along with the above
mitigation measure would reduce impacts on trees to a less than significant level.
3. Impact B4: Development under the proposed Specific Plan would affect riparian woodland
and wetland habitat. This is considered a Class II, significant but mitigable impact.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
14
Item 3
Packet Page 137
Findings of Fact and Statement Overriding Considerations {
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
a. Mitigation: The Specific Plan has incorporated goals, policies, and programs to alleviate
impacts to biological resources. The goals, policies, and programs are as follows: Goal
2.2a, Goal 2.2b, Policy 2.2.1, Policy 2.2.2, Program 2.2.2a -c, Policy 2.2.3, Program 2.2.3a,
Program 2.2.3b, Policy 2.2.4, Program 2.2.4a, Program 2.2.4b, Policy 2.2.5, Program
2.2.5a, Program 2.2.5b, Policy 2.2.6, Goal 2.2c, Policy 2.2.7, Policy 2.2.8, Goal 2.2.d, Policy
2.2.9, Program 2.2.9a, Program 2.2.9b, Policy 2.2.10, Program 2.2.10a.
The following mitigation measures are required in addition to the above Specific Plan
provisions to assure compliance with the City's Creek Setback Ordinance (Section
17.16.025 of the City's Zoning Regulations) and reduce impacts to riparian and wetland
habitat to a less than significant level. Mitigation measures from the Drainage and
Water Quality section below would further reduce - potentially significant impacts to
wetlands. Also refer to Mitigation Measures under Impact B-5 that apply to setbacks
with respect to special- status species.
Mitigation Measure B -4(a) Trail Setbacks. Trails shall be setback out of riparian
habitat and out of the buffer area. The trail shall be a minimum distance of 20 feet
from top of bank or from the edge of riparian canopy, whichever is farther. Trails
shall be setback from wetland habitat at a minimum distance of 30 feet and shall not
be within the buffer. Native plant species that will deter human disturbance shall be
planted in the area between the trail and the wetland /riparian habitat including
plants such as California rose (Rosa californica) and California blackberry (Rubus
ursinus). No passive recreational use shall be allowed in the riparian or wetland
habitats or drainage corridors.
Mitigation Measure 134(b) Development Setbacks. Development that abuts
riparian and wetland mitigation areas shall also be setback at least 20 feet, and be
buffered by an appropriately -sized fence and /or plants that deter human entry
listed in B -4(a).
Mitigation Measure B-4(c) Riparian/ Wetland Mitigation. If riparian and /or
wetland habitat are proposed for removal pursuant to development under the
Specific Plan, such development shall apply for all applicable permits and submit a
Mitigation Plan for areas of disturbance to wetlands and /or riparian habitat. The
plan shall be prepared by a biologist familiar with restoration and mitigation
techniques. Compensatory mitigation shall occur on -site using regionally collected
native plant material at a minimum ratio of 2:1 (habitat created to habitat impacted)
in areas shown on figure 4.4 -2 as directed by a biologist. The resource agencies may
require a higher mitigation ratio. If the Orcutt Regional Basin is necessary as a
mitigation site for waters of the U.S. and State it shall be designed as directed by a
biologist taking into consideration hydrology, soils, and erosion control and using
the final mitigation guidelines and monitoring requirements (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 2004). As noted above, the trail shall be setback out of the buffer area for
riparian and wetland habitat.
The plan shall include, but not be limited to the following components:
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
15
Item 3
Packet Page 138
Findings of Fact and Statement Overriding Considerations O
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
1) Description of the project /impact site (i.e.: location, responsible parties,
jurisdictional areas to be filled/ impacted by habitat type);
2) 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);
3) description of the proposed compensatory mitigation -site (location and size,
ownership status, existing functions and values of the compensatory mitigation -
site);
4) implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation -site (rationale for
expecting implementation success, responsible parties, schedule, site
preparation, planting plan);
5) maintenance activities during the monitoring period (activities, responsible
parties, schedule);
6) monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation -site (performance standards,
target functions and values, target hydrological regime, target jurisdictional and
non - jurisdictional acreages to be established, restored, enhanced, and /or
preserved, annual monitoring reports);
7) completion of compensatory mitigation (notification of completion, agency
confirmation); and
8) contingency measures (initiating procedures, alternative locations for
contingency compensatory mitigation, funding mechanism).
In addition, erosion control and landscaping specifications included in the mitigation
plan shall allow only natural -fiber, biodegradable meshes and coir rolls, to prevent
impacts to the environment and to fish and terrestrial wildlife.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. Implementation of the Specific Plan's goals, policies and programs, along with
these required mitigation measures would reduce impacts to riparian woodland and
wetland habitat to a less than significant level and ensure that the project is in
compliance with the regulatory agencies and the Creek Setback Ordinance as contained
in the Zoning Regulations (2004).
4. Impact B -5: Development under the proposed Specific Plan could potentially impact
special - status wildlife species and their habitats within the Plan Area. This is considered a
Class II, significant but mitigable impact.
a. Mitigation: The Specific Plan establishes permanent open space for the creek area, and
when combined with the buffering setbacks required by the City, impacts would be
reduced substantially. Compliance with Federal and State regulations governing the
wetland and riparian habitat types on -site (described in Impact B -3) would also reduce
impacts to these important biological resources. Specific Plan policies would also
require any development proposal pursuant to the Specific Plan that would remove
riparian or wetland areas to mitigate for such impacts. However, the following
additional mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to all special- status
wildlife species to a less than significant level.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
16
Item 3
Packet Page 139
Findings of Fact and StatementurOveniding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
Mitigation Measure B -5(a) Bird Pre - Construction Survey. To avoid impacts to
nesting special - status bird species and raptors including the ground- nesting
burrowing owl, all initial ground- disturbing activities and tree removal shall be
limited to the time period between September 15 and February 1. If initial site
disturbance, grading, and tree removal cannot be conducted during this time period,
a pre - construction survey for active nests within the limits of grading shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist at the site no more than 30 days prior to the start
of any construction activities (for ground- nesting burrowing owl survey see below).
If active nests are located, all construction work must be conducted outside a buffer
zone of 250 feet to 500 feet from the nests as determined in consultation with the
CDFG. No direct disturbance to nests shall occur 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 the start of
construction.
Mitigation Measure B -5(b) Burrowing Owl Survey. When an applicant requests
entitlements from the City under the Specific Plan a qualified biologist shall conduct
surveys for burrowing owls during both the wintering and nesting seasons (unless
the species is detected on the first survey) in potentially suitable habitats prior to
construction in accordance with the guidelines described in the CDFG Staff Report
on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (1995). Winter surveys shall be conducted on the
entire project site between December 1 and February 1, and the nesting season
survey shall be conducted between April 15 and July 15. If burrowing owls are
detected within the proposed disturbance area, CDFG shall be contacted
immediately to develop and implement a mitigation plan to protect owls and their
nest sites.
Mitigation Measure B -5(c) Monarch Pre - Construction Survey. If initial ground-
breaking is to occur between the months of October and March a pre - construction
survey for active monarch roost sites within the limits of grading shall be conducted
by a qualified biologist at the site two weeks prior to any construction activities. If
active roost sites are located no ground- disturbing activities shall occur within 50
feet of the perimeter of the habitat. Construction shall not resume within the setback
until a qualified biologist has determined that the monarch butterfly has vacated the
site.
Mitigation Measure B -5(d) VPFS Sampling Surveys. Prior to development in areas
shown as potential VPFS habitat on Figure 4.4 -2, current USFWS protocol level
sampling surveys shall be conducted in all such areas. A report consistent with
current Federal, State, and local reporting guidelines shall be prepared to document
the methods and results of surveys. If VPFS are found, the report shall include a
map that identifies the VPFS locations. Should the presence of additional special -
status wildlife species be determined including California linderiella, a map
identifying locations in which these species were found shall be prepared and
included in the report.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
17
Item 3
Packet Page 140
Findings of Fact and Statement Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Speck Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
Mitigation Measure B -5(e) FESA Consultation and Mitigation Regarding VPFS. If
any VPFS individuals are located on -site pursuant to Mitigation Measure B -5(d),
substantial setbacks from their identified habitat shall be implemented to avoid take
of a Federally listed species. If complete avoidance is not economically or technically
feasible, then Section 10 of the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) shall be used
to authorize incidental take when no other Federal agency such as the Corps is
involved. This process includes development of a Habitat Conservation Plan for
protecting and enhancing the Federally listed species at a specific location in
perpetuity. Species take can also be authorized under Section 7 of the FESA if a
Federal agency is involved in the project (e.g., Corps Section 404 permitting for
impacts to waters of the U.S. and /or Federal funding) and agrees to be the lead
agency requesting Section 7 consultation. This consultation process takes at a
minimum 135 days from the official request by the Federal lead agency.
The compensatory mitigation ratio shall be determined by the appropriate resource
agencies. Suitable replacement habitat shall be constructed either within the site
boundaries or off -site. Figure 4.4 -2 identifies areas that could be appropriate for on-
site VPFS mitigation. Figure 4.4 -2 is not intended to preclude development but shall
be used as a starting point for incorporating VPFS mitigation sites into the
development plan. While the Orcutt Regional Basin included in the potential VPFS
mitigation sites may need regular maintenance and may be seasonally flooded,
depressions could be created on the upper edges of the terrace in such a manner that
they are protected from flooding. VPFS mitigation areas shall be approved by a
biologist familiar with VPFS habitat "creation" techniques. Enhancement of the on-
site seasonal freshwater wetland habitat that is undisturbed by project activities may
also be a part of the mitigation program. Alternatively, fairy shrimp cysts could be
collected during the dry season from the existing habitat and placed into storage.
Topsoil could also be removed and stored in conditions suitable to retain cysts.
Wetland habitat could be enhanced /created in the areas shown on Figure 4.4 -2 by
grading depressions in the landscape and "top dressing" the depressions with the
preserved topsoil. Preserved cysts would be added to the recreated wetlands in
December or January, after sufficient ponding has occurred.
It is important to note that VPFS habitat mitigation is still considered experimental.
VPFS habitat mitigation is ambitious as it is costly, labor intensive, and difficult to
ensure success. Habitat may be "created" only in an existing vernal pool landscape
that provides suitable soils and a number of other specific ecological factors (USFWS,
2004).
An alternative to on -site mitigation is the purchase of mitigation bank credits.
Credits can be purchased by the acre as suitable mitigation for VPFS. There is
currently no known mitigation bank with VPFS habitat occurring within San Luis
Obispo County, however, mitigation banks may be available in the future.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce impacts to
special- status wildlife species and their habitats to a less than significant level.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
18
Item 3
Packet Page 141
Findings of Fact and Statement Considerations v
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
5. Impact B-6: Development under the proposed Specific Plan would reduce the populations
and available habitat of wildlife in general. The loss of wildlife habitat is considered a Class
II, significant but mitigable impact.
a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measures are required to fully reduce impacts to a
less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure B -6(a) Minimized Roadway Widths. Roadway widths adjacent
to riparian and wetland habitats shall be reduced to the minimum width possible,
while maintaining Fire Department Requirements for emergency access, with slower
speed limits introduced. Posted speed limits should be 25 mph.
Mitigation Measure B -6(b) Culvert Design. Although closed culverts are to be the
drainage conveyance method of last resort per the City Waterways Management
Plan, where they are required, culverts connecting the Plan Area drainage corridors
with upstream and downstream drainage corridors shall be evaluated during the
suitability analysis pursuant to Mitigation Measure B -5(a) to determine their
importance to wildlife who could use them to travel to and from the site. If culverts
are found to be of importance to wildlife, the culverts shall be evaluated for their
potential for improvement (i.e. retrofitting, maintenance, or specific improvements
depending on the types of species using them). The development pursuant to the
Specific Plan and the City shall develop a plan for the improvement of the culverts.
Preservation of the wildlife corridors that are present on the project site can be
achieved with sufficient setbacks from riparian and wetland habitats. Refer to B-4
for mitigation regarding riparian and wetland habitat setbacks.
Mitigation Measure B -6(c) Educational Pet Brochure. Any development pursuant
to the Specific Plan shall prepare a brochure that informs prospective homebuyers
and Home Owners Association (HOA) members about the impacts associated with
non -native animals, especially cats and dogs, to the project site; similarly, the
brochure must inform potential homebuyers and all HOA members of the potential
for coyotes to prey on domestic animals.
Mitigation Measure B -6(d) Landscaping Plan Review. To ensure that project
landscaping does not introduce invasive non -native plant and tree species to the
region of the site, the final landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by a
qualified biologist. The California Invasive Plant Council (Cal -IPC) maintains
several lists of the most important invasive plants to avoid. The lists shall be used
when creating a plant palette for landscaping to ensure that plants on the lists are
not used. The following plants shall not allowed as part of potential landscaping
plans pursuant to development under the Specific Plan:
African sumac (Rhus lancea)
Australian saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata)
Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia)
California pepper (Schinus molle) and Brazilian pepper (S. terebinthifolius)
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
19
Item 3
Packet Page 142
Findings of Fact and Statemeni,ui Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
Cape weed (Arctotheca calendula)
Cotoneaster (Cotoneaster pannosus), (C. lacteus)
Edible fig (Ficus carica)
Fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum)
French broom (Genista monspessulana)
Ice plant, sea fig (Carpobrotus edulis)
Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula)
Myoporum (Myoporum spp.)
Olive (Olea europaea)
Pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana), and Andean pampas grass (C. jubata)
Russian olive (Elaeagnus angusticifolia)
Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) and striated broom (C. striatus)
Spanish broom (Spartium junceum)
Tamarix, salt cedar (Tamarix chinensis), (T. gallica), (T. parviflora), (T.
ramosissima)
Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus)
Athel tamarisk (Tamarix aphylla)
With the exception of poison oak, only those species listed in the Specific Plan's
Suggested Plant List (Appendix E) shall not be planted anywhere on -site because
they are invasive non - native plant species. Poison oak is a native plant species and
could be used to deter human entrance to an area such as a mitigation /enhancement
area.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce impacts to
wildlife habitat in general to a less than significant level.
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Impact CR -1: There is the potential that project construction will disturb previously
unidentified buried archeological deposits and /or human remains. This is considered a
Class II, significant but mitigable impact.
a. Mitigation: The Specific Plan has incorporated the following goals, polices, and
programs to alleviate impacts to cultural resources: Goal 2.5, Policy 2.5.1, Policy 2.7.1a,
and Program 2.7.1a. In addition to these provisions incorporated in the Specific Plan,
the following mitigation measures would further reduce impacts related to cultural
resources to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measure CR -1(a) Areas Not Surveyed. All areas that were not surveyed
by Conejo, as indicated in Figure 4.5 -1, that will be subject to project- related earth
disturbance shall be subject to archaeological survey prior to any such disturbances.
This shall include APNs 076 - 481 -014, 076 -481 -012, 076 - 491 -003, 075 -491 -004, and 076-
491- 001, any planned trails or other developments within the areas designated as
open space.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
20
Item 3
Packet Page 143
Findings of Fact and Statement Overriding Considerations O
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
Mitigation Measure CR -1(b) Righetti Hill. Even though it is located within an area
designated as open space, the top of Righetti Hill should be subject to archaeological
survey. The City is responsible for the survey as part of any project to create a trail
system that would provide access to the top of the hill by the general public.
Mitigation Measure CR -1(0 Vegetation Clearance Monitoring. Due to poor ground
surface visibility, vegetation clearance /initial grading of the areas shown on Figure
4.5 -2 should be monitored by an archaeologist. The archaeologist shall have the
power to temporarily halt or redirect project construction in the event that
potentially significant archaeological resources are exposed. Based on monitoring
observations the lead archaeologist shall have the authority to refine the monitoring
requirements as appropriate (i.e., change to spot checks, reduce the area to be
monitored) in consultation with the lead agency. If potentially significant prehistoric
or historic resources are exposed the lead archaeologist shall be responsible for
evaluating the nature and significance of the find. If no archaeological resources are
observed following the vegetation clearance /initial grading then no further
monitoring shall be required. A monitoring report shall be provided to the City of
San Luis Obispo and the CCIC.
Mitigation Measure CR -1(d) Archaeological Resource Construction Monitoring. At
the commencement of project construction, an orientation meeting shall be
conducted by an archaeologist for construction workers associated with earth
disturbing procedures. The orientation meeting shall describe the possibility of
exposing unexpected archaeological resources and directions as to what steps are to
be taken if such a find is encountered.
An archaeologist shall monitor construction grading within 50 meters (164 feet) of
the two isolated finds. In the event that prehistoric or historic archaeological
resources are exposed during project construction, all earth disturbing work within
50 meters (164 feet) of the find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an
archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find. After the find has
been appropriately mitigated (e.g., curation, preservation in place, etc.), work in the
area may resume. The City should consider retaining a Chumash representative to
monitor any field work associated with Native American cultural material.
If human remains are exposed, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires
that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the
necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 5097.98.
b. Findin g: The City finds that the mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. Implementation of the Specific Plan's provisions and the required mitigation
measures would reduce disturbance of archeological deposits and human remains to
less than significant levels.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
21
Item 3
Packet Page 144
Findings of Fact and Statemenfor'Overriding Considerations O
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
2. Impact CR -2: Project development will result in earth disturbance at several locations
considered sensitive for archaeological resources. This is considered a Class II, significant
but mitigable impact.
a. Miti ag tion: The following mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts related
to identified archaeological resources to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure CR -2(a) Subsurface Archaeological Testing. If avoidance of an
archaeological site(s) is not possible, a Subsurface Archaeological Resource
Evaluation (SARE) shall be completed prior to issuance of a Land Use Permit. A
SARE should be undertaken for Orcutt-1 with the following goals:
a) Determine if there are intact subsurface deposits associated unth this site;
b) Determine the site's boundaries;
c) Assess the site's integrity, i.e., is it intact or highly disturbed; and
d) Evaluate the site's importance or significance.
The City should consider retaining a Chumash representative to monitor any
subsurface testing /excavation at Orcutt-1. Results of the Phase 2 Evaluation will
determine the need or lack thereof for additional data recovery and /or construction
monitoring in the archaeological site area. When feasible, avoidance of impacts
through project redesign is the preferred method for mitigating impacts to
significant archaeological resources.
The archaeological excavation(s) shall be based on a written explicit research design
that includes a statement or research objectives and a program for carrying out these
objectives. All cultural materials collected shall be curated at a qualified institution
that has proper facilities and staffing for insuring research access to the collections.
Mitigation Measure CR -2(b) Construction Monitoring. An archaeologist should
monitor construction grading in the vicinity of the two isolated finds.
b. Findnne: The City finds that the mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. Impacts would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of
proposed mitigation.
3. Impact CR -3: Implementation of the proposed project could result in indirect impacts to
identified archaeological resources. This is considered a Class II, significant but mitigable
impact.
a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measure would reduce potential indirect impacts
related to identified archaeological resources to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure CR -3(a) Prohibition of Archaeological Site Tampering. Off -
road vehicle use, unauthorized collecting of artifacts, and other activities that could
destroy or damage archaeological or cultural sites shall be prohibited. Signs shall be
City of San Luis Obispo December
22
Item 3
Packet Page 145
Findings of Fact and Statemenf or Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
posted on the property to discourage these types of activities and warn of
trespassing violations and imposed fines.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted.
Impacts would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of proposed
mitigation.
4. Impact CR-4: Implementation of the proposed project could result in indirect impacts to
historical resources. This is considered a Class II, significant but mitigable impact.
a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measure would reduce potential indirect impacts
related to historical resources to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure CR -4(a) Historical Evaluation. Prior to development, a
qualified historian should be retained to conduct a historical evaluation of the 50+
year old structures within the Orcutt Area using the City's Historic Preservation
Program Guidelines. Any structure determined to be an important /significant
historic resource shall be mitigated as appropriate prior to its demolition or
relocation. The historic structure evaluation should include the history of the
Skinner /Righetti Ranch and the ranch complex should be recorded on appropriate
DPR forms. Finally, the historian shall determine if project development will have
any significant direct or indirect impacts on the Bettencourt /Rodriguez. Adobe, a city
historic landmark located immediately adjacent to the Orcutt Area.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted.
Impacts would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of proposed
mitigation.
F. DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY
1. Impact D -1: During construction of the proposed project, the soil surface would be
disrupted and potentially become subject to erosion, with potential off -site sedimentation
and pollutant discharges. Alterations in drainage patterns and grading during the
construction period could result in construction- related erosion problems. This is
considered a Class II, significant but mitigable impact.
a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measures address the above requirements for
construction and post - construction scenarios:
Mitigation Measure D -1(a) Erosion Control Plan. Prior to issuance of the first
Grading Permit or approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall submit to the
Directors of Community Development and Public Works for review and approval a
detailed erosion control plan (ECP) to mitigate erosion and sedimentation impacts
during the construction period. The detailed ECP shall be accompanied by a written
narrative and be approved by the City Engineer. At a minimum, the ECP and
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
23
Item 3
Packet Page 146
Findings of Fact and Statement Overriding Considerations O
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
written narrative should be prepared according to the guidelines outlined in the
DDM and should include the following:
A proposed schedule of grading activities, monitoring, and infrastructure
milestones in chronological format;
Identification of critical areas of high erodibility potential and /or unstable
slopes;
Soil stabilization techniques such as short-term biodegradable erosion control
blankets and hydroseeding should be utilized. Silt fences should be installed
downslope of all graded slopes. Straw bales should be installed in the flow path
of graded areas receiving concentrated flows, as well as around storm drain
inlets;
Description of erosion control measures on slopes, lots, and streets;
Contour and spot elevations indicating runoff patterns before and after grading;
Filter systems at catch basins (drop inlets) in public streets as a means of
sediment control; and
The post - construction inspection of all drainage facilities for accumulated
sediment, and the clearing of these drainage structures of debris and sediment.
Mitigation Measure D -1(b) Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. The applicant
shall comply with NPDES General Construction Activities Storm Water Permit
Requirements established by the CWA. Pursuant to the NPDES Storm Water
Program, an application for coverage under the statewide General Construction
Activities Storm Water Permit (General Permit) must be obtained for project
development. It is the responsibility of the project applicant to obtain coverage prior
to site construction.
The applicant can obtain coverage under the General Permit by filing a Notice of
Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resource Control Board's (SWRCB) Division of
Water Quality. The filing shall describe erosion control and storm water treatment
measures to be implemented during and following construction and provide a
schedule for monitoring performance. These BMPs will serve to control point and
non -point source (NPS) pollutants in storm water and constitute the project's SWPPP
for construction activities. While the SWPPP will include several of the same
components as the ECP, the SWPPP will also include BMPs for preventing the
discharge of other NPS pollutants besides sediment (such as paint, concrete, etc.) to
downstream waters.
Notice of Intent. Prior to beginning construction, the applicant shall file a Notice
of Intent (NOI) for discharge from the proposed development site.
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. The applicant shall require the building
contractor to prepare and submit a SWPPP to the City forty-five (45) days prior
to the start of work for approval. The contractor is responsible for understanding
the State General Permit and instituting the SWPPP during construction. A
SWPPP for site construction shall be developed prior to the initiation of grading
and implemented for all construction activity on the project site in excess of one
acre. The SWPPP shall include specific BMPs to control the discharge of material
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
24
Item 3
Packet Page 147
Findings of Fact and Statement of OverTiding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
from the site. BMP methods may include, but would not be limited to, the use of
temporary detention basins, straw bales, sand bagging, mulching, erosion control
blankets, silt fencing, and soil stabilizers. Additional BMPs should be
implemented for any fuel storage or fuel handling that could occur on -site
during construction. The SWPPP must be prepared in accordance with the
guidelines adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The
SWPPP shall be also submitted to the City along with grading /development
plans for review and approval.
Notice of Completion of Construction. The applicant shall file a notice of
completion of construction of the development, identifying that pollution
sources were controlled during the construction of the project and implementing
a closure SWPPP for the site.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. Implementation of an Erosion Control Plan and Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan would reduce impacts from construction erosion to less than significant
levels.
2. Impact D -2: Increased runoff on -site could deteriorate on -site streambank conditions,
leading to long -term erosion on -site. Impacts are considered Class II, significant but
mitigable.
a. Mitigation: The proposed Specific Plan includes the following goals, policies, and
programs, which are intended to address potential impacts associated with this issue:
Policy 2.2.4, Program 2.2.4a, and Program 2.2.4b. The following mitigation measures are
recommended.
Mitigation Measure D -2(a) Vegetative and Biotechnical Approaches to Bank
Stabilization. Vegetative or biotechnical (also referred to as soil bioengineering)
approaches to bank stabilization are preferred over structural approaches. Bank
stabilization design must be consistent with the SLO Creek Stream Management and
Maintenance Program Section 6. Streambank stabilization usually involves one or a
combination of the following activities:
Regrading and revegetating the streambanks to eliminate overhanging banks
and create a more stable slope;
Deflecting erosional water flow away from vulnerable sites;
Reducing the steepness of the channel bed through installation of grade
stabilization structures;
Altering the geometry of the channel to influence flow velocities and sediment
deposition;
Diverting a portion of the higher flow into a secondary or by -pass channel;
Armoring or protecting the bank to control erosion, particularly at the toe of
slopes.
The bank stabilization design will:
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
25
Item 3
Packet Page 148
Findings of Fact and Statement or Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
Be stable over the long term;
Be the least environmentally damaging and the "softest" approach possible;
Not create upstream or downstream flooding or induce other local stream
instabilities;
Minimize impacts to aquatic and riparian habitat;
Specify that only natural -fiber, biodegradable meshes and coir rolls be used, to
prevent impacts to the environment and to fish and terrestrial wildlife.
Mitigation Measure D -2( b) Constructed Natural Channel. Where the creeks within
the Orcutt Plan Area may need to be modified to create sufficient conveyance
capacity and mitigate geomorphic instability, (i.e. floodable terraces within the
proposed linear park), design guidelines from Section 5.3 of the SLO Creek Drainage
Design Manual shall be applied. The waterways are to be designed in accordance
with all provisions of the design criteria applicable to Constructed Natural Channels.
Typically, this would include construction of a compound channel utilizing an in-
channel bench or terrace whenever feasible, considerations of stable channel
planform geometry, use of setbacks and buffer strips at top of bank, planting using
native plants, and slope stabilization using biotechnical erosion control methods.
Mitigation Measure D -2(c) Riparian Zone Planting. The GASP proposes riparian
enhancement of creek corridors. Section 11 guidelines of the SLO Creek Drainage
Design Manual shall be followed for riparian areas that are modified, created and /or
managed for flood damage reduction, stream enhancement, and bank repair. Linear
park terrace vegetation, streambank repair and channel maintenance projects may
require stream channel modifications that include shaping, widening, deepening,
straightening, and armoring. Many channel management projects also require
building access roads for maintenance vehicles and other equipment. These
construction activities can cause a variety of impacts to existing sensitive riparian
and aquatic habitat that, depending on the selected design altemative, range from
slight disturbances to complete removal of desirable woody vegetation and faunal
communities. In urban areas within the SLO creek watershed, riparian vegetation
often provides the only remaining natural habitat available for wildlife populations.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. Implementation of the mitigation measures above will ensure appropriate
bank stabilization, channel modification, and riparian revegetation methods to mitigate
the contribution of on -site sediments to the detention basin system.
3. Impact D -3: Regional detention basin storage has the potential to have downstream erosion
impacts from longer durations of downstream flows. This impact is considered a Class II,
significant but mitigable impact.
a. Mitigation: The Specific Plan incorporated the following design criteria for the proposed
basins within the Plan area:
Reduce 100 -year post development peak runoff to 25 -year pre - development rate.
Reduce 50 -year post development peak runoff to 20 year pre - development rate.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
Item 3
Packet Page 149
Findings of Fact and Statement or Overriding Considerations O
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
Limit 10 -year post development peak runoff to 10 -year pre - development rate.
Limit 2 -year post development peak runoff to within 5 percent of the 2 year pre -
development rate.
In addition to the above criteria proposed, the following mitigation measure is
recommended to further reduce impacts caused by downstream flow and erosion:
Mitigation Measure D -3(a) Payment of Fair Share Fees for Area Drainage
Improvements. The City/Zone 9 Waterway Management Plan (WMP, Questa, 2002)
provides for imposition of a Drainage Impact Fee on new development projects that
would result in adverse hydrological impacts. The Drainage Impact Fee can only be
used to pay for drainage improvements made necessary by the hydrologic impacts
of a project. The applicant shall pay their "fair share" of any mitigation fee
established by the City of San Luis Obispo for drainage improvements made
necessary by cumulative project development. These fair share fees may be used to
fund components of the City's Storm Drain Master Plan (Boyle Engineering, 2000),
or other improvements as identified by the City. Components of the City's Storm
Drain Master Plan preferred alternative downstream of the Orcutt Plan Area
include:
A new concrete box culvert at Broad Street on Orcutt Creek,
A new concrete slab bridge at Santa Fe Road on the East Branch of SLO Creek,
and
A modified channel for improved conveyance capacity from Santa Fe to Buckley
Road on the East Branch of SLO Creek.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. In
association with the Specific Plan's design criteria, implementation of the proposed
mitigation measure would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
4. Impact D -4: Development of the proposed project could result in an increase in peak
discharges at downstream locations. This impact is considered a Class II, significant but
mitigable impact.
a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measures are recommended to ensure proper
design and safety of detention facilities:
Mitigation Measure D -4(a) Compliance with City's Drainage Design Manual. All
drainage improvements must be constructed in accordance with Section 9 of the
City's Drainage Design Manual. Either subregional facilities shall be constructed
with the first phase of development or interim (on -site) drainage control shall be
constructed. Interim facilities can be abandoned once regional facilities are available.
The applicant shall submit a detention system plan to the Director of Public Works
for review and approval.
The detention basins shall be designed to comply with applicable City drainage
design standards and at a minimum have the following features:
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
27
Item 3
Packet Page 150
n
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
Each basin should include an outlet structure to allow the basin to drain
completely within 48 hours. The amount of outflow can be regulated with a fixed
outfall structure. Such a structure must include an outfall pipe of a size and
length that will give positive control on the outfall head. The principal outlet
regulates the design discharge from the watershed above at a water level in the
basin that does not exceed a certain maximum elevation.
Regional, or larger on -site facilities can pose significant hazards to public safety
in the event of failure. In addition to the outlet control structure, an emergency
overflow spillway (secondary overflow) must be provided. This spillway must
satisfy the following requirements:
The spillway must be designed to pass the 100 -year design storm event if the
outlet works fail or if a runoff event exceeds the design event. The spillway
design will be based on peak runoff rates for developed site conditions,
assuming that the basins fill to the crest of the spillway prior to the beginning
of the design event.
The spillway must be located so overflow is conveyed safely to the
downstream channel.
Each basin shall be designed with an emergency spillway that can pass the 100 -
year storm event with 2 -foot freeboard between the design water surface
elevation and the top of the embankment. At a minimum the basin must contain
the 10 -year flow without release to emergency spillway: If flows over the
emergency spillway do occur, provisions must be made or be in place that will
convey such flows safely.
The design volume of the basin must be sized to include the capacity for a five
5) year accumulation of sediment. Generally, the basin should be cleared out
when it is half -full, as determined on a marked staff in the bottom of the basin, or
a mark on a riser pipe. The amount of potential sedimentation in the basin shall
be determined by a soils engineer or hydrologist, using the procedures such as
those outlined in the Association of Bay Area Government's (ABAG) Manual of
Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control (May 1995) or as approved by the
City Engineer or County Public Works Director.
The basin and its outfall must be sized so that approximately 85% of the total
stormwater storage, excluding sediment storage in the basin, can be recovered
within twenty-four hours of the peak inflow. A basin overflow system must
provide controlled discharge (emergency spillway) for the 100 -year design event
without overtopping the basin embankment and maintain adequate freeboard.
The design must provide controlled discharge directly into the downstream
conveyance system or safe drainage way. The principal outlet must be able to
drain the detention facility within 48 hours of the end of the 100 -year storm by
gravity flow through the principal outlet.
Any detention basin design must be accompanied by a soils report. This report
should address allowable safe basin slopes with respect to liquefaction, rapid
draw down, wave action and so forth. Additionally, the report should also
address sedimentation transport from areas above the basin and allowable
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
28
Item 3
Packet Page 151
Findings of Fact and Statement Overriding Considerations O
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
bearing pressures where structures are to be placed. The soils report must
address the level of the water table and the effects of the basin excavation on the
water table.
Mitigation Measure D-4(b) Final Drainage Detention System Verification. Final
detention basin system designs for project - specific EIRs within the Orcutt Plan Area
shall be submitted to the Public Works Department. Per the Wastewater
Management Plan, the project shall not cause more than a 5% increase of peak run
off rates for the 2 -, 50 -, and 100 -year 24 hour storm event.. Final basin designs shall
provide stage- storage- outflow curves and outfall structure details for all detention
basins. The San Luis Obispo SLO /Zone 9 HEC -HMS hydrology model may be used
to model final detention basin system cumulative downstream impacts should
specific projects propose substantial changes to conceptual design, at the discretion
of the City Engineer.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. In association with the Specific Plan's design criteria, implementation of the
proposed mitigation measure would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. While
the proposed detention system is not predicted to have significant downstream impacts
on peak discharge rates, the current design of detention structures is still conceptual for
the OASP. The implementation of Mitigation Measure D -4(a) would ensure that project
impacts associated with proposed OASP development would be less than significant.
5. Impact D -5: During long -term operation of the proposed project, runoff from the site could
affect the water quality in creeks within the Specific Plan Area. Project development could
result in an increase in non -point source (NPS) pollutants to receiving waters. Impacts are
considered Class II, significant but mitigable.
a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measures are recommended:
Mitigation Measure D -5(a) Biofilters. The applicant shall submit to the Director of
Community Development for review and approval a plan that incorporates grassed
swales (biofilters) into the project drainage system where feasible for runoff
conveyance and filtering of pollutants. A preferred alternative to concrete drainage
swales to transport the runoff to roadside ditches, these swales shall be lined with
grass or appropriate vegetation to encourage the biofiltration of sediment,
phosphorus, trace metals, and petroleum from runoff prior to discharge into the
formal drainage network. General design guidelines relevant to optimizing the
pollutant removal mechanisms of grassed swales are: 1) a dense, uniform growth of
fine- stemmed herbaceous plants for optimal filtering of pollutants; 2) vegetation that
is tolerant to the water, climatological, and soil conditions of the project site is
preferred; 3) grassed swales that maximize water contact with the vegetation and
soil surface have the potential to substantially improve removal rates, particularly of
soluble pollutants; and 4) pollutant removal efficiency is increased as the flow path
length is increased. General maintenance guidelines for biofilters are discussed in
Mitigation Measure D -5(b).
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
29
Item 3
Packet Page 152
Findings of Fact and Statement Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
A Best Management Practice (BMP) filter device shall be installed to intercept water
flowing off of proposed parking lot and roadway surfaces. Water quality BMPs shall
be those identified in the California Stormwater Quality association's BMP
handbook. Whenever feasible, the preferred approach to treating surface runoff will
be the use of drainage swales rather than mechanical devices. The chosen method for
treating runoff shall be a proven and documented pollution prevention technology
device that removes oil and sediment from stormwater runoff, and retains the
contaminants for safe and easy removal. The chosen device shall possess design
features to prevent re- suspension of previously collected contaminants and
materials, and contain a built -in diversion structure to divert intense runoff events
and prevent scouring of the previously collected sediments. The filter devices shall
be designed and sized to treat the run -off from the first 25 mm (1 inch) of rainfall.
The storm water quality system must be reviewed and approved by the City
Director of Public Works.
Mitigation Measure D -5(b) SWPPP Maintenance Guidelines. Prior to issuance of
the first grading permit or approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall
submit to the Director of Community Development and Director of Public Works for
review and approval a long -term storm water pollution prevention plan ( SWPPP) to
protect storm water quality after the construction period. The SWPPP shall include
the following additional BMPs to protect storm water quality:
Proper maintenance of parking lots and other paved areas can eliminate the
majority of litter and debris washing into storm drains and thus entering local
waterways. Regular sweeping is a simple and effective BMP aimed at reducing
the amount of litter in storm drain inlets (to prevent clogging) and public
waterways (for water quality). The project applicant shall enter into an
agreement with the City of San Luis Obispo to ensure this maintenance is
completed prior to approval of improvement plans or final maps.
Proper maintenance of biofilters is essential to maintain functionality. The
maintenance of biofilters on the project site will be the responsibility of a
homeowner's association for the proposed project. Biofilter maintenance would
include: 1) Regular mowing to promote growth and increase density and
pollutant uptake (vegetative height should be no more than 8 inches, cuttings
must be promptly removed and properly disposed of); 2) Removal of sediments
during summer months when they build up to 6 inches at any spot, cover
biofilter vegetation, or otherwise interfere with biofilter operation; and 3)
Reseeding of biofilters as necessary, whenever maintenance or natural processes
create bare spots.
Proper maintenance of detention basins is necessary to ensure their effectiveness
at preventing downstream drainage problems and promoting water quality.
Necessary detention basin maintenance includes: 1) regular inspection during
the wet season for sediment buildup and clogging of inlets and outlets; 2) regular
appro)dmately every 2 -3 years) removal of basin sediment; and 3) if an open
detention basin is used, mowing and maintenance of basin vegetation (replant or
reseed) as necessary to control erosion. A maintenance plan must be developed
and provided along with the design documents. Long -term detention basin
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
30
Item 3
Packet Page 153
Findings of Fact and Statement or Overriding Considerations 0
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
maintenance plans must clearly delineate and assign maintenance and
monitoring responsibilities for local and regional detention basins. Maintenance
reports shall be submitted annually to City's Public Works Department.
For basins greater than 5,000 m3 (4 ac -ft) storage (i.e. the Upper Fork regional
detention basin), vehicular access for maintenance of the basin and outlet works,
removal of sediment, and removal of floating objects during all weather
conditions must be provided. An access road must be provided to the basin floor
of all detention facilities. This road must have a minimum width of 3.7 m (12 ft)
and a maximum grade of 20 %. Turnarounds at the control structure and the
bottom of the basin must have a 12 -m (40 -ft) minimum outside turning radius.
The applicant shall prepare informational literature and guidance on residential
BMPs to minimize pollutant contributions from the proposed development. This
information shall be distributed to all residences at the project site. At a
minimum the information should cover: 1) general information on biofilters and
detention basins for residents concerning their purpose and importance of
keeping them free of yard cuttings and leaf litter; 2) proper disposal of household
and commercial chemicals; 3) proper use of landscaping chemicals; 4) clean-up
and appropriate disposal of yard cuttings and leaf litter; and 5) prohibition of
any washing and dumping of materials and chemicals into storm drains.
The stormwater BMP devices shall be inspected, cleaned and maintained in
accordance with the manufacturer's maintenance specifications. The devices
shall be cleaned prior to the onset of the rainy season (i.e. November 1st) and
immediately after the end of the rainy season (i.e. May lst). All devices will be
checked after major storm events. The results of the inspection and maintenance
report shall be submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo Public Works
Department.
Mitigation Measure D -5(c) Pervious Paving Material. Consistent with Land Use
Element Policy 6.4.7, the applicant shall be encouraged to use pervious paving
material to facilitate rainwater percolation. Parking lots and paved outdoor storage
areas shall, where feasible, use pervious paving to reduce surface water runoff and
aid in groundwater recharge.
Mitigation Measure D -5(d) Low Impact Development Practices. In addition to the
low impact development (LID) practices described in the above measures, the
Specific Plan shall incorporate the following as requirements of future development
within the area, to the extent appropriate for type and location of development:
Reduced and disconnected impervious surfaces
Preservation of native vegetation where feasible
Use of tree boxes to capture and infiltrate street runoff
Roof leader flows shall be directed to planter boxes and other vegetated areas
Soil amendments shall be utilized in landscaped areas to improve infiltration
rates of clay soils.
Incorporate rain gardens into landscape design
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
31
Item 3
Packet Page 154
Findings of Fact and Statement Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
These LID practices shall be utilized wherever feasible and appropriate to ensure
that the pre - development stormwater runoff volume and pre - development peak
runoff discharge rate are maintained, and that the flow frequency and duration of
post - development conditions are identical (to the extent feasible) to those of pre -
development conditions. LID practices are subject to the review and approval of the
Regional Water Quality Control Board, as part of the City's, National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System Permit compliance.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. Implementation of the identified mitigation measures would reduce project
impacts associated with NPS pollutants to a less than significant level.
6. Impact D-6: During long -term operation of the proposed project, runoff from the site could
affect the water quality of creeks downstream of the Orcutt Plan Area. Project development
could result in an increase in non -point source (NPS) pollutants to receiving waters. Impacts
are considered Class II, significant but mitigable.
a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measure is recommended:
Mitigation Measure D -6(a) Wetland Habitat Function. A wetland habitat
enhancement project is proposed as a feature of the linear park /regional detention
basin. The wetland habitat would function as a permanent pond within the
detention basin. Therefore:.
The volume of the permanent pond shall not be counted towards the total
storage volume of the regional detention basin;
Basin outlets shall be located above the desired permanent water surface, to
prevent the basin from draining completely;
Mitigation Measure D -5(b) requires regular maintenance and monitoring of
detention basin sediment accumulation.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted.
The mitigation measure above would ensure that proposed detention basins would have
less -than- significant impacts on water quality downstream in the long -term.
G. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
1. Impact G -2: Seismic activity could produce sufficient ground shaking to result in
liquefaction at the project site. This is considered a Class II, significant but mitigable
impact.
a. Mitigation: The proposed Specific Plan includes the following program which is
intended to reduce potential impacts associated with liquefaction for the Plan area:
Program 3.4.1a. To clarify this policy, the following mitigation measure is required,
which is intended to more fully address methodologies that could be implemented to
reduce liquefaction impacts.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
32
Item 3
Packet Page 155
O
Findings of Fact and Statement `of Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
Mitigation Measure G -2(a) Geotechnical Study Parameters. As stated in Program
3.4.1.a. of the proposed Specific Plan, a geotechnical study shall be prepared by a
State - registered engineering geologist for the project site prior to site development.
This report shall include an analysis of the liquefaction potential of the underlying
materials according to the most current liquefaction analysis procedures. This study
shall also:
evaluate the potential for soil settlement beneath the project site;
evaluate the potential for expansive soils beneath the project site; and
assess the stability of all slopes in the areas where construction is to occur. This
evaluation shall determine the potential for adverse soil stability and discuss
appropriate mitigation techniques. Appropriate set backs from unstable slopes
and areas below potential rockfall zones shall be implemented. No development
of residential structures is to occur in areas where rockfall hazards could damage
buildings.
The following suitable measures to reduce liquefaction impacts could include but
need not be limited to:
specialized design of foundations by a structural engineer;
removal or treatment of liquefiable soils to reduce the potential for liquefaction;
drainage to lower the groundwater table to below the level of liquefiable soil;
in -situ densification of soils or other alterations to the ground
characteristics; or
other alterations to the ground characteristics.
b. Finding The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible, and has been adopted.
Implementation of the Specific Plan's policies and related mitigation measure in project
design would address impacts related to seismically induced liquefaction to the extent
of industry standards; therefore impacts would be less than significant.
2. Impact G -3: The Specific Plan area is located in an area defined as having a high potential
for settlement. This is considered a Class II, significant but mitigable impact.
a. Mitigation: The following measures would reduce settlement hazard impacts to less
than significant levels:
Mitigation Measure G -3(a) Soil Settlement Engineering. If the project site is
identified to be in a high potential for settlement zone (through the Geotechnical
Study required in Mitigation Measure G -2(a)) the building foundations,
transportation infrastructure and 'subgrades shall be designed by a structural
engineer to withstand the existing conditions, or the site shall be graded in such a
manner as to address the condition.
Suitable measures to reduce settlement impacts could include but need not be
limited to:
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
33
Item 3
Packet Page 156
Findings of Fact and StatemenOverriding Considerations )
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
excavation and recompaction of on -site or imported. soils;
treatment of existing soils by mixing a chemical grout into the soils prior to
recompaction; or
foundation design that can accommodate certain amounts of differential
settlement such as posttensional slab and /or ribbed foundations designed in
accordance with Chapter 18, Division III of the Uniform Building Code(UBC).
b. Finding:, The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted.
Implementation of the above measure would ensure that impacts related to soil
settlement would be reduced to a less than significant level.
3. Impact G-4: The Specific Plan area is located in an area defined as having moderate to high
potential for the expansion or contraction of soils. This is considered a Class II, significant
but mitigable impact.
a. Mitigation: The following measure would reduce soil expansion /contraction hazard
impacts to a less than significant level:
Mitigation Measure G-4(a) Expansive Soils Grading. If the project site is identified
as having expansive soils (through the Geotechnical Study required in Mitigation
Measure G- 2(a)), the foundations and transportation infrastructure shall be designed
by a structural engineer to withstand the existing conditions, or the site shall be
graded in such a manner as to address the condition.
Suitable measures to reduce impacts from expansive soils could include but need not
be limited to:
excavation of existing soils and importation of non - expansive soils; and
foundation design to accommodate certain amounts of differential expansion
such as posttensional slab and /or ribbed foundations designed in accordance
with Chapter 18, Division III of the UBC.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted.
Implementation of the above measure would ensure that impacts related to soil
expansion would be reduced to a less than significant level.
4. Impact G -5: Soil stability conditions contributing to landslides, debris flows, or rock falls
exist within the Plan Area. This is considered a Class II, significant but mitigable impact.
Development near areas of rockfall are considered a Class II,, significant but mitigable
impact.
a. Mitigation: i Implementation of the following measure is required.
Mitigation Measure G -5(a) Slope Engineering. If the Specific Plan area is identified
as having unstable slopes within the development envelope (through the
Geotechnical Study required in Mitigation Measure G- 2(a)), either the development
of San Luis Obispo December 2009
34
Item 3
Packet Page 157
Findings of Fact and Statement Overriding Considerations C
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
envelope shall be modified so as to avoid these unstable slopes, or the slopes will
have to be engineered so as to no longer be unstable. The design of slopes to
withstand any unstable conditions shall be performed by a Geotechnical Engineer or
Engineering Geologist, and the mitigation must be approved by the City of San Luis
Obispo building department before the issuance of grading permits.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted.
Areas having unstable slopes shall be engineered so as to remove or recontour the slopes
and stabilize the slopes prior to grading. This mitigation is designed to reduce potential
effects to a less than significant level.
5. Cumulative Impacts: Cumulative impacts related to fault rupture, seismically related
ground shaking, liquefaction, expansive soils, and soil compaction would be similar to what
is described for project - specific impacts, and would be dealt with on a project by project
basis.
a. Mitigati on: The Specific Plan contains goals and policies (listed above) which would
reduce cumulative impacts related to geologic hazards. In addition, implementation of
Mitigation Measures G -2(a), G -3(a), G -4(a), and G -5(a) would ensure that project - specific
impacts remain less than significant. No other mitigation measures are necessary to
address cumulative impacts.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measures proposed above are feasible and
have been adopted to reduce the proposed project's contribution to cumulative geologic
impacts. With incorporation of the above measures, cumulative impacts relating to
geologic hazards would be less than significant.
H. NOISE
1. Impact N -1: Construction under the Specific Plan would temporarily generate high noise
levels on -site. Because noise could exceed thresholds in the City General Plan Noise
Element; impacts are considered Class II, significant but mitigable.
a. Mitigation: Implementation of the following policy and programs included in the
Specific Plan would reduce impacts to noise generated from temporary construction:
Goal 4.5, Program 4.5.11, Policy 4.5.2, and Program 4.5.2d.
In addition to the policies and programs identified above, the following mitigation
measures are required to reduce construction noise impacts on nearby residences:
Mitigation Measure N -1(a) Compliance with City Noise Ordinance. Construction
hours and noise levels shall be compliant with the City Noise Ordinance [Municipal
Code Chapter. 9.12, Section 9.12.050(6)]. Methods to reduce construction noise can
include, but are not limited to, the following:
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
35
Item 3
Packet Page 158
Findings of Fact and Statement-t Overriding Considerations U
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
Equipment Shielding. Stationary construction equipment that generates noise
can be shielded with a barrier.
Diesel Equipment. All diesel equipment can be operated with closed engine
doors and equipped with factory- recommended mufflers.
Electrical Power. Whenever feasible, electrical power can be used to run air
compressors and similar power tools.
Sound Blankets. The use of sound blankets on noise generating equipment.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted.
With implementation of the provisions within the Specific Plan and the required
mitigation above, noise impacts due to construction would be reduced to less than
significant levels.
2. Impact N4: The proposed Specific Plan would place additional sensitive receptors in the
vicinity of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, exposing them to noise levels that could
potentially exceed City noise standards. This is considered a Class II, significant but
mitigable, impact.
a. N iti agtion: The Orcutt Area Specific Plan includes goals, policies, and programs that. are
intended to reduce noise impacts caused by the nearby railroad, as follows: Goal 4.5,
Policy 4.5.1, and Programs 4.5.1a through Program 4.5.1e. In addition to the provisions
proposed in the Specific Plan, the following mitigation measures are required to reduce
UPRR noise impacts on nearby residences:
Mitigation Measure N4(a) Specific Plan Revision. The Specific Plan shall be
revised to meet the noise standards of the City General Plan Noise Element. Policy
4.5.1a shall be revised to require that outdoor noise levels for residences not exceed
60 dB (Ldn) and indoor noise levels for residences and schools not exceed 45 dB
Ldn). Program 4.5.2a shall also be revised to ensure that these standards are met.
Indoor noise levels can be reduced using the design and materials techniques
described in Specific Plan Programs 4.5.1a, 4.5.1b, 4.5.1c, 4.5.1d, 4.5.1e, 4.5.1f, 4.5.2a,
4.5.2b, and 4.5.2c. Outdoor noise levels can be reduced in the following ways:
1) Locate all proposed residential and school development outside of the 60 Ldn
contour line (352 feet from the centerline of the railroad); or
2) For any residential or school development located within 352 feet of the railroad
centerline, a combination of barrier methods specified in the Noise Element must
be implemented. Residential or school project applicants in this area shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department that
proposed development will not be exposed to outdoor noise levels that exceed
Noise Element standards. Because of the varying topography of the site relative
to the railroad tracks, and the fact the development design has not been
determined, the specific attenuation methods cannot be definitively determined.
Options could include one or more of the following approaches:
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
36
Item 3
Packet Page 159
Findings of Fact and Statement v, Overriding Considerations C
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
Berm or wall along the railroad right -of -way, which would likely vary in
height from about 8 to 20 feet, based on preliminary noise models included in
this EIR;
Design of individual homes such that structures block the line -of -sight from
useable backyards to the railroad tracks;
For homes with backyards not blocked by intervening structures, backyard
fencing of sufficient height to block line -of sight to railroad tracks.
The design of noise barriers and backyard layouts and walls shall be examined by an
approved noise consultant, to determine if they provide sufficient mitigation to
comply with Noise Element standards related to outdoor noise exposure.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted.
With implementation of the programs contained in the Specific Plan and the above
mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant.
L PUBLIC SAFETY
1. Impact S -1: Development under the Specific Plan has the potential to expose residents to
potentially harmful electric or magnetic fields. This is a Class II, significant but mitigable
impact.
a. Mitigation: The City Safety Element includes policies intended to reduce the exposure
of people to EMFs. Since the proposed Specific Plan includes residential uses adjacent to
the exiting transmission line easement the following mitigation is also required.
Mitigation Measure S -1(a) EMF Exposure. State or Federal electric or magnetic
exposure levels, if established, are to be followed. In the absence of these exposure
standards, no residential structures or residential yards, schools, active parks, or
recreational facilities are to be built within the utility' corridor right -of -way or
easement.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted.
Proposed mitigation would reduce potential impacts related to the exposure to electric
and magnetic fields generated by the transmission lines to a less than significant level.
2. Impact S -2: Development under the Orcutt Area Specific Plan would increase activity levels
in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo Airport Planning Area. The draft Specific Plan is
inconsistent with certain safety- related provisions of the Airport Land Use Plan. Revisions
to the Specific Plan and density adjustments from the Airport Land Use Commission are
required to make the Specific Plan consistent. If the Airport Land Use Commission
determines that the Orcutt Area Specific Plan is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan,
this would be considered a Class II, significant but mitigable impact.
a. Mitigation: Adherence to State requirements for new school sites and Zoning
Regulation would reduce the ALUP inconsistencies and associated safety. The
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
37
Item 3
Packet Page 160
a
Findings of Fact and Statement Overfiding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
following goals, policies, programs and performance standards are derived from the
Orcutt Area Specific Plan and would reduce impacts created by or produced by the San
Luis Obispo County Airport. They are as follows: Goal 3.5, Policy 3.5.1, Policy 3.5.2,
Policy 3.5.3, and Performance Standards 3.5.2a -h. In addition to the policies and
programs described above, the following mitigation measures are required related to
airport safety impacts.
Mitigation Measure S -2(a) Residential Density. Prior to Specific Plan approval by
the City Council, the proposed project must be referred to the ALUC for a
consistency determination with the ALUP. The ALUC must determine that the
proposed residential density is consistent with the ALUP; or, the applicant shall
submit a revised Specific Plan that shows a reduction in proposed residential
density, consistent with ALUP requirements.
Mitigation Measure S -2(b) Disclosure. Prior to recordation of final map, the
applicant shall develop Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions (CC &R's) that disclose to
potential buyers or leasers that aircraft over - flights occur, and that such flights may
result in safety hazard impacts should an aircraft accident occur. In addition, prior to
recordation of final map, avigation easements shall be recorded over the entire
project site for the benefit of the SLO County Regional Airport.
Mitigation Measure S -2(c) Special Function Land Uses. Prior to Specific Plan
approval by the City Council, the project must be referred to the ALUC for a
consistency determination with the ALUP. The ALUC must determine that the
proposed Special Function Land Use is consistent with the ALUP; or, the applicant
shall submit revised plans showing that the proposed school has been eliminated
from the proposal.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measures above are feasible, and have been
adopted. Implementation of the above measures along with adherence to State
requirements for new school sites and Zoning Regulation would mitigate airport safety
impacts to a less than significant level.
3. Impact S -3: The Union Pacific Railroad corridor adjacent to potential development under
the Specific Plan could create a public safety hazard because of the possibility of accidents.
This is a Class H, significant but mitigable impact.
a. Mitigation: Transport of hazardous materials on the railway will be required to comply
with all federal, state, and local laws pertaining to the handling of hazardous materials.
In addition, any school developed pursuant to the Specific Plan would require
compliance with Department of Education safety study requirements. This analysis,
however, would be conducted through separate review outside the CEQA process. To
reduce the potential safety hazard of trespassers on the railroad tracks the following
mitigation measures are recommended:
Mitigation Measure S -3(a) Pedestrian /Bicycle Passage. A safe and accessible
pedestrian/bicycle crossing shall be provided across the UPRR between Orcutt Road
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
38
Item 3
Packet Page 161
Findings of Fact and Statement'bt "Overriding Considerations O
Orcutt Area Speck Plan Attachment 6 -
and Tank Farm Road. This crossing shall be connected with the proposed bicycle
and pedestrian path, and integrated into the bicycle path and sidewalk system. This
crossing shall be designed to allow pedestrians and bicyclists to safely travel across
the tracks from the Plan Area to the neighborhood on the west side of the tracks.
The crossing shall be approved by the City Engineer.
Mitigation Measure S -3(b) Signage. Signage that directs people to the
pedestrian/bicycle railroad crossing shall be placed in obvious and appropriate
locations along the western edge of the Plan Area and along the bike path that runs
parallel to the railroad tracks on the west side of the Plan Area.
Mitigation Measure S -3(c) Fencing. The Specific Plan shall be revised to include
fencing along the western boundary of the Specific Plan area, adjacent to the railroad
tracks. Coordination with the UPRR and the City is required to determine the
appropriate height and type of fencing. This fencing can be integrated with barriers
that are required to meet noise attenuation standards (See impact N4 above).
b. Finding: The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. Implementation of the above measures would reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
4. Impact S-4: Suspect recognized environmental conditions that may pose a risk to human
health and safety have been observed on portions of the Orcutt Area. This is considered a
Class II, significant but mitigable impact.
a. Mitigation: The Orcutt Area Specific Plan has identified the following goals, polices,
programs, and performance standards, which are intended to reduce public safety
impacts to less than significant levels: Goal 3.4, Policy 3.4.2, Program 3.4.2a, Program
3.4.2b, and Performance Standard 3.5.2d. In addition to the above stated policy and
programs within the Specific Plan, the following proposed mitigation would further
ensure less than significant impacts related to public safety.
Mitigation Measure S -4(a) Areas not surveyed. Prior to development in areas not
surveyed for the Limited Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (Rincon
Consultants, Inc., 2004) a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment shall be conducted
to identify the presence of recognized environmental conditions associated with soil
and groundwater contamination at the site. If recognized conditions are
encountered then a Phase H Environmental Site Assessment shall be performed to
determine if soil or groundwater have been affected.
Mitigation Measure S -4(b) Righetti Hill Abandoned Mine. Prior to allowing public
access in the vicinity of the abandoned mine, soils samples shall be taken around the
entrance and down gradient and analyzed for heavy metals by CCR Title 22 metals.
Mitigation Measure S -4(c) Farmhouses. Prior to issuance of any entitlement for
development that will require the demolition of farmhouses identified in Figure 4.9-
1, a qualified Environmental Scientist shall enter the farmhouses and determine if
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
39
Item 3
Packet Page 162
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Speck Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
there may have been any hazardous material releases associated with the storage or
use of hazardous materials. If it is determined that there may have been hazardous
materials release, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment shall be performed to
determine if soil or groundwater has been affected.
Mitigation Measure S4(d) 55- Gallon Drums. Prior to development on the property
where 55 -Gallon drums were identified as shown in Figure 4.9 -1, soils samples shall
be taken in the vicinity of the drums and analyzed for total extractable petroleum
hydrocarbons (TEPH) by EPA method 8015, heavy metals by CCR Title 22 metals,
and solvents by EPA method 8260B. If levels of contaminants are found to exist in
concentrations that exceed regulatory thresholds, further sampling may be needed to
determine the extent of contamination. Once the extent of contamination is
delineated, an appropriate remediation method should be implemented according to
the size of the area contaminated and the contaminant involved.
b. Finding: The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the Specific
Plan provisions and the required mitigation measures.
PUBLIC SERVICES
1. Impact PS -2: The project would increase the number of residents served by the San Luis
Obispo Fire Department. The increase would affect the personnel, equipment and
organization of the Fire Department by increasing the burden on Fire Department services
and potentially placing residences, outside of the target four minute response time. This
would be considered a Class II, significant but mitigable, impact.
a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measure PS -2(a) Road Widths, Fire Hydrants. Road widths and
internal circulation, as well as the placement of fire hydrants, shall be designed with
the guidance of the Fire Department. A road system that allows unhindered Fire
Department access and maneuvering during emergencies shall be provided. The
San Luis Obispo Fire Department shall review all improvement plans for proposed
development in the Orcutt Area to ensure compliance with City standards and the
Uniform Fire Code.
Mitigation Measure PS -2(b) Non - combustible exteriors. Buildings that are in areas
of moderate fire hazard and which are close to areas of high or extreme fire hazard
shall have non - combustible exteriors.
Mitigation Measure PS -2(c) Defensible Space. Accessible space free of highly
combustible vegetation and materials shall be provided in the area 30 feet around all
structures located within the moderate wildland fire hazard areas.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
40
Item 3
Packet Page 163
Findings of Fact and Statement'u, Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
b. Fes: The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. With proposed mitigation measures, impacts would be reduced to a less than
significant level.
2. Impact PS -3: The project would increase the number of residents served by the SLCUSD.
The increase would result in a Class II, significant but mitigable impact to the school
system.
a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measures are intended to reduce project related
impacts:
Mitigation Measure PS -3(a) Buildout Date Notification. The applicant shall notify
the San Luis Coastal Unified School District of the expected buildout date of each
phase of the project to allow the District time to plan in advance for new students.
Mitigation Measure PS -3(b) Statutory School Fees. The applicant shall pay the
statutory school fees in effect at the time of issuance of building permits to the
appropriate school districts.
b. Finding The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. Mitigation Measure PS -3(b) would require the full development fees be
charged to a developer by the school districts. Currently the mitigation fee is $2.63 per
square foot of residential development and $0.42 per square foot of commercial or
industrial development. These fees would contribute funding for new school facilities
for the students potentially generated by the project. Pursuant to Section 65995 (3)(h) of
the California Government Code (Senate Bill 50, chaptered August 27, 1998), the
payment of statutory fees "...is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts
of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning,
use, or developed of real property, or any change in governmental organization or
reorganization." Therefore, subsequent to payment of statutory fees, school impacts
would be considered less than significant.
K. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
1. Impact T -1: The addition of traffic generated by the Specific Plan to Baseline traffic volumes
would cause one study roadway segment and one intersection to operate at unacceptable
levels during peak hours. This would result in a Class II, significant but mitigable, impact.
a. Mitigation: The Specific Plan includes the following goals, policies and programs, which
are intended to address safe and efficient circulation within the Specific Plan area: Goal
5.1, Goal 5.2, Policy 5.1.a, Program 5.1.2, Program 5.1.3, and Policies 5.1.b -e. In addition
to these Specific Plan provisions, the following mitigation measures are also required to
further reduce impacts to roadway segments and intersections.
Mitigation Measure T -1(a) Orcutt Road/Tank Farm Road. The additional traffic
generated by the Specific Plan will degrade operations at this intersection to an
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
41
Item 3
Packet Page 164
Findings of Fact and Statement or Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
unacceptable level (LOS E), and the peak -hour signal warrant will be met. The
addition of a 200' right -tum lane on the southbound approach would mitigate this
impact, reducing overall delay to 14.8 seconds (LOS B). With the new right turn lane,
the southbound approach would experience a delay of 25.5 seconds (LOS D). The
vehicle delay for the northbound approach would be 28.2 seconds (LOS D).
Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the applicants shall complete the
improvements identified within this mitigation measure subject to review,
inspection and permit issuance by the City.
b. Finding: The City finds that the above mitigation is feasible and has been adopted.
With implementation of the provisions within the Specific Plan and the required
mitigation, impacts to roadways and intersection operations would be reduced to less
than significant levels.
2. Impact T -2: The addition of traffic generated by the Specific Plan to Buildout traffic
volumes would cause one study roadway segment and five intersections to operate at
unacceptable levels during peak hours. This would result in a Class II, significant but
mitigable, impact.
a. Miti agtion: The following mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to
roadway segments and intersections to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure T -2(a) Broad StreetlSouth Street -Santa Barbara Road. In order
to mitigate Buildout level traffic conditions the intersection will need to be widened
to provide a 100 foot southbound right -turn lane. Alternatively, acceptable
operations could be achieved by improving the westbound approach to include two
left turn lanes and a shared through /right turn lane. Either of these two
improvements may result in secondary right -of -way impacts.
This specific plan is currently not included in the City's TIF program. The applicant
shall be responsible for paying a "fair share" mitigation fee as determined by the
Director of Public Works, associated with the estimated intersection improvements.
Mitigation Measure T -2(b) Broad Street /Tank Farm Road. The addition of a second
southbound left -turn lane and a second northbound left -turn lane is necessary to
mitigate Buildout level traffic conditions. This improvement may result in secondary
right -of -way impacts.
This specific plan is currently not included in the City's TIF program. The applicant
shall be responsible for paying a "fair share" mitigation fee as determined by the
Director of Public Works, associated with the estimated intersection improvements.
Mitigation Measure T -2(c) Orcutt RoadlJohnson Avenue. The installation of a
single -lane roundabout is necessary to mitigate Buildout level traffic conditions.
Installation of a single -lane roundabout would improve intersection operations to
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
42
Item 3
Packet Page 165
Findings of Fact and Statement br Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
LOS A. This improvement would be needed as soon as the northeastern portion of
the Specific Plan is developed.
This specific plan is currently not included in the City's TIF program. The applicant
shall be responsible for paying a "fair share" mitigation fee as determined by the
Director of Public Works, associated with the estimated intersection improvements.
Mitigation Measure T -2(d) Orcutt Road/Tank Farm Road. The additional traffic
generated by the Buildout of the General Plan will trigger the need for a traffic signal
at this intersection. Installation of a traffic signal will improve intersection operations
to LOS C.
This specific plan is currently not included in the City's TIF program. The applicant
shall be responsible for paying a "fair share" mitigation fee as determined by the
Director of Public Works, associated with the estimated intersection improvements.
Mitigation Measure T -2(e) Broad StreetlPrado Road Extension. The additional
traffic generated by the Buildout of the General Plan will trigger the need for a
second northbound left -turn lane. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, specific
plan applicants shall make "fair share" contributions to the City's Orcutt Area
Specific Plan mitigation fee program for the addition of a second northbound left-
turn lane at the intersection of Broad Street and Prado Road.
b. Finding: The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. With implementation of these improvements, roadways and intersections
would operate at acceptable levels. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
3. Impact T -3: If improperly designed, site access and internal circulation roads can result in
safety hazards for all users including bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit patrons. The
Specific Plan includes site access, emergency access, and internal access road standards to
accommodate Specific Plan traffic. Class II, significant but mitigable, impacts would result.
a. Mitigation: The proposed Specific Plan includes the following–goals, policies, and
programs, which are intended to address potential impacts associated with site access
and circulation: Policy 5.2.a, Policy 5.2.b, Programs 5.2.1 through 5.2.8, and Policies 5.3.a
through 5.3.c. The Specific Plan includes the following goals and programs to create safe
and efficient bicycle facilities in the Specific Plan area: Goal 5.3, Program 5.1. 1, and
Program 5.3.1. The Specific Plan includes the following goal, policy and program
concerning transit facilities: Goal 5.4, Policy 5.4.a, and Program 5.4.1.
Implementation of the above policies and programs would reduce impacts to some
extent. However, implementation of the following mitigation measure is required to
reduce impacts related to vehicle and transit facilities to less than significant levels. (No
additional mitigation is required for bicycle and pedestrian facilities).
Mitigation Measure T -3(a) Vehicle Facilities. The proposed specific plan will have a
potentially significant impact on vehicle facilities due to the potential for excessive
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
43
Item 3
Packet Page 166
Findings of Fact and Statement of Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
on -site vehicle speeds. The typical street cross - sections should be adjusted as
follows: Bullock Lane - Remove the southbound (west) parking lane (on the UPRR
side). Other collector roadways Traffic control, such as all-way stops, should be
implemented at intersections where cross traffic volumes are large enough to
warrant installation. Local roadways should be configured in an interconnected
pattern with short block lengths. The Project, in coordination with the City, will
identify appropriate locations and relevant traffic calming treatments and install the
necessary devices. This mitigation measure may require modification of proposed
Specific Plan Program 5.2.6 to accommodate these provisions.
Mitigation Measure T -3(b) Transit Facilities. Bus stops locations and amenities
should be developed in consultation with the City to mitigate potential Specific Plan
impacts. Additional bus stops may be required in or adjacent to the specific plan
area, and bus stop locations may need to be moved to accommodate development
patterns and new bus routings. In addition, special paving, bus bays, benches, and
shelters may be necessary at some locations. The specific plan, in coordination with
the City and SLO Transit, will plan and construct future bus stop locations and
amenities. -
A service plan for the project site should be developed as part of the City's Short-
Range Transit Plan (SRTP) update process. With either option presented above or a
routing plan developed as part of the SRTP process, bus stops should be located
approximately every one - quarter mile. The primary on -site bus stop(s) will be
located near the intersection of "A" and "B" Streets.
Mitigation Measure T -3(c) Bicycle Path Connection. The Class I bicycle path along
the UPRR tracks should be maintained across the creek to provide consistency with
the City's bicycle plan, and the path should connect to existing facilities at Orcutt
Road and Tank Farm Road even though the streets are outside of the project site. The
potentially significant impacts would be mitigated if the specific plan is developed
with the proposed facilities in place, a continuous Class I facility along the UPRR
tracks, and connections to existing facilities.
Mitigation Measure T -3(d) Site Access. The adequacy of vehicular on -site
circulation needs to be reviewed when a plan showing all roadway locations has
been prepared. The locations of the proposed collector streets appear adequate.
Based on the projected traffic volumes, a one -lane roundabout will be adequate at
the Bullock Lane / "B" Street / "C" Street intersection. As described above, the bicycle
network is adequate. Pedestrian circulation needs to be reviewed when a plan
showing all local residential streets has been prepared. Pedestrian paths may be
required in some locations, dependent upon the connectivity of the proposed
roadway network.
b. Finding: The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. With implementation of the Specific Plan's identified provisions and the
required mitigation measures, impacts to public transportation would be reduced to less
than significant levels.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
44
Item 3
Packet Page 167
Findings of Fact and Statement'or Overriding Considerations J
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
L. LAND USE AND PLANNING
1. Impact LU -1: The Specific Plan includes establishing open space and low density
residential land uses outside of the current City Urban Reserve Line (URL). Development
under City jurisdiction outside of the URL would be potentially inconsistent with the
growth management goals of preserving open space and agriculture on land surrounding
the City. However, these impacts are considered Class II, significant but mitigable.
a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measure would be needed, primarily to achieve
consistency with several General Plan policies.
Mitigation Measure LU -1(a) General Plan Amendment. The City shall amend its
General Plan to include a revised Urban Reserve Line that contains all of the
property proposed for development within the Orcutt Specific Plan Area
b. Finding: The City finds that the above mitigation is feasible and has been adopted. The
implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
2. Impact LU -2: The Specific Plan includes land use designations that potentially allow for 750
to 1,000 dwelling units, 50 to 300 units more than is planned for the Orcutt Area in the
General Plan. This impact is considered Class II, significant but mitigable.
a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measure is required.
Mitigation Measure LU -2(a) General Plan Amendment. The City shall amend its
General Plan to reflect the increased buildout potential of the Orcutt Area and
decreased potential of the Margarita Area. The estimated buildout for Orcutt shall
be between 500 and 1,000 dwelling units and, for Margarita, between 800 to 1,200
dwelling units.
b. Finding The City finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible and has been
adopted. Implementation of the above mitigation measure would reduce impacts to a
less than significant level.
3. Impact LU -3: The proposed development would be potentially inconsistent with City urban
design goals described in to the City's Community Design Guidelines, and could result in
compatibility issues between certain commercial and residential uses. This is considered a
Class II, significant but mitigable, impact.
a. Mitigation: The following design - oriented mitigation would be required to ensure
consistency with City policies:
of San Luis Obispo December
45
Item 3
Packet Page 168
Findings of Fact and Statement vOverriding Considerations )
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6- Exhibit A
Mitigation Measure LU -3(a) Modified Design Elements. The Specific Plan shall
include one or more of the following approaches to achieve consistency with the
City's Community Design policies:
The Specific Plan can be modified to include more commercial area that is not
allowed to be converted to housing.
Provide a pedestrian and bicycle underpass below the railroad tracks (or a bridge
over the tracks) that connect the Orcutt Area to the western end of Industrial
Way. This will allow residents of the Orcutt Area to reach Marigold Center via
Industrial Way, making the distance approximately 0.5 mile from the railroad
track underpass.
Mitigation Measure LU -3(b) Mixed Use Incompatibility. Individual uses in the
Mixed Use zone such as nail salons, cleaners, or coffee roasters that may generate
substantial odors shall be carefully evaluated for compatibility with nearby
residential uses at the discretion of the Community Development Director, prior to
issuance of an APCD use permit.
b. Fes: With the implementation of the mitigation measure listed above, impacts
related to mixed use incompatibility and consistency with the Community Design
Guidelines will be reduced to less than significant. It should be noted that establishing a
pedestrian right -of -way under the railroad track, if this approach is used, should be
done in such a manner to preclude the possibility of further right -of -way acquisition so
that no roadway could be extended through this area. This would avoid potential
impacts related to traffic and land use that could otherwise result from a roadway
extension at this location.
4. Impact LU-4: The proposed Specific Plan would permit development that is potentially
inconsistent with the ALUP. This is considered a Class II,.significant but mitigable, impact.
a. Mitigation: Mitigation measures S -2(a), S -2(b), S -2(c), and S -2(d), from the Public Safety
section above, would be required.
b. Fes: The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. Mitigation measures S -2(a), S -2(b), S -2(c), and S-2(d) would make the Specific
Plan consistent with the ALUP, reducing impacts to a less than significant level.
M. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
1. Impact: Growth Inducement resulting from development anticipated by the General Plan
would be significant but mitigable.
a. Mitigation: Mitigation measure LU -1(a) (above) requires the City to adjust the URL to
include all of the area proposed for development in the Specific Plan, therefore, with
implementation of this measure, impacts would be reduced to less than significant.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
46
Item 3
Packet Page 169
Findings of Fact and Statement (it Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
b. Finding: The City finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible and has been
adopted. With the proposed mitigation measure, the URL would be adjacent to open
space within the City Limits and no growth inducing impacts would occur.
2. Impact: Growth inducement resulting from road extensions proposed by the project would
be significant and unavoidable.
a. Miti agtion: No feasible mitigation is available that would reduce the project's potential
to induce growth due to roadway extensions.
b. Finding: The City finds that no feasible mitigation is available, and that this impact is
significant and unavoidable. A statement of overriding considerations for this impact is
made in Section 6.
N. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
1. Impact: The proposed OASP would result in significant but mitigable impacts to global
climate change. Determination of the significance of operational GHG emissions impacts is
predicated upon a project's consistency with a GHG reduction plan or, in the absence of
such a plan, compliance with AB 32 [refer to Section 7.3(a) of the EIR]. Because the Climate
Action Plan has not yet been completed for San Luis Obispo County, the following
mitigation measures are required:
a. N iti agtion
GCC -1(a) GHG Emissions Reduction Planning. To ensure that future development
under the Specific Plan meets the GHG emissions reduction requirements in AB 32
and SB 375, the following policies shall be added to the Specific Plan:
The City shall participate in regional planning efforts with SLOCOG and the
APCD to reduce basin -wide GHG emissions in compliance with SB 375.
The City's participation in regional planning efforts to reduce basin -wide GHG
emissions is anticipated to include City assistance in developing a GHG
emissions inventory, and identifying reduction measures related to site design,
energy conservation, and trip reduction.
Once the Resource Agency adopts guidelines for the mitigation of GHG
emissions pursuant to SB 97, all projects under the Specific Plan shall mitigate
GHG emissions as required.
GCC -1(b) Consideration of Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Measures.
Through the CEQA environmental review process for discretionary permit
applications, development under the Specific Plan shall consider all feasible GHG
emissions reduction measures to reduce direct and indirect emissions associated
with project vehicle trip generation and energy consumption.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
47
Item 3
Packet Page 170
Findings of Fact and Statement 6 Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
b. Finding: The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. The above mitigation measures would ensure compliance with regional efforts
to meet GHG emissions targets in AB 32. Determining the significance of the impact of
the project on global climate is still speculative. Nonetheless, the project's contribution
to the problem of global climate change would be reduced with implementation of
OASP policies and programs, and applicable mitigation measures listed in Tables 7.3
and 7.4 of the EIR, respectively. The project also must be carried out in a manner
consistent with the goals, policies and programs of the City's Conservation Open Space
Element. In addition, the recommended project design features suggested above can be
incorporated into the OASP to further reduce the GHG emissions at build -out.
Mitigation measures GCC -1(a) and GCC -1(b) would ensure less than significant impacts.
SECTION 6. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT FOR WHICH SUFFICIENT
MITIGATION IS NOT AVAILABLE
This section presents the project's significant environmental impacts and feasible mitigation
measures. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations
CCR]) and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code require a lead agency to make findings
for each significant environmental impact disclosed in an EIR. Specifically, for each significant
impact, the lead agency must find that:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other
agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
Each of these findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.
This section identifies impacts that can be reduced, but not to a less - than- significant level,
through the incorporation of feasible mitigation measures into the project, and which therefore,
remain significant and unavoidable, as identified in the program EIR:
The impacts identified in this section are considered in the same sequence in which they appear
in the draft EIR. Where adoption of feasible mitigation measures is not effective in avoiding an
impact or reducing it to a less - than- significant level, the feasibility of adopting alternatives to
the proposed project is considered in Section 7 of this document.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
48
Item 3
Packet Page 171
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
A. AESTHETICS
1. Impact AES -1: The proposed development would affect the aesthetic character of the site
vicinity through alteration of viewsheds from Orcutt and Tank Farm Roads. This is
considered a Class I, significant and unavoidable impact.
a. Mitigation: The proposed Specific Plan includes the following goals, policies, and
programs, which are intended to address potential impacts associated with this issue:
Goal 2.4, Policy 2.4.1, and Programs 2.4.1a through 2.4.1e. No other mitigation measures
are feasible.
b. Finding: The City finds that no feasible mitigation is available. Implementation of these
provisions of the Specific Plan would reduce impacts to some extent. However, impacts
to the character of the site due to the change from rural to urban development will
remain significant and unavoidable. A statement of overriding considerations for this
impact is made in Section 8.
2. Impact AES -2: The proposed development would affect the aesthetic character of the
Specific Plan Area and impede views of Righetti Hill. This is considered a Class I,
significant and unavoidable impact.
a. Mitigation: There are no feasible mitigation measures that are consistent with the
objectives of the proposed project.
b. Finding: The City finds that no feasible mitigation is available, and that impacts to the
character of the site due to the change from rural to urban development will remain
significant and unavoidable. A statement of overriding considerations for this impact is
made in Section 8.
3. Cumulative Impacts: New development in and around the City will affect the aesthetic
character of the City by adding new urban elements such as streets, buildings, signs, and
landscaping, as well as light sources. This is especially true for new development in rural
areas around the City edge. As the City grows at its edges, greenbelt and rural areas
surrounding the City are lost. In addition to the proposed project, the City is currently
reviewing Specific Plans for the Margarita and Airport Areas which include proposed
development of currently rural areas. Cumulative development of these proposed
developments would result in a significant cumulative loss of open space and would
irrevocably alter the character of these areas throughout the City from rural to urban.
Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would incrementally contribute to this change
in aesthetic character of the site and the surrounding areas. Cumulative aesthetic impacts
are therefore considered Significant and Unavoidable (Class I).
a. Mitigation: The Specific Plan contains goals and policies which would reduce
cumulative aesthetic impacts. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure AES -
3(a), would further reduce impacts. No other feasible mitigation is available that would
meet the project objectives.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
49
Item 3
Packet Page 172
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
b. Findings: The City finds that no additional feasible mitigation is available for
cumulative aesthetic impacts, which would remain significant and unavoidable. A
statement of overriding considerations for this impact is made in Section 8.
B. AIR QUALITY
1. Impact AQ-4: The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with population assumptions of the
General Plan and San Luis Obispo County Clean Air Plan (CAP). However, the Specific
Plan proposes low density residential development outside of the current Urban Reserve
Line (URL) which will require an adjustment of the URL to be consistent with the General
Plan. The 2001 CAP encourages development to occur within the URL of cities, therefore,
the Specific Plan is inconsistent with the 2001 Clean Air Plan (CAP). This is considered to be
a Class I, significant and unavoidable impact.
a. Mitigation: The incorporation of Mitigation Measures AQ -1(b) though AQ -1(f), and T-
3(b) through T -3(d), are recommended to improve consistency with the CAP. The
following additional measure is also required:
Mitigation Measure AQ -4(a) Development and Distribution of Alternative
Transportation Information. The applicant shall create a Multi-Modal Access
Guide, which includes maps and other information on how to walk and cycle to
nearby destinations. In addition, the applicant shall provide an on -site bulletin
board specifically for the posting of bus schedules and notices of availability for car-
pooling and /or shall distribute such information to property owners upon
occupancy. The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining this board and
updating it every two months.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted.
However, short of limiting growth to within the current URL boundaries, this
inconsistency cannot be fully mitigated. A statement of overriding considerations for
this impact is made in Section 8.
2. Cumulative Impacts: The OASP is inconsistent with the CAP policy of containing urban
development within the URL of cities and exceeds the SLOAPCD Tier II thresholds of
significance. As a result, the OASP is considered to be potentially inconsistent with long-
term regional air quality planning efforts, and the Specific Plan is expected to have
significant and unavoidable impacts on air quality.
a. Mitigation: The Specific Plan contains goals and policies which would reduce
cumulative agricultural impacts. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measures
AG- 1(a -f), AQ- 3(a -d) and AQ4(a), would further reduce impacts. No other feasible
mitigation is available that would meet the project objectives.
b. Finding: The City finds that no additional feasible mitigation is available for cumulative
air quality impacts, which would remain significant and unavoidable. A statement of
overriding considerations for this impact is made in Section 8.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
50
Item 3
Packet Page 173
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
C. NOISE
1. Impact N -5: The proposed Specific Plan, in combination with cumulative development at
General Plan buildout would add to roadway corridor noise levels already above the 60
dBA Ldn City threshold. This is considered a Class I, significant and unavoidable impact.
a. Mitigation: As discussed under Impact N -2 above, the Specific Plan contains goals,
policies, and programs that will reduce noise exposure of new sensitive receptors within
the Orcutt Area to meet City standards. In addition, implementation of the following
measure would further reduce cumulative noise impacts for the Specific Plan area and
other development areas to a feasible extent.
Mitigation Measure N -5(a) Fair Share of Cumulative Noise Improvements.
Applicants under the Specific Plan must contribute their fair financial share, as
determined by the City, to the implementation of one or more of the mitigation
approaches listed in policy 9 of the Noise Element (refer to Appendix E of the EIR).
The Specific Plan has been revised to include a specific program to contribute to
mitigating cumulative impacts. Implementation of the program must occur prior
home occupancy for development pursuant to the Specific Plan.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted.
Use of such techniques on all new development in the area and the retrofitting of
existing development would reduce cumulative impacts to the extent feasible.
However, implementation of these techniques would not necessarily ensure that
cumulative noise experienced at sensitive receptors would be reduced to less than
significant levels at all locations. No additional mitigation measures are feasible due to
economic and physical constraints. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and
unavoidable. A statement of overriding considerations for this impact is made in
Section 8.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
51
Item 3
Packet Page 174
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
SECTION 7. FINDINGS FOR ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED
PROJECT
A. INTRODUCTION
As identified in Section 6 of this document, the proposed project will cause the following
significant and unavoidable environmental impacts to occur:
Impact AES-1: Aesthetic character and alteration of viewsheds from Orcutt and Tank
Farm Roads
Impact AES-2: Aesthetic character and impact to views of Righetti Hill
Cumulative aesthetic impacts
Cumulative impacts to agricultural resources
Impact AQ-4: Clean Air Plan (CAP) consistency
Cumulative air quality impacts
Impact N -5: Cumulative roadway noise
Growth Inducement
Because the proposed project will cause significant and unavoidable environmental impacts to
occur as identified above, the City must consider the feasibility of any environmentally superior
alternatives to the project, as proposed. The City must evaluate whether one or more of these
alternatives could substantially lessen or avoid the unavoidable significant environmental
effects.
As such, the environmental superiority and feasibility of each alternative to the project is
considered in this section. Specifically, this section evaluates the effectiveness of these
alternatives in reducing the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project.
B. DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES
The program EIR for the project evaluates the following four alternatives to the project: (1) a no
project alternative; (2) an alternative neighborhood center design; (3) an alternative that
incorporates all mitigation required for the proposed Specific Plan; and (4) a project with
reduced residential density.
1. Alternative 1: No-Project. As required by CEQA, this EIR evaluates the environmental
consequences of not proceeding with the project. This alternative assumes that the Specific
Plan is not adopted, and that the site remains in its current state of farm and ranchlands,
single - family homes and storage, although it would not preclude future development that
may be proposed under the County's subdivision ordinance. This site is zoned and
designated under the General Plan as Residential Single Family and Agricultural (AG).
2. Alternative 2: Neighborhood Center. This alternative would result in development
clustered toward the center of the site and around a commercial core. The intensity of
development in the Plan Area is similar to the proposed project but the Neighborhood
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
52
Item 3
Packet Page 175
Findings of Fact and Statement o Overriding Considerations n
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
Center alternative includes potential for a greater amount of commercial uses than the
proposed project. This alternative is substantially similar to the proposed project in that the
overall number of dwelling units and expected population under this alternative are the
same. The development pattern places a higher density of people in a concentrated area but
also leaves more area as open space. This alternative, like the proposed Specific Plan
includes development outside of the current URL.
3. Alternative 3: Mitigated Project. The Mitigated Project Alternative would include a
Specific Plan revised to incorporate mitigation measures that are recommended for the
proposed Specific. Plan. The Mitigated Project Alternative would include the same number
of residences but at slightly higher densities than in the proposed Specific Plan. This is
because there would be an increased amount of parkland, a potential fire station site, and
there would not be any development outside of the current Urban Reserve Line (URL).
4. Alternative 4: Reduced Project. This alternative considers a development area that would
be the same as the proposed project but with lesser residential density within that area. The
development pattern, circulation, and open space areas would be similar to the proposed
project. This alternative would accommodate up to 650 new dwelling units (about 330
fewer than under the proposed project) and a school in the same site as in the proposed
Specific Plan. The commercial development potential would remain the same as the
proposed project.
C. EFFECTIVENESS OF ALTERNATIVES IN AVOIDING SIGNIFICANT
PROTECT IMPACTS
This section evaluates the effectiveness of the alternatives in reducing the significant and
unavoidable impacts of the proposed project.
1. Significant and Unavoidable Aesthetic Impacts. The proposed project would result in
significant and unavoidable impacts related to the aesthetic character of the site, and
blockage of scenic views. Alternative 1 (No Project) is the only alternative that would avoid
both of the significant impacts related to aesthetic character and view blockage.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would result in changes to the existing aesthetic character of the site
similar to the proposed project. Under Alternative 2, views from Orcutt Road on the east
side of the Orcutt Area would not be impacted to the extent that they would with the
proposed project, however impacts would remain significant. Alternative 3 would reduce
the impact to scenic views to a less than significant level by requiring a 50' setback from the
Orcutt Road and Tank Farm. Road right -of -ways. However, under Alternative 3, the
impacts to visual character could be greater than the proposed project due to higher
residential densities and the addition of a fire station. Although the overall density of
development under Alternative 4 would be less, impacts to aesthetic character and view
blockage would remain significant.
2. Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Air Quality Impacts. The proposed project
would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to Clean Air Plan (CAP)
inconsistency, which is considered a cumulative air quality impact. Under Alternative 1
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
53
Item 3
Packet Page 176
Findings of Fact and Statement or Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
No Project), no additional vehicle trips would be generated, and no development would be
allowed outside of the ULL, therefore cumulative air quality impacts would be substantially
reduced. Under Alternative 2, additional vehicle trips would result in increased emissions
compared to the proposed project, which would cumulatively impact air quality. Because
Alternatives 2 and 4 would allow development outside of the Urban Limit Line (ULL),
impacts related to CAP consistency would be similar to the proposed project. Alternative 3
would not allow development outside of the existing ULL, and would therefore be
consistent with the CAP. The pedestrian/bicycle underpass proposed in Alternative 3
would also result in fewer vehicle trips and associated cumulative vehicle emissions.
Alternative 4 would also result in fewer trips and emissions, and includes less dwelling
units and expected population than the proposed project; however, the significant
cumulative impacts would not be avoided.
3. Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Noise Impacts. The proposed project would
contribute to significant and unavoidable cumulative roadway noise impacts caused by the
addition of vehicle trips. Alternative 1 would not. add additional vehicle trips to the
roadway network, and therefore, would avoid the cumulative impact relating to roadway
noise. Alternative 2 would result in a greater number of vehicle trips and therefore have
greater roadway noise impacts than the proposed project. The bicycle /pedestrian overpass
proposed in Alternative 3 may reduce vehicle trips associated with the project. However,
the addition of a fire station within the specific plan may result in periodic increases in
roadway noise, although trips would be infrequent, and associated noise is unlikely to
exceed the City's thresholds. The fire station would be subject to subsequent project -level
environmental review. Alternative 4 would result in fewer vehicle trips and associated
roadway noise than the proposed project, and with implementation of mitigation measure
N -5(a) Fair Share of Cumulative Noise Improvements, the contribution to the cumulative
roadway noise impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
4. Significant and Unavoidable Growth Inducing Impacts. The proposed project includes
roadway extensions that would result in significant and unavoidable growth inducing
impacts. Alternative 1 (No Project) would avoid this impact. Extension of the roadways
within the Specific Plan area under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would result in growth
inducement.
D. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE AND FEASIBILITY OF
PROTECT ALTERNATIVES
1. Finding: Alternative 1 (No Project) is environmentally superior overall, since no
development would occur under the City jurisdiction and any new development would be
required to be consistent with the County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance which allows
residential development at a much lesser density. However, the existing Land Use Element
establishes the Orcutt Area as a City Expansion Area and requires that a Specific Plan be
adopted prior to urban development. Alternative 1 fails to meet the City's objectives for the
project area, and thus is infeasible as a means of satisfying those objectives. The City,
therefore, finds this alternative to be infeasible to implement.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
54
Item 3
Packet Page 177
Findings of Fact and Statement Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
2. Finding: Alternative 2 (Neighborhood Center) would be inferior to the proposed Specific
Plan. With a more compact and higher density design, this alternative requires less
disturbed area but it includes more disturbance for roads in riparian areas. The amount of
commercial area proposed would exceed the demand from the local neighborhood and
would draw traffic from outside the plan area. In addition, the density proposed is
inconsistent with the residential density limitations of the Airport Land Use Plan.
Alternative does not avoid any of the Class I impacts associated with the proposed project.
The City, therefore, finds that since this alternative is not environmentally superior to the
proposed project, a feasibility determination is not necessary.
3. Finding: Alternative 3 (Mitigated Project) is considered environmentally superior to the
Specific Plan for several issues. Alternative 3 also avoids the Class I impacts related to
scenic view blockage, CAP consistency and cumulative roadway noise. However, this
alternative would result in greater impacts to the visual character of the site. In addition,
the proposed fire station may periodically increase roadway noise, due to the sirens
associated with emergency vehicles, although this project component would be subject to
subsequent environmental review. The City, therefore, finds that this alternative is not
entirely superior to the proposed project; therefore, a feasibility determination is not
necessary.
4. Finding: Alternative 4 (Reduced Project) is also superior to the proposed Specific Plan in
most environmental issue areas since there are fewer residents on the site that could be
impacted. Alternative 4 avoids the Class I impact related to cumulative roadway noise.
However, Alternative 4 would not fully satisfy the project objectives of 1) provision of a
variety of housing types for all income levels or 2) provision of new jobs. Alternative 4
would result in fewer total residential units than the proposed project (330 vs. 1000) and
with less housing overall, would be inferior to the proposed project in terms of its ability to
provide a variety of housing types for all income levels. In addition, with less residential
development compared to the proposed project, Alternative 4 would provide fewer
construction- related jobs, and would create less of a demand for goods and services in the
area. The City, therefore, finds that Alternative 4 is inferior to the proposed project, and
therefore infeasible to implement.
SECTION 8. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
A. INTRODUCTION
The program EIR for the project identifies the following significant and unavoidable impacts of
the project:
1. The proposed development would affect the aesthetic character of the site vicinity
through alteration of viewsheds from Orcutt and Tank Farm Roads.
2. The proposed development would affect the aesthetic character of the Specific Plan Area
and impede views of Righetti Hill.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
55
Item 3
Packet Page 178
Findings of Fact and Statement or "Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
3. Cumulative development of these proposed developments would result in a significant
cumulative loss of open space and would irrevocably alter the character of these areas
throughout the City from rural to urban. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan
would incrementally contribute to this change in aesthetic character of the site and the
surrounding areas.
4. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with population assumptions of the General
Plan and San Luis Obispo County Clean Air Plan (CAP). However, the Specific Plan
proposes low density residential development outside of the current Urban Reserve Line
URL) which will require an adjustment of the URL to be consistent with the General
Plan. The 2001 CAP encourages development to occur within the URL of cities,
therefore, the Specific Plan is inconsistent with the 2001 Clean Air Plan (CAP).
5. The GASP is inconsistent with the CAP policy of containing urban development within
the URL of cities and exceeds the SLOAPCD Tier II thresholds of significance. As a
result, the OASP is considered to be potentially inconsistent with long -term regional air
quality planning efforts, and the Specific Plan is expected to have significant and
unavoidable impacts on air quality.
6. The proposed Specific Plan, in combination with cumulative development at General
Plan buildout would add to roadway corridor noise levels already above the 60 dBA
Ldn City threshold.
7. Extensions of the roadways proposed by the Specific Plan may have significant impacts
related to growth inducement.
For projects which would result in significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided,
CEQA requires that the lead agency balance the benefits of these projects against the
unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the projects. If the benefits
of these projects outweigh the unavoidable impacts, those impacts may be considered
acceptable (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[a]). CEQA requires that, before adopting such
projects, the public agency adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations setting forth the
reasons why the agency finds that the benefits of the project outweigh the significant
environmental effects caused by the project. This statement is provided below.
B. REQUIRED FINDINGS
The City has incorporated all feasible mitigation measures into the project. Although these
measures will significantly lessen the unavoidable impacts listed above, the measures will not
fully avoid these impacts.
The City has also examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the project and has
incorporated portions of these alternatives into the project in order to reduce impacts. The City
has determined that none of these alternatives, taken as a whole, is both environmentally
superior and more feasible than the project.
Alternative 1 (No Project) would avoid all of the significant impacts of the project, but is not
considered feasible. Alternative 2 is considered to be environmentally inferior to the proposed
project. Alternative 3 would be superior to the project in some aspects, but would result in
greater impacts to the visual character of the site. Alternative 4 is superior to the proposed
of San Luis Obispo December
56
Item 3
Packet Page 179
Findings of Fact and Statementt Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
project in that it avoids the Class I impact related to cumulative roadway noise. However,
Alternative 4 is inferior to the proposed project in terms of its ability to meet all of the project
objectives, including 1) Provision of a Variety of Housing Types for all Income Levels or 2)
Provision of New jobs.
In preparing this Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has balanced the benefits of
the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks. For the reasons specified
below, the City finds that the following considerations outweigh the proposed project's
unavoidable environmental risks:
1. Provision of new Residential and Commercial Uses. The Orcutt Area Specific Plan will
develop a new residential neighborhood to meet the City's housing needs and that
designates sufficient land for neighborhood serving commercial uses to reduce vehicle trips
and provide for the convenience of area residents.
2. Provision of a Variety of Housing Types for all Income Levels. The Orcutt Area Specific
Plan provides a variety of housing types and costs to meet the needs of renters and buyers
with a variety of income - levels, including inclusionary affordable housing for residents with
moderate, low and very-low income levels.
3. Open Space and Natural Resource. Protection: Implementation of the proposed project
would result in the creation of 47 acres of permanently- protected open space on Righetti
Hill, and 34 acres of creek and wetland corridors and setback areas. The Specific Plan
would protect and enhance Righetti Hill, creek /wetland habitats, and visual resources in
open space areas.
4. Provision of Park and Recreational Facilities. The Orcutt Area Specific Plan will provide
parks, recreational facilities, public squares, plazas and green spaces for residents of the
Orcutt Area.
5. Well - Planned Neighborhood Would Reduce Vehicle. Trips: The Orcutt Area Specific Plan
would develop a new residential neighborhood to meet the City's housing needs and that
designates sufficient land for neighborhood serving commercial uses to reduce vehicle trips
and provide for the convenience of area residents. In addition, the Specific Plan encourages
the use of bicycles and walking within the Plan Area by: (a) including specific policies and
development standards that will result in subdivision and building designs that facilitate
bike use and pedestrian access; (b) incorporating all classes of bike lanes and include bike
and pedestrian paths through the parks and open space areas; and (c) providing parks,
recreational facilities, public squares, plazas and green spaces for residents of the Orcutt
Area.
6. Provision of New jobs. The project would create new construction- related and permanent
jobs in the project area. Planned commercial development in the Airport Area and
Margarita area will provide new jobs that are needed to support a household within the
Orcutt Area.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
57
Item 3
Packet Page 180
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Speck Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
7. Implementation of the General Plan: As required by the City General Plan, the Orcutt
Area Specific Plan contains policies and standards that will facilitate appropriate
development of land, protection of open space, and provision of adequate public facilities.
Accordingly, the City finds that the project's adverse, unavoidable environmental impacts are
outweighed by these considerable benefits.
Dated: 2010
David F. Romero
Mayor, City of San Luis Obispo
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
58
Item 3
Packet Page 181
November 10, 2016
Rincon Project No. 11‐98490
Dante Anselmo
Ambient Communities LLC
641 Higuera Street, Suite 235
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Via e‐mail: danselmo@ambientcommunities.com
Subject: Biological Reconnaissance Survey and Letter of Findings for the property
located within the Orcutt Area Specific Plan Area at 3750 Bullock Lane, San
Luis Obispo, California
Dear Mr. Anselmo:
Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) is pleased to submit this Letter of Findings for the
approximately 5.52‐acre property (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 053‐061‐024), located at
3750 Bullock Lane in the City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. This
letter documents the existing conditions onsite, identifies sensitive biological resources that
represent potential constraints to development of the project, and provides
recommendations to address any potential constraints associated with such resources. The
proposed development area, hereinafter referred to as the “Biological Study Area” (BSA), is
a disturbed parcel within the Orcutt Area Specific Plan Area. It is our understanding that the
City of San Luis Obispo is not requiring a full Biological Resource Assessment for the project
site if sensitive resources are not present onsite. Further, it is our understanding that this
letter will provide information for a lot spilt and eventual development of the BSA.
PROJECT LOCATION
The BSA is located along Bullock Lane, within the southeast portion of the City of San Luis
Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California at coordinates 35°15’22.96’’N and
120°38’16.89’’W. The parcel is depicted on the San Luis Obispo, California United States
Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle and located within the Central Coast
Watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code Number 18060006 – U.S. Geological Survey, 1978).
Elevations within the BSA range from approximately 200‐240 feet above mean sea level. The
site contains the following soil types: Cropley clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes and Cropley clay, 2
to 9 percent slopes (USDA, NRCS Soil Survey, 2016).
METHODOLOGY
This Letter of Findings consisted of a review of relevant biological resources information and
the results of a reconnaissance‐level field survey. The review included information on
regionally occurring sensitive biological resources from the following sources:
Item 3
Packet Page 182
Mr. Dante Anselmo
APN: 053-061-024
Biological Reconnaissance Survey and
Letter of Findings
Page 2 of 6
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information, Planning, and Conservation
(IPAC) System (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2016a)
USFWS Critical Habitat Portal (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2016b)
USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Mapper (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
2016c)
Rincon also reviewed survey plans provided by the applicant and aerial imagery prior to
conducting the reconnaissance‐level field survey. The purpose of the reconnaissance‐level
field survey was to document the existing site conditions, and to evaluate the potential for
the presence of special status plant species, sensitive plant communities, special status
wildlife species, and habitat for nesting birds. The field survey included a visual inspection of
the entire BSA. The field biologist recorded all biological resources encountered within the
BSA that included plant and wildlife species, vegetation communities/habitat types present,
and included any wildlife observed on adjacent properties within view of the project site.
The reconnaissance‐level field survey was conducted on November 3, 2016, between the
hours of 0900 and 1020. Weather conditions during the survey were mild. The temperature
ranged from 65 to 70 degrees Fahrenheit, with zero percent cloud cover and winds of 0 to 3
miles per hour. The field survey was conducive for general plant identification but was
conducted outside of the blooming season.
Definitive surveys to confirm the presence or absence of special status species were not
performed and are not included within this analysis. Definitive surveys for special status
plant and wildlife species generally require specific survey protocols, extensive field survey
time, and are conducted only at specific time periods of the year. The findings and opinions
conveyed in this report are based exclusively on this methodology.
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The BSA is a disturbed site that is currently cleared of all structures. Ruderal vegetation is
growing along the periphery of the site (Photographs 1, 3 and 4). The site is bordered on all
sides with a chain link fence with an entrance from Bullock Lane. The larger landscape
surrounding the BSA consists of residential and commercial development to the north,
south and west, and open grasslands scattered with development extending to the east
towards the foothills of the surrounding mountains.
The ground within the BSA consists of gravel, with varying degrees of rubble and topsoil
mixed‐in. The site is generally flat with isolated mounded areas (Photograph 2). Tire tracks
were present throughout. There were areas with bare ground where it appeared structures
have been removed. Near the northeast perimeter of the BSA, there are a few serpentine
rocks (Photograph 4). Ruderal forbs and grasses are present scattered throughout the BSA,
with the majority close to the periphery of the site. Mulberry (Morus sp.) trees, occur along
the northeast section of the chain link fence. Historic aerial imagery indicates approximately
half of the site was developed for the past 10 years.
Item 3
Packet Page 183
Mr. Dante Anselmo
APN: 053-061-024
Biological Reconnaissance Survey and
Letter of Findings
Page 3 of 6
During the field survey the following dominant forbs and grasses were observed onsite:
Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), mallow (Malva
sp.), wild oat (Avena fatua), and soft chess brome (Bromus hordeaceus). Mulberry trees
were observed along the northeast perimeter of the site. The mulberry trees are growing
around the chain‐link fence and some individuals appear to be rooted on the adjacent
property.
During the reconnaissance‐level field survey the following bird species were observed
onsite: savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis), killdeer (Charadrius vociferous),
western bluebird (Sialia mexicana), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris) and morning dove
(Zenaida macroura). A ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) was observed perched on a mound
in the neighboring grassland and later took flight. Two small mammal burrows were
observed, but no rodents were observed onsite during the field survey.
SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES DISCUSSION AND IMPACT ANALYSIS
No special status plant and wildlife species were observed within the BSA. The site is
considerably disturbed and does not provide suitable habitat for special status plant species
to establish and thrive. The lack of suitable native vegetation, along with a high level of
disturbance substantially reduces the potential of the site to be used by special status
wildlife. During the field survey no nesting birds were observed onsite. Special status plant
and wildlife species typically have very specific habitat requirements and the majority of
these species are not expected to occur within the BSA or otherwise be potentially subject
to adverse impacts from project implementation. Based on the existing conditions within
the BSA, we conclude there is no potential for sensitive or special status plant species on the
parcel.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The reconnaissance survey did not identify suitable habitat for any special status plant or
animal species. However, the mulberry trees on site could provide suitable habitat for
general nesting birds; therefore, we recommend future construction be conducted in
compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code.
To reduce the potential for impacts to nesting birds the following measure is recommended:
If the mulberry trees are to be removed during the nesting season, from February 1 to
September 15, a qualified biologist should survey for nesting birds a minimum of 30 days
prior to vegetation removal. If active nests are located, the qualified biologist should
determine an appropriate buffer zone around each nest, as described in the Orcutt Area
Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (Rincon, 2009). The buffer area should be
closed to all construction personnel and equipment until the adults and young are no longer
reliant on the nest site. A qualified biologist should confirm that breeding/nesting is
complete, and young have fledged the nest, prior to removal of the buffer.
As noted above, this report is solely intended to identify sensitive biological resources that
represent potential constraints to development of the proposed project. This report is not
Item 3
Packet Page 184
Mr. Dante Anselmo
APN: 053-061-024
Biological Reconnaissance Survey and
Letter of Findings
Page 4 of 6
intended to provide analysis suitable for compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) or the Federal or State Endangered Species Acts. Thank you for the
opportunity to support your environmental analysis needs for this important project. Please
contact us if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
Kumari Jayakody, MS Karen Holmes, QSD/P
Senior Biologist/ Regulatory Specialist Program Manager/Senior Regulatory Specialist
Colby J. Boggs, MS
Principal/Senior Ecologist
Attachments: Site Photographs
REFERENCES
Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2009. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Orcutt Area
Specific Plan. December.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016a. Information, Planning, and Conservation
(IPAC System). Available at https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016b. Critical Habitat Portal
Available at http://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016c. National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Mapper
Available at https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
Item 3
Packet Page 185
Mr. Dante Anselmo
APN: 053-061-024
Site Photographs
Site Photographs
Photograph: 1. View of northwest boundary of Biological Study Area (BSA) from
southwest corner of the parcel.
Photograph: 2. View of BSA facing northeast from the southwest corner of the
parcel.
Item 3
Packet Page 186
Mr. Dante Anselmo
APN: 053-061-024
Site Photographs
Photograph: 3. View facing south along the western perimeter of BSA from the
southwest corner of the parcel.
Photograph: 4. View facing northeast of the northeast perimeter of BSA.
Item 3
Packet Page 187
Packet Page 188
Meeting Date: December 11, 2019
Item Number: 42
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of a tentative parcel map to create four parcels, with a requested exception to the
minimum lot size and width requirements for a corner parcel (SLO 18-0154), including a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental review (CEQA).
PROJECT ADDRESS: 309 Sandercock Street BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7524
E-mail: kbell@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: SBDV-0136-2019 & EID-0137-2019 FROM: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which grants final approval to the project, based on findings,
and subject to conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant John Diodati
Zoning R-2, Medium Density Residential
General Plan Medium Density Residential
Site Area ~22,500 square feet
Environmental
Status
An Initial Study of environmental
impact has been prepared with a
recommendation for a Mitigated
Negative Declaration (IS/MND)
SUMMARY
The applicant has applied for a subdivision to create four parcels from one existing lot. The existing
property contains one single-family residence which is proposed to remain, with only the garage
proposed for demolition. The project site is located on the south side of Sandercock Street on the corner
of Sandercock and Cypress Streets within the Medium-Density Residential (R-2) zone. The proposed
minor subdivision includes exceptions to the Subdivision Regulations for minimum lot area and
minimum lot width for corner lots.
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
In most cases, a minor subdivision is reviewed by the Subdivision Hearing Officer. However, when
exceptions are requested, the City’s Subdivision Regulations require the Planning Commission to act on
the project (§16.04 Table 1). The Planning Commission’s role is to review the project in terms of
consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and Subdivision Regulations, and take final
action on the subdivision application and environmental document.
Item 4
Packet Page 189
SBDV-136-2019 & EID-0137-2019
309 Sandercock Street
Page 2
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
Site Information/Setting
Site Size ~22,500 square feet
Present Use & Development Single-Family Residence
Topography Relatively Flat
Access Sandercock Street and Cypress Street
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: R-2 (Single-Family Residences)
South: R-2 (Multi-Family Residence (duplex))
East: R-2 (Single-Family Residences)
West: R-2 (Multi-Family Residence (duplex))
Project Description
The project is a corner lot subdivision creating four parcels (approximately 0.12, 0.11, 0.11, and 0.18
acres each) from one existing lot totaling approximately 0.52 acre (Attachment 2, Project Plans). The
existing parcel contains one single-family residence and garage; the single-family residence is proposed
to remain in place and the garage is proposed for demolition. Further development of the project site
would consist of one single-family residence on each of the proposed parcels (resulting in a total of
three new residences), and associated site improvements including grading and access improvements.
The applicant proposes to remove one pine tree thirteen inches in diameter at chest height. No other tree
removals are proposed at this time, nine oak trees located onsite are proposed to remain.
Proposed Parcels 1-3 will be accessed from Sandercock Street, and Parcel 4 will be accessed from
Cypress Street. An exception is requested for Parcel 1 to establish a smaller parcel size for the corner lot
of approximately 5,315 square feet, where 5,750 square feet is normally required, with a maximum width
of 53 feet where 60 feet is normally required for a corner lot; as detailed in the table below.
Project Statistics
Min. Lot Area
(sq. ft.)
Min. Width
(feet)
Min. Depth
(feet)
Min. Street Frontage
(feet)
Requirement (R-2 zone)
Corner lot (+15%)
5,000
5,750
50
60
80 20
Parcel 1 – Corner lot 5,315 53 100 154
Parcel 2 5,001 50 100 50
Parcel 3 5,000 50 100 50
Parcel 4 7,688 50 154 50
3.0 PROJECT EVALUATION
The project complies with all provisions of the General Plan Land Use Element. The proposed corner
lot (Parcel 1) has a parcel area of 5,315 square feet where 5,750 square feet is normally required, and a
maximum width of 53 feet where 60 feet is normally required for a corner lot1. The applicant is
requesting these exceptions to provide for logical lot placement consistent with the neighborhood pattern.
1 Subdivision Regulations. Table 3 Minimum Lot Area and Dimensions. Exceptions #2. In residential subdivisions, corner
lots shall have a minimum area fifteen percent (15%) greater than otherwise required, and shall be ten feet wider than
otherwise required.
Item 4
Packet Page 190
SBDV-136-2019 & EID-0137-2019
309 Sandercock Street
Page 3
The project site has enough area to divide the property into four parcels in compliance with the strict
application of the Subdivision Regulations; however, strict compliance with the lot area and dimension
requirements would result in an illogical lot pattern that places unnecessary and undesirable constraints
on future development of the site. The project site is within an already developed residential subdivision
representing an infill development opportunity.
The proposed exceptions are minor in nature where the parcel area is only 435 sq. ft. under the parcel
area requirement and seven feet shy of the minimum lot width as required for corner lots. The resulting
parcels will be consistent with the size, density, and development pattern of the neighborhood and can
accommodate the existing and proposed site improvements without exceptions to the City’s property
development standards.
Staff has evaluated the proposed parcel map for conformity with the intent of the required findings for
exceptions for minimum lot dimensions as identified in the City’s Subdivision Regulations
(16.23.020.A). No development is proposed at this time, and the resultant parcels and proposed
easements would leave the four parcels with adequate on-site access for the anticipated future
development of single-family residences.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Minor subdivisions are normally categorically exempt from environmental review. However, when
exceptions to the Subdivision Regulations are requested an Initial Study of environmental impacts must
be prepared (Subdivision Regulations, Table 1, level of review by subdivision project). An Initial Study
(IS) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate
the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is
recommended for adoption. Mitigation measures in the areas of Air Quality, Biological Resources, and
Cultural Resources, are recommended to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels.
The Draft IS/MND was released for the required 20-day public review period on November 7, 2019 and
the public review period concluded on November 27, 2019, and no comments were received during the
public review comment period. On November 13, 2019 the Air Pollution Control District responded to
the initial study and indicated that no additional mitigations or conditions are necessary. The IS/MND
shall constitute the complete environmental determination for the project (Attachment 3, Mitigated
Negative Declaration – Initial Study).
5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY CONCURRENCE
The project has been reviewed by various City departments and divisions including; Planning,
Engineering, Utilities, Fire, Building, and the City Arborist. The Utilities Department has identified this
area as a capacity constrained area and has provided Condition #26 to address concerns. The Air
Pollution Control District (APCD) responded to the initial study and indicated that no additional
mitigations or conditions are necessary. Comments have been incorporated into draft resolution as
conditions of approval.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6.1 Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional
information or analysis required.
6.2 Deny the project. An action denying the application should include findings that cite the basis
Item 4
Packet Page 191
SBDV-136-2019 & EID-0137-2019
309 Sandercock Street
Page 4
for denial and should reference inconsistency with the General Plan, Subdivision Regulations,
Zoning Regulations or other policy documents.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Project Plans
3. Mitigated Negative Declaration – Initial Study
Item 4
Packet Page 192
RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-2019
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO CREATE FOUR
PARCELS, WITH REQUESTED EXCEPTIONS TO THE MINIMUM LOT
SIZE AND WIDTH REQUIREMENTS (SLO 18-0154), INCLUDING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND
ATTACHMENTS DATED DECEMBER 11, 2019 (309 SANDERCOCK,
SBDV-0136-2019 AND EID-0137-2019)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California,
on December 11, 2019, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under SBDV-0136-2019 and EID-
0137-2019, John Diodati, applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly considered
all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and
recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered an Initial Study-Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS-MND) analyzing the proposed tentative parcel map; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Planning Commission hereby grants final approval to the
project (SBDV-0136-2019), based on the following findings:
1. The design of the tentative parcel map is consistent with the General Plan because the
proposed subdivision is consistent with the development pattern established in the
neighborhood and the resulting parcels allow for residences with sufficient usable outdoor
space.
2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-2
zone, since the resulting parcels require minimal exceptions to the Subdivision Regulations
and resulting development will be subject to consistency with the development standards
of the Zoning Regulations.
3. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use
of property within) the proposed subdivision since all parcels will have adequate access
from Sandercock and Cypress Streets.
Item 4
Packet Page 193
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19
309 Sandercock Street, SBDV-0136-2019 & EID-0137-2019
Page 2
4. The design of the tentative parcel map is not likely to cause serious health problems,
substantial environmental damage, or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife
or their habitat because the site does not have any creeks or other potentially significant
habitat areas for fish and wildlife, is surrounded by urban development, and has already
been developed with an existing dwelling and associated site improvements.
5. The property to be divided is of such size that it is impractical/undesirable, in this particular
case, to conform to the strict application of the standards codified in the Subdivision
Regulations because the design will result in a more efficient use of the land. An exception
is required due to a portion of the property subject to greater requirements for area and
width along corner lots, and without these additional corner lot requirements the property
could be subdivided to conform to current standards.
6. The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not the sole
reason for granting the modification, because other findings are made to support approval
and the exceptions relate to existing physical conditions of the project site.
7. The modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, or be
injurious to other properties in the vicinity since the minor exception is for a property that
is already developed with a single-family residence, and there are numerous examples of
similar subdivisions and development in the immediate vicinity.
8. Granting the modification is in accord with the intent and purposes of the Subdivision
Regulations and is consistent with the General Plan because the exceptions are consistent
with other properties in the vicinity and the project does not grant special privileges or
modify allowable land uses within the existing R-2 zoning district.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. Based upon all evidence, the Planning Commission
finds that the project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) adequately evaluates and
identifies all of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and hereby adopts the
following California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings in support of the project;
1. The Diodati Subdivision IS-MND was prepared in accordance with CEQA and the State
CEQA Guidelines, adequately addressing impacts associated with the proposed project;
and
2. All potentially significant effects were analyzed adequately in the referenced IS-MND,
subject to the following mitigation measures being incorporated into the project and the
mitigation monitoring program:
AIR QUALITY MITIGATION
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Prior to grading plan approval, the project proponent shall ensure that
a geologic evaluation be conducted to determine if naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) is present
within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not present, an exemption request must be filed
Item 4
Packet Page 194
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19
309 Sandercock Street, SBDV-0136-2019 & EID-0137-2019
Page 3
with the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD). If NOA is found at the
site, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the California Air Resources
Board Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface
Mining Operations (93105). This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan
and an Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD. Technical Appendix 4.4
of this Handbook includes a map of zones throughout SLO County where NOA has been found
and geological evaluation is required prior to any grading. More information on NOA can be found
online at slocleanair.org/business/asbestos.php.
➢ Monitoring Plan, AQ-1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans.
In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with
APCD requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the
APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of
construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD
requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Prior to grading plan and demolition plan approval, any scheduled
demolition activities or disturbance, removal, or relocation of utility pipelines shall be coordinated
with the APCD Enforcement Division at (805) 781-5912 to ensure compliance with National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), which include, but are not limited
to: 1) written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the APCD,
2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and
disposal requirements of identified ACM. More information on NOA can be found at
http://www.slocleanair.org/rules-regulations/asbestos.php.
➢ Monitoring Plan, AQ 2: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans.
In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with
APCD requirements. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may
not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the
APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of
construction.
Mitigation Measure AQ-3: During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall
implement the following particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on
grading and building plans prior to issuance of grading, demolition, and construction permits. In
addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program
and to order increased watering, modify practices as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site.
Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The
name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Community Development
and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction.
a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from
leaving the site and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes
Item 4
Packet Page 195
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19
309 Sandercock Street, SBDV-0136-2019 & EID-0137-2019
Page 4
in any 60-minute period. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind
speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever possible.
Please note that since water use is a concern due to drought conditions, the contractor or builder
shall consider the use of an APCD-approved dust suppressant where feasible to reduce the
amount of water used for dust control. Please refer to the following link for potential dust
suppressants to select from to mitigate dust emissions:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/PM10/Products%20Available%20for%20Controlling
%20PM10%20Emissions.htm.
c. All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or oth er dust
barriers as needed.
d. 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.
e. Exposed grounds 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.
f. 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 APCD.
g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In
addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil
binders are used.
h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved surface
at the construction site.
i. 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.
j. “Track-Out” is defined as sand or soil that adheres to and/or agglomerates on the exterior
surfaces of motor vehicles and/or equipment (including tires) that may then fall onto any
highway or street as described in California Vehicle Code Section 23113 and California Water
Code 13304. To prevent “track out”, designate access points and requ ire all employees,
subcontractors, and others to use them. Install and operate a ‘track-out prevention device’ where
vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved streets. The ‘track-out prevention device’ can
be any device or combination of devices that are effective at preventing track out, located at the
point of intersection of an unpaved area and a paved road. Rumble strips or steel plate devices
need periodic cleaning to be effective. If paved roadways accumulate tracked out soils, the
track-out prevention device may need to be modified;
Item 4
Packet Page 196
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19
309 Sandercock Street, SBDV-0136-2019 & EID-0137-2019
Page 5
k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads.
Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted
prior to sweeping when feasible.
l. All PM10 mitigation measures required should be shown on grading and building plans and;
The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons whose responsibility is to ensure
any fugitive dust emissions do not result in a nuisance and to enhance the implementation of
the mitigation measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints and reduce visible emissions
below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period.
Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress (for
example, wind-blown dust could be generated on an open dirt lot). The name and telephone
number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start
of any grading, earthwork or demolition (Contact Tim Fuhs at 805-781-5912).
➢ Monitoring Plan, AQ 3: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans.
In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control
program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site.
Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress.
The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community
Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction.
Mitigation Measure AQ-4: The following Standard Mitigation Measures for Construction
Equipment shall be shown on plans prior to issuance of grading, demolition, and construction
permits. The standard mitigation measures for reducing nitrogen oxides (NOx), reactive organic
gases (ROG), and diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from construction equipment are
listed below:
a. Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer’s specifications;
b. Fuel all off-road and portable diesel-powered equipment with CARB certified motor vehicle
diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for use off-road);
c. Use diesel construction equipment meeting CARB's Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner off-road
heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State Off-Road Regulation;
d. Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the CARB’s 2007 or cleaner certification standard for
on-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State On-Road Regulation;
e. Construction or trucking companies with fleets that 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;
f. Electrify equipment when feasible;
g. Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where feasible; and,
Item 4
Packet Page 197
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19
309 Sandercock Street, SBDV-0136-2019 & EID-0137-2019
Page 6
h. Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible, such as compressed
natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane or biodiesel.
Mitigation Measure AQ-5: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent
shall ensure that all equipment and operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board
and APCD permitting requirements Portable equipment, 50 horsepower (hp) or greater, used
during construction activities may require California statewide portable equipment registration
(issued by the California Air Resources Board) or an APCD permit. The following list is provided
as a guide to equipment and operations that may have permitting requirements but should not be
viewed as exclusive:
a. Power screens, conveyors, diesel engines, and/or crushers;
b. Portable generators and equipment with engines that are 50 hp or greater;
c. Electrical generation plants or the use of standby generator;
d. Internal combustion engines;
e. Rock and pavement crushing;
f. Unconfined abrasive blasting operations;
g. Tub grinders;
h. Trommel screens; and,
i. Portable plants (e.g. aggregate plant, asphalt batch plant, concrete batch plant, etc.).
For a more detailed listing, refer to the Technical Appendices, page 4-4, in the APCD's 2012
CEQA Handbook.
To minimize potential delays, prior to the start of the project, please contact the APCD Engineering
& Compliance Division at (805) 781-5912 for specific information regarding permitting
requirements.
Mitigation Measure AQ-6: Prior to issuance of grading, demolition, and construction permits,
the following measures shall be shown on proposed plans. To reduce the sensitive receptor
emissions impact of diesel vehicles and equipment used to construct the project and export soil
from the site, the applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques:
1. California Diesel Idling Regulations
a. 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 100 feet of
restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation.
Item 4
Packet Page 198
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19
309 Sandercock Street, SBDV-0136-2019 & EID-0137-2019
Page 7
b. 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.
c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and
operators of the state’s 5-minute idling limit.
2. Diesel Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). 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:
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors.
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted.
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended.
d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posted and enforced at the site.
3. Soil and Material Transport. The final volume of soil and material that will be hauled off-site,
together with the fleet mix, hauling route, and number of trips per day will need to be identified
for the APCD. Specific standards and conditions will apply.
➢ Monitoring Plan, AQ-4, AQ-5, AQ-6: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and
building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the
dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust
off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in
progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD,
Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of
construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD
requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MITIGATION
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Prior to commencement of construction, to avoid conflicts with
nesting birds, potential tree removals and construction activities shall not be allowed during the
nesting bird season (March to September), unless a City-approved and applicant funded qualified
biologist has surveyed the impact zone and determined that no nesting bird activities would be
adversely impacted. A qualified biologist shall conduct weekly inspections during the construction
period and submit weekly monitoring reports to the City Planning staff and the Natural Resources
Manager.
Prior to construction activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct training for all construction
personnel on best practices concerning nesting birds. All construction personnel shall receive the
training by the qualified biologist prior to initiating construction activities for the duration of the
nest bird season. The qualified biologist shall submit documentation verifying completion of the
training to City Planning staff and the Natural Resources Manager. If any evidence of nesting
Item 4
Packet Page 199
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19
309 Sandercock Street, SBDV-0136-2019 & EID-0137-2019
Page 8
activities is found, the biologist will determine if any construction activities can occur during the
nesting period and to what extent. The results of the surveys will be passed immediately to the
City with possible recommendations for variable buffer zones, as needed, around individual nests.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Prior to construction permit issuance for both initial improvements
and future development, construction plans shall clearly delineate all trees within the project site
and shall show which trees are to be removed or impacted, and which trees are to remain unharmed.
Construction plans shall also: show proposed tree protection measures to protect those trees
identified to remain and new trees to be planted, including the placement of protective fencing to
be inspected and approved by the City Arborist; identify the location, species, and size of trees to
be planted; identify proposed irrigation plans; and show the use of structural soils to enhance the
success of new plantings. Tree protection measures shall be implemented prior to any ground
disturbing activities per the approved grading and construction plans, and as approved by the City
Arborist. Tree protection measures shall remain in place until final inspection by the City Arborist.
➢ Monitoring Plan, BIO-1, BIO-2: Compliance with mitigation measures will be reviewed with
plans as part of the improvement plans and construction drawings. As applicable, the Natural
Resources Manager will confirm receipt of required resource agency permits and approvals.
Compliance will be verified by the Natural Resources Manager in consultation with the
Community Development Director, who shall confirm the conclusion and recommendations
of the preconstruction nesting bird surveys and provide site inspections as necessary to ensure
implementation.
CULTURAL RESOURCES MITIGATION
Mitigation Measure CR-1: In the event historic, paleontological, or archeological resources
and/or human remains are unearthed or discovered during any construction activities, the following
standards apply:
a. Construction activities shall cease, and the City Community Development Department shall
be notified so that the extent and location of discovered materials may be recorded by a
qualified specialist (paleontologist, historian, archaeologist) and disposition of artifacts may
be accomplished in accordance with state and federal law.
b. If human remains are unearthed, the applicant shall notify the City Community Development
Department and shall comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which
requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County of San Luis Obispo Coroner
has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the human remains
are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner will notify the Native American
Heritage Commission within 24 hours, which will determine and notify a Most Likely
Descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of
notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human
remains and items associated with Native American burials.
Item 4
Packet Page 200
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19
309 Sandercock Street, SBDV-0136-2019 & EID-0137-2019
Page 9
➢ Monitoring Program, CR-1: Requirements for cultural resource mitigation, in the event of
unforeseen encounter of materials, shall be clearly noted on all plans for project grading and
construction. Compliance will be verified by the Community Development Director.
SECTION 3. Action. The project conditions of approval do not include mandatory code
requirements. Code compliance will be verified during the plan check process, which may include
additional requirements applicable to the project. The Planning Commission does hereby approve
tentative parcel map and associated environmental review application SBDV-0136-2019 and EID-
0137-2019, allowing a minor subdivision of one lot into four parcels at 309 Sandercock Street
subject to the following conditions:
Engineering Division – Public Works/Community Development Department
1. The subdivision shall be recorded with a parcel map. The parcel map preparation and
documentation shall be in accordance with the City’s Subdivision Regulations,
Engineering Standards, and the Subdivision Map Act. The parcel map shall use U.S.
Customary Units in accordance with the current City Engineering Standards.
2. The parcel map and legal descriptions shall be prepared by a California Licensed Land
Surveyor or Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying.
3. Park in-lieu fees shall be paid prior to map recordation.
4. A preliminary soils report shall be provided for this subdivision. The report shall be
provided in conjunction with the parcel map submittal. The report shall be referenced on
the map in accordance with the City’s subdivision regulations.
5. A separate subdivision improvement plan submittal is not required. The building plan
submittal may be used to show all required public and private subdivision improvements.
Improvements located within the public right-of-way will require a separate encroachment
permit and associated inspection fees based on the fee schedule in effect at the time of
permit issuance. A separate subdivision improvement plan review fee and subdivision map
check fee may be required for the review of the subdivision improvements and map in
accordance with the most current fee resolution.
6. A separate building permit is required for any parking, access, utility, site, and/or drainage
improvements. The building plan submittal shall show all existing public and/or private
utilities and improvements shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director and Public Works Director prior to recordation of the parcel map.
Unless otherwise waived or deferred, the site/utility plan shall include drainage and
circulation improvements, water, sewer, storm drains, gas, electricity, telephone, cable TV,
and any utility company meters for each parcel if applicable. Any utility relocations,
demolitions, and/or other on-site work shall be completed with proper permits and receive
final inspection approvals prior to recordation of the tentative parcel map. Otherwise,
Item 4
Packet Page 201
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19
309 Sandercock Street, SBDV-0136-2019 & EID-0137-2019
Page 10
easements shall be prepared and recorded to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director, Public Works Director, and the serving utility companies.
7. The existing driveway approaches shall be upgraded, relocated, or replaced to comply with
current ADA and City Engineering Standards. The current standards require a 4’ ADA
sidewalk extension behind the ramp. This item may be deferred with the recordation of a
covenant agreement.
8. Standard subdivision improvements including individual utility services and access to each
of the undeveloped parcels may be deferred. If deferred, a Notice of Requirements and a
separate covenant agreement to install said improvements upon development or as required
by the City. Some wire and/or gravity utilities to any undeveloped parcels may be
considered necessary for orderly development and may be required prior to parcel
development.
9. Utility installations, relocations, and/or upgrades shall be completed to the existing
developed Parcel 2 as a condition of the map. The proposed shared access driveway and
approach upgrade may be deferred to development of Parcel 3. Any required upgrades
shall be completed with proper permits or shall be covered by a subdivision surety prior to
map recordation.
10. Wire utilities to new residences/structures shall be underground. Unless otherwise
approved for deferral, the infrastructure improvements needed to provide underground wire
services for electric, phone, and cable services shall be completed as a subdivisi on
improvement in conjunction with the recordation of the parcel map. Any request for
deferral shall be accompanied by an approved or preliminary PGE memo or handout
package clarifying how underground service will be provided to each parcel in the future.
11. The parcel map submittal shall include a preliminary site utility plan to clarify how services
will be provided to each parcel. An exhibit or preliminary analysis shall clarify that a
gravity sewer will be available to each parcel. Otherwise, sewer easements may be required
to provide gravity sewer to each parcel.
12. Any easements including but not limited to provisions for all public and private utilities,
access, grading, drainage, slope banks, construction, common driveways, and maintenance
of the same shall be shown on the final map and/or shall be recorded separately prior to or
concurrent with the map. Said easements may be provided for in part or in total as blanket
easements.
13. The subdivider shall dedicate a 10’ wide street tree easement and public utility easement
(P.U.E.) across the frontage of each lot. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous
with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot.
14. Building setbacks, eave overhangs, exterior wall protection, utility locations, and utility
relocations or easements, if applicable, shall be shown to comply with all codes and
Item 4
Packet Page 202
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19
309 Sandercock Street, SBDV-0136-2019 & EID-0137-2019
Page 11
ordinances for the property line location related to the existing improvements located on
Parcel 2 to the satisfaction of the Building Official.
15. A separate encroachment agreement will be required for the existing rail fence located
within the public right-of-way. The agreement shall be recorded prior to or in conjunction
with the map recordation.
16. A line of sight analysis shall be completed for the existing fencing and plantings located
adjacent to driveway approaches and at the property corner. Fence modifications and/or
pruning of vegetation may be required prior to map recordation and/or in conjunction with
development.
17. The building plan submittal shall show and note any sections of damaged or displaced curb,
gutter & sidewalk or driveway approach to be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the
Public Works Department. A separate site inspection shall be completed prior to map
recordation to clarify the extent of any repairs needed prior to development or
redevelopment of any parcels.
18. The future driveway approach to serve Parcel 1 shall be setback from the intersection per
City Engineering Standards unless a design exception is otherwise approved. The final site
and development designs might consider a common driveway approach and driveway to
serve parcel 1 and 4.
19. Future development plans should consider limiting the extent of impervious driveway
surfaces to reduce runoff and to support any existing trees to remain. Driveway surfaces
could be constructed with a Hollywood style driveway or permeable pavers per city
standards. Alternate paving material shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning
Division and the Engineering Development Review Division.
20. These lots may be considered a common plan of development in relation to the Post
Construction Stormwater Requirements (PCR’s) as promulgated by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board if held in common ownership or developed in common ownership.
A separate development exhibit shall be provided with the parcel map submittal to show
compliance with the Post Construction Stormwater Requirements. A preliminary
development plan and PCR checklist shall be provided along with a preliminary drainage
report to clarify the strategy for stormwater management. A separate Notice of
Requirement may be required to clarify the minimum PCR Performance requirement for
each parcel.
21. An operations and maintenance manual may be required for the post construction
stormwater improvements. The manual shall be provided at the time of building permit
application and shall be accepted by the City prior to building permit issuance. A private
stormwater conveyance agreement may be required and if required, shall be recorded in
conjunction with any building permit approvals.
Item 4
Packet Page 203
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19
309 Sandercock Street, SBDV-0136-2019 & EID-0137-2019
Page 12
22. Street trees are generally required as a condition of development. The plan submittal for
each new building permit shall show one new 15-gallon or existing street tree per each 35
lineal feet of parcel frontage. The City Arborist shall review existing trees for qualification
as street trees. Tree species and planting requirements shall be in accordance with City
Engineering Standards.
23. Except as noted on the tentative map and as otherwise provided for in the Tree Regulations,
all existing trees within the subdivision shall be retained until development plans are
submitted for review and approval. Tree removals proposed with development shall be
reviewed by the City Arborist. The City Arborist shall provide recommendations on the
proposed tree removals, compensatory plantings, and tree preservation requirements to the
Community Development Department. Tree removals related to development shall be
approved by the
24. The City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to
commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall
approve any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within the dripline
of trees. A city-approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree
protection measures shall be shown or noted on the building plans.
Utilities Department
25. The proposed utility infrastructure shall comply with the engineering design standards in
effect during the time a building permit is obtained, and shall have reasonable alignments
and clearances needed for maintenance.
26. Plans submitted for building permits shall include revisions to the existing sewer and water
infrastructure along the street frontage, that may result from the proposed land use
modifications, shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Utilities Director to minimize
impacts to operations and maintenance of existing or future services.
27. Trash collection services shall comply with the access requirements and conditions of the
San Luis Garbage Company.
28. Plans submitted for building permits shall include a separate water meter shall be provided
for each new parcel in an area accessible by the city, and a utility easement shall be
provided along the private road.
29. Provide on map licensed surveyor stamp, and blanket easement statement for utility
services per MC 16.10.020.
Indemnification
30. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers
and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents,
Item 4
Packet Page 204
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19
309 Sandercock Street, SBDV-0136-2019 & EID-0137-2019
Page 13
officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this
project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review
(“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified
Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate
in the defense against an Indemnified Claim.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
RECUSED:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 11th day of December 2019.
____________________________________
Shawna Scott, Secretary
Planning Commission
Item 4
Packet Page 205
Item 4
Packet Page 206
Item 4Packet Page 207
Item 4Packet Page 208
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
1
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For EID-0137-2019
1. Project Title:
Diodati Subdivision
SBDV-0136-2019
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
kbell@slocity.org
(805) 781-7524
4. Project Location:
309 Sandercock, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
APN: 004-581-007
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
John Diodati
3675 Lawnwood Court
San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401
6. General Plan Designation:
Medium-Density Residential
7. Zoning:
Medium-Density Residential (R-2) zone
Item 4
Packet Page 209
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
2
8. Description of the Project:
The project is a corner lot subdivision creating four parcels (approximately 0.12, 0.11, 0.11, and
0.18 acres each) from three existing parcels totaling approximately 0.52 acres (Attachment 1,
Project Plans). The existing parcels contain one single-family residence, which is proposed to
remain in place. Further development of the project site would consist of a single-family
residence on each of the proposed parcels (one per parcel), and associated site improvements
including grading and access improvements. The applicant proposes to remove one pine tree
thirteen inches in diameter at chest height. Nine oak trees located onsite are proposed to remain.
Proposed Parcels 1-3 will be accessed from Sandercock Street, and Parcel 4 will be accessed
from Cypress Street. An exception is requested for Parcel 1 to establish a smaller parcel size for
the corner lot for approximately 5,315 square feet, where 5,750 square feet is normally required,
with a maximum width of 53-feet where 60-feet is normally required; as detailed in the table
below.
Min. Lot Area
(sq. ft.)
Min. Width
(feet)
Min. Depth
(feet)
Min. Street Frontage
(feet)
Requirement (R-2 zone)
Corner lot (+15%)
5,000
5,750
50
60
80 20
Parcel 1 – Corner lot 5,315 53 100 154
Parcel 2 5,001 50 100 50
Parcel 3 5,000 50 100 50
Parcel 4 7,688 50 154 50
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
The project site encompasses three parcels approximately 7,500 square feet each. The project
site is located at 309 Sandercock Street on the corner of Cypress and Sandercock Streets. The
project site is relatively flat (approximately 2% average cross slope) and is developed with one
single-family residence. The parcel is located in the Medium-Density Residential (R-2) zone and
is surrounded by R-2 zoning. Surrounding uses consist of single and multi-family residences.
Adjacent land uses and zoning are provided in the table below:
Zoning Land Use
North R-2 Single-Family Residence
West R-2 Multi-Family Residence (duplex)
South R-2 Multi-Family Residence (duplex)
East R-2 Single-Family Residence
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
The proposed project requires Tentative Parcel Map approval from the Planning Commission
due to the requested exceptions from the Subdivision Regulations to allow the creation of a
5,315-square foot corner lot where 5,750 square feet is normally required, with a maximum
width of 53-feet where 60-feet is normally required for a corner lot.
Item 4
Packet Page 210
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
3
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
Air Pollution Control District.
12. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the
project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources code section 21080.3.1? If
so, has consultation begun?
On May 20, 2019, the City of San Luis Obispo mailed letters informing California Native
American Tribes that the project application was deemed complete, and notified these tribes of
the consultation opportunity, pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1. Conducting
consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project
proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse
impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the
environmental review process, however no tribes requested formal consultation for the proposed
project.
Item 4
Packet Page 211
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
4
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Population and Housing
Agricultural Resources Hazards & Hazardous
Materials Public Services
X Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Recreation
X Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Transportation & Traffic
X Cultural Resources Energy & Mineral Resources Utilities and Service
Systems
Geology/Soils Noise Tribal Cultural Resources
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FISH AND GAME FEES
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the pro ject qualifies for a
de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
X
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the Califor nia Fish and Game Code. This initial study has
been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or mo re
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall no t be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
Item 4
Packet Page 212
Item 4
Packet Page 213
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
6
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects
like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No I mpact” answer should be explained
where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an eff ect may be significant. If
there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when t he determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact."
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-
referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effect s from the above checklist were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier documen t pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,”
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they addressed site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion.
8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should
normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever
format is selected.
9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
Item 4
Packet Page 214
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2017
7
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,2,5 X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
1,11
X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
1,11,
28 X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely effect day or nighttime views in the area?
1,12,
30 X
Environmental Setting
The project site consists of an approximately half-acre property located within an urbanized residential neighborhood. There
are no scenic highways or roadways located adjacent or proximate to the project site. Based on the City’s Conservation and
Open Space Element, there are no scenic vistas visible from the adjacent or proximate roadways.
Evaluation
a), b) The project site is not located in the area of a scenic vista or a local or state scenic highway; therefore, the proposed
subdivision and future development of the site would not result in a significant impact to a scenic vista or scenic highway. No
impact.
c), d) The proposed land division would occur within an urbanized residential area and represents an infill development
project. Implementation of the project includes the removal of one pine tree from the project site; while removal of this tree
would result in a visual change, the effect would not be significant because the applicant proposes to retain 65 trees onsite,
which would be consistent with the surrounding urban forest canopy present within the neighborhood. Any subsequent
development project on the site would need to comply with the City’s Tree Ordinance which establishes requirements for
compensatory planting and preservations requirements for retaining sensitive trees.
While no specific development proposal has been identified for the site, based on the underlying zoning and proposed parcel
sizes, this analysis assumes that future development would consist of residential development. Such development would be
subject to development standards identified in Chapter 17.18 Medium-Density Residential (R-2) Development Standards, and
the City’s Community Design Guidelines, which are intended to provide for infill projects of high architectural quality that
are compatible with existing development. In addition, while the subdivision by itself would not result in the creation of
additional light or glare, future development is subject to Section 17.70.100 Night Sky Preservation, which minimize glare
and obtrusive light by limiting outdoor lighting that is misdirected, excessive, or unnecessary. Therefore, based on
compliance with existing regulations and guidelines, potential impacts associated with future development of the project site
related to visual character, quality of the site and its surroundings, light, and glare would be less than significant and no
mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Less than Significant based on compliance with existing regulations and guidelines.
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
14
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
10 X
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
14 X
Environmental Setting
Item 4
Packet Page 215
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
8
The project site consists of an approximately half-acre property located within an urbanized residential neighborhood. No
agricultural zoning, agricultural uses, Farmland as designated by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, nor lands under Williamson Act contract onsite or proximate to the project site.
Evaluation
a), b), c) The project site is surrounded by developed properties and public streets. The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency designates this property as Urban Land. Redevelopment of the site will not
contribute to conversion of farmland. No impacts to existing on site or off-site agricultural resources are anticipated with
development of the project site. No impact
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, no impact would occur.
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or
air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
15,16,
31 X
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
15,16,
31 X
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
15,16,
31 X
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? 30 X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people? 12, 30 X
Environmental Setting
Air quality in the San Luis Obispo region of the County is characteristically different than other regions of the County (i.e.,
the Upper Salinas River Valley and the East County Plain), alth ough the physical features that divide them provide only
limited barriers to transport pollutants between regions. The County is designated nonattainment for the one‐hour California
Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for ozone and the CAAQS for respirable particulate ma tter (PM10). The County
is designated attainment for national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
The project site is located within a residential neighborhood; the existing residence that is occupied, and surrounding
residential uses are considered sensitive receptors.
Evaluation
a), The San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (APCD) adopted the 2001 Clean Air Plan (CAP) in 2002. The 20 01
CAP is a comprehensive planning document intended to provide guidance to the SLOAPCD and other local agen cies,
including the City, on how to attain and maintain the state standards for ozone and PM10. The CAP presents a detailed
description of the sources and pollutants which impact the jurisdiction, future air quality impacts to be expected under current
growth trends, and an appropriate control strategy for reducing ozone precursor emissions, thereby improving air quality. The
proposed project is consistent with the general level of development anticipated and projected in the CAP. The project is
consistent with the CAP’s land use and circulation management strategies, because it consists of an in-fill project within an
urbanized area and would accommodate future residential uses within an urbanized area proximate to transit opportunities
and bicycle routes. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, the prop osed project is consistent with the APCD’s CAP, and potential impacts
would be less than significant.
b), c), d) Both the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have
Item 4
Packet Page 216
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
9
established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of
contaminants representing safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient
air quality standards cover what are called “criteria” pol lutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are
described in criteria documents. Areas that m eet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas
that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. As mentioned above, San Luis Obispo is currently
designated as nonattainment for the 1-hour and 8-hour State standards for ozone and the 24-hour State standard for PM10.
CEQA Appendix G states the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution
control district may be relied upon to make significance determinations. Assessment of potential air quality impacts that may
result from the proposed project was conducted using the April 2012 CEQA Air Quality Handbook and 2017 Clarification
Memo, which is provided by the APCD for the purpose of assisting lead agencies in assessing the potential air quality
impacts from residential, commercial and industrial development. Under CEQA, the APCD is a responsible a gency for
reviewing and commenting on projects that have the potential to cause adverse impacts to air quality.
Construction Significance Criteria:
Construction activities associated with subdivision improvements and future development of the site, potentially including
demolition, grading, construction, and paving would generate fugitive dust particles (PM10), ozone precursors (ROG+NOx),
and diesel exhaust (DPM) that could result in a temporary increase in criteria pollutants and could also contribute to the
existing non-attainment status for ozone and PM10. Reactive organic gasses (ROG) would be released during dry ing of
architectural coatings. Truck trips associated with imported and exported site material (i.e., soils and materials) may also be a
source of emissions subject to APCD permitting requirements. The specific requirements and exceptions in the regulations
can be reviewed at the following web sites: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/factsheet.pdf and
https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/ordiesl07/frooal.pdf. Impacts related to vehicle and heavy equipment emissions are
considered potentially significant but mitigable (refer to Mitigation Measures AQ-3, AQ-4, AQ-5, and AQ-6). In addition,
construction equipment itself can be the source of air quality emission impacts and may be subject to California Air
Resources Board or APCD permitting requiremen ts. This includes portable equipment, 50 horsepower (hp) or gr eater or other
equipment listed in the APCD’s 2012 CEQA Handbook, Technical Appendices, page 4-4 (refer to Mitigation Measure AQ-
5).
Construction activities can generate fugitive dust, which co uld be a nuisance to local residents proximate to the proposed
project site. Based on implementation of mitigation measures that would suppress dust onsite, potentially significant impacts
related to fugitive dust emissions during proposed construction act ivities would be mitigated to less than significant (refer to
Mitigation Measure AQ-3). Sensitive receptors (residents of a surrounding home) would potentially be affected by fugitive
dust, diesel particulates, and construction equipment emissions. Based on the proximity of these sensitive receptors,
additional diesel idling restrictions would apply to the project during construction (refer to Mitigation Measures AQ-4 and
AQ-6).
Naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) has been identified by the state Air Reso urces Board as a toxic air contaminant.
Serpentine and ultramafic rocks are very common throughout Californ ia and may contain naturally occurring asbestos. The
SLO County APCD has identified that NOA may be present throughout the City of San Luis Obispo (A PCD 2012 CEQA
Handbook, Technical Appendix 4.4), and under the ARB Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Co nstruction, Grading,
Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (93105) are therefore required to provide geologic evaluation prior to any
construction activities (refer to Mitigation Measure AQ-1). As such, impacts are considered potentially significant but
mitigable. The project may include demolition activities, which has the potential to disturb asbestos that is often found in
underground utility pipes and pipelines (i.e. transit pipes or insulation on pipes). Demolition can have potential negative air
quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper handling, demolition, and disposal of asbestos containing material
(ACM). As such, the project may be subject to various regulatory jurisdictions, including the requirements stipulated in the
National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40CFR61, Subpart M – asbestos NESHAP) (refer to Mitigation
Measure AQ-2). Impacts related to the proposed demolition of a portion of the existing structure (existing attached garage)
on the subject site is considered to be potentially significant but mitigable.
Operational Screening Criteria for Project Impacts:
Table 1-1 of the SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (as amended by the Clarification Memorandum for the San Luis
Obispo County Air Pollution Control District’s 2012 CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November 2017) shows that the
Item 4
Packet Page 217
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
10
operation of up to 128 single-family residences or 203 multi-family residential units would not exceed the APCD ozone
precursor significance threshold (25 lbs/day, ROG + NO x); as the project site would not support more than sixteen residential
units under the allowed density for the R-2 zone, operational impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is
required. Impact less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Prior to grading plan approval, the project proponent shall ensure that a geologic evaluation
be conducted to determine if naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) is present within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA
is not present, an exemption request must be filed with the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
(APCD). If NOA is found at the site, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the California Air
Resources Board Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining
Operations (93105). This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and an Asbestos Health and
Safety Program for approval by the APCD. Technical Appendix 4.4 of this Handbook includes a map of zones
throughout SLO County where NOA has been found and geological evaluation is required prior to any grading. More
information on NOA can be found online at slocleanair.org/business/asbestos.php.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Prior to grading plan and demolition plan approval, any scheduled demolition activities or
disturbance, removal, or relocation of utility pipelines shall be coordinated with the APCD Enforcement Division at
(805) 781-5912 to ensure compliance with NESHAP, which include, but are not limited t o: 1) written notification, within
at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos
Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM. More information on NOA can be
found at http://www.slocleanair.org/rules-regulations/asbestos.php.
Mitigation Measure AQ-3: During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall imple ment the
following particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on grading and building plans prior to
issuance of grading, demolition, and construction permit s. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons
to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, modify practices as necessary, to prevent transport
of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend p eriods when work may not be in progress. The name
and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Community Development and Public Works Departments
prior to commencement of construction.
a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to p revent airborne dust from leaving the site and
from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Increased
watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should
be used whenever possible. Please note that since water use is a concern due to drought conditions, the cont ractor or
builder shall consider the use of an APCD-approved dust suppressant where feasible to reduce the amount of water
used for dust control. Please refer to the following link for potential dust suppressants to select from to mitigate dust
emissions:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/PM10/Products%20Available%20for%20Controlling%20PM10%20Emissio
ns.htm.
c. All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed.
d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be
implemented as soon as possible, following completion o f any soil disturbing activities.
e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month a fter initial grading shall be sown
with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.
f. 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 APCD.
g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building
pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders ar e used.
h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved surface at the construction site.
i. 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.
Item 4
Packet Page 218
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
11
j. “Track-Out” is defined as sand or soil that adheres to and/or agglomerates on the exterior surfaces of motor vehicles
and/or equipment (including tires) that may then fall onto any h ighway or street as described in California Vehicle
Code Section 23113 and California Water Code 13304. To prevent “track out”, designate access points and require all
employees, subcontractors, and others to use them. Install and operate a ‘track-out prevention device’ where vehicles
enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved stree ts. The ‘track-out prevention device’ can be any device or combination
of devices that are effective at preventing track out, located at the point of intersection of an unpaved area and a
paved road. Rumble strips or steel plate devices need periodic clea ning to be effective. If paved roadways
accumulate tracked out soils, the track-out prevention device may need to be modified;
k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall
be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible.
l. All PM10 mitigation measures required should be shown on grading and building p lans and; The contractor or
builder shall designate a person or persons who se responsibility is to ensure any fugitive dust emissions do not result
in a nuisance and to enhance the implementation of the mitigation measures as necessary to minimize dust com plaints
and reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60 -minute
period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress (for example,
wind-blown dust could be generated on an open dirt lot). The name and telephone number of such pers ons shall be
provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition (Contact Tim
Fuhs at 805-781-5912).
Mitigation Measure AQ-4: The following Standard Mitigation Measures for Construction Equipment shall be shown
on plans prior to issuance of grading, demolition, and construction permits. The standard mitigation measures for
reducing nitrogen oxides (NOx), reactive organic gases (ROG), and diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from
construction equipment are listed below:
a. Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer’s specifications;
b. Fuel all off-road and portable diesel-powered equipment with CARB certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed
version suitable for use off-road);
c. Use diesel construction equipment meeting CARB's Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner off-road heavy-duty diesel
engines, and comply with the State Off-Road Regulation;
d. Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the CARB’s 2007 or cleaner certification standard for on-road heavy-duty
diesel engines, and comply with the State On-Road Regulation;
e. Construction or trucking companies with fleets that 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;
f. Electrify equipment when feasible;
g. Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where feasible; and,
h. Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible, such as compressed natural gas (CNG),
liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane or biodiesel.
Mitigation Measure AQ-5: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that all
equipment and operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board and APCD permitting requirements
Portable equipment, 50 horsepower (hp) or greater, used during construction activities may require California statewide
portable equipment registration (issued by the California Air Resources Board) or an APCD permit. The following list is
provided as a guide to equipment and operations that may have permitting requirements but should not be viewe d as
exclusive. For a more detailed listing, refer to the Technical Append ices, page 4-4, in the APCD's 2012 CEQA
Handbook.
a. Power screens, conveyors, diesel engines, and/or crushers;
b. Portable generators and equipment with engines that are 50 hp or greater;
c. Electrical generation plants or the use of standby generator;
d. Internal combustion engines;
e. Rock and pavement crushing;
f. Unconfined abrasive blasting operations;
g. Tub grinders;
h. Trommel screens; and,
i. Portable plants (e.g. aggregate plant, asphalt batch plan t, concrete batch plant, etc.).
Item 4
Packet Page 219
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
12
To minimize potential delays, prior to the start of the project, please contact the APCD Engineering & Compliance
Division at (805) 781-5912 for specific information regarding permitting requirements.
Mitigation Measure AQ-6: Prior to issuance of grading, demolition, and construction permits, the f ollowing measures
shall be shown on proposed plans. To reduce the sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and equipment
used to construct the project and export soil from the site, the applicant shall implement the following idling control
techniques:
1. California Diesel Idling Regulations
a. 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 th at 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 100 feet of restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulatio n.
b. 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.
c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the state’s 5-
minute idling limit.
2. Diesel Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). 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:
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors.
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted.
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended.
d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posted and enforced at the site.
3. Soil and Material Transport. The final volume of soil and material that will be hauled off-site, together with the fleet
mix, hauling route, and number of trips per day will need to be iden tified for the APCD. Specific standards and
conditions will apply.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, the project would result in potentially significant, short-term, construction-
related impacts, which can be reduced to less than significant with identified mitigation. Potential operational impacts would
be less than significant, and no operational air quality mitigation measures are required.
e) The proposed project site is not located proximate to any sources of substantial objectionable odors, and future residential
development of the project site would not generate substantial objectionable odors; therefore, potential impacts would be less
than significant. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, potential impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are
required.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
10 X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
10, 11 X
Item 4
Packet Page 220
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
13
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
10 X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites?
10,11 X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
9 X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
5 X
Environmental Setting
The project site consists of an approximately half-acre property located within an urbanized residential neighborhood. There
is no riparian or wetland habitat present onsite or proximate to the project site. The site is developed wit h one single-family
residence to remain. Existing vegetation consists of 65 trees of various species and sizes.
Evaluation
a) According to the Natural Diversity Database of the California Department of Fish and Game, there are no species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on or near the project site. Based on the
location and size of the project site, there is no suitable habitat for special-status habitats, plants, or wildlife. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to special-status habitats, plants, and
wildlife, and no mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, the impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
b), c) The site is not near any natural waterway, and no riparian or wetland habitat is present or proximate to the projects site;
therefore implementation of the project will have no adverse effect on riparian habitat or Federally protected wetlands. No
impact.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, no impact would occur.
d) The property is completely surrounded by urban development and the proposed residenti al project will not interfere with
any migratory wildlife corridors. The project includes the removal of up to one pine tree from the project site (65 trees of
various species would remain). While in an urban environment, mature trees have the potential to support nesting habitat for
birds. The removal of trees and construction activity proximate to nests may result in abandonment of eggs and potential
avian harm or mortality, resulting in a potentially significant im pact. This impact would be mitigated to less than significant
by implementation of mitigation identified below, which requires either avoidance of tree removal and construction within
the nesting bird season, or pre-construction surveys and avoidance measures to ensure nests, eggs, and nesting birds are not
harmed (refer to Mitigation Measure BIO-1). Less than significant impact with mitigation.
Mitigation Measure:
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Prior to commencement of construction, to avoid conflicts with n esting birds, potential tree
removals and construction activities shall not be allowed during the nesting bird season (March to September), unless a
City-approved and applicant funded qualified biologist has surveyed the impact zone and determined that no nesting bird
activities would be adversely impacted. A qualified biologist shall conduct weekly inspections during the construction
period and submit weekly monitoring reports to the City Planning staff and the Natural Resources Manager.
Item 4
Packet Page 221
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
14
Prior to construction activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct training for all construction personnel on best practic es
concerning nesting birds. All construction personnel shall receive the training by the qualified biologist prior to initiating
construction activities for the duration of the nest bird season. The qualified biologist shall submit documentation
verifying completion of the training to City Planning staff and the Natural Resources Manager. If any evidence of
nesting activities is found, the biologist will determine if any construction activities can occur during the nesting p eriod
and to what extent. The results of the surveys will be passed immediately to the City with possible recommendations for
variable buffer zones, as needed, around individu al nests.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above and implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1, potentially significant impacts
would be mitigated to less than significant.
e) No heritage trees or significant native vegetation exist onsite. The City Arborist has reviewed the proposed tree removal
(one 13-inch Pine) specifically associated with the subdivision and supports the removal of the tree, no tree removal permit is
required, in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code Section 12.24.090F.
Future grading and development of the site may require additional tree removals subject to the review of the City Arborist,
and may impact the health of trees to remain, resulting in a potentially significant impact. Mitigation is identified below,
which would require implementation of tree protection measures to prevent inadvertent harm to the root zones, canopy, and
overlying soils of these trees. Based on implementation of this mit igation, potential impacts would be mitigated to less than
significant (refer to Mitigation Measure BIO-2). Less than significant impact with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Prior to construction permit issuance for both initial improvements and future
development, construction plans shall clearly delineate all trees within the project site and shall show which trees are to
be removed or impacted, and which trees are to remain unharmed. Construction plans shall also: show proposed tree
protection measures to protect those trees identified to remain and new trees to be planted, including the placement of
protective fencing to be inspected and approved by the City Arborist; identify the location, species, and size of trees to be
planted; identify proposed irrigation plans; and show the use of structural soils to enhance the success of new plantings.
Tree protection measures shall be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities per the approved grading and
construction plans, and as approved by the City Arborist. Tree protection measures shall remain in place until final
inspection by the City Arborist.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above and implementation of mitigation measure BIO-2, potentially significant impacts
would be mitigated to less than significant.
f) The proposed project will not conflict with any local policy protecting biological resources nor any adopted habitat
conservation plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan. No impact.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, no impact would occur.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
10,21,
22 X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
21,22 X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
11,21 X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
23 X
Evaluation
a) The project site does not contain a listed historic resource and is not located within or near a historic resource Historic
Item 4
Packet Page 222
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
15
District. No impact.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, no impact would occur.
b), c), d) The project site is not located within or near areas designated as burial sensitivity areas and the project is not
considered an archaeologically sensitive site as described in the City’s Archaeological Resource Preservation Program
Guidelines. There are no known paleontological resources on the project site and there are no unique geologic features on the
property. No significant grading or excavation is propose d or required to complete the land division or subsequent
development on the parcel. Therefore, it is unlikely that unknown significant archaeological resources or burials are present.
In the unlikely event of resource discovery during grading and construc tion, mitigation measure CR-1 is identified to further
ensure protection of unknown resources. Compliance with this measure would mitigate any potential impacts to unknown
resources to a level of insignificance. Less than significant impact with mitigation.
Mitigation Measure:
Mitigation Measure CR-1: In the event historic, paleontological, or archeological resources and/or human remains are
unearthed or discovered during any constructio n activities, the following standards apply:
a. Construction activities shall cease, and the City Community Development Department shall be notified so that the
extent and location of discovered materials may be recorded by a qualified specialist (paleontolog ist, historian,
archaeologist) and disposition of artifacts may be accomplished in accordance with state and federal law.
b. If human remains are unearthed, the applicant shall notify the City Community Development Department and shall
comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which requires that no further disturbance shall occur
until the County of San Luis Obispo Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner mu st be notified of the find immediately. If the human
remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage
Commission within 24 hours, which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The M LD shall
complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and
nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.
Conclusion: Based on the location and condition of the project site, and implementation of mitigation measure CR-1
identified below, potential impacts would be less than significant.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including risk of loss, injury or death involving:
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated in the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area, or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
25 X
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? 25 X
III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction ? 13 X
IV. Landslides or mudflows? 10 X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 8,13,
30 X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on or off site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
13 X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life
or property?
13 X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic 7 X
Item 4
Packet Page 223
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
16
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
Evaluation
a), c) San Luis Obispo County, including the City of San Luis Obispo, is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic
Province, which extends along the coastline from central California into Oregon. This region i s characterized by extensive
folding, faulting, and fracturing of variable intensity. In general, the folds and fa ults of this province comprise the
pronounced northwest trending ridge-valley system of the central and northern coast of California.
Under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate appropriately wide special
studies zones to encompass all potentially and recently -active fault traces deemed sufficiently active and well-defined as to
constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. In San Luis Obispo County, the special Studies
Zone includes the San Andreas and Los Osos faults. The edge of this study area extends to the westerly city limit line, near
Los Osos Valley Road. According to a recently conducted geology study (source 16), the closest mapped active fault is the
Los Osos Fault, which runs in a northwest direction and is about one mile from the City’s westerly boundary. Because
portions of this fault have displaced sediments within a geologically recent time (the last 10,000 years), portions of the Los
Osos fault are considered “active”. Other active faults in the region include: The San Andreas, located about 30 miles to the
northeast, the Nacimiento, located approximately 12 miles to the northeast, and the San Simeon-Hosgri fault zone, located
approximately 12 miles to the west.
Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity, the site is located in an area of “High Seismic
Hazards,” specifically Seismic Zone D, which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be
subjected to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. New structures must be designed in compliance with
seismic design criteria established in the California Building Code for Seismic Zone D. To minimize this potential impact,
the Uniform Building Code and City Codes require new structures to be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in
an earthquake. The project site is not in an area designated as having high landslide potential and is not located on steep
slopes.
The Safety Element of the General Plan indicates that the project site has a high potential for liquefaction, which is true for
most of the City. A soils report prepared by a qualified engineer is required upon review of the building permit to address the
nature of the subsurface soils in response to liquefaction potential, in accordance with the California Building Code Chapter
18, any issues identified in the report will be addressed through standard site construction techniques, as required by the
Code.
Based on the location of the project site, existing topography, and compliance with existing regulations, potential impacts
would be less than significant. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on the location of the project site and und erlying geologic and soil properties, and compliance with
existing regulations, potential impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measure s are required.
b) The erosion hazard of the underlying soils is Concepcion Loam (LUCE EIR Table 6.6-1 City of San Luis Obispo Soil
Properties). The most significant source of potential erosion of on-site soils would be during initial site ground
disturbance/construction and from stormwater runoff. Implementation of erosion control measures and best management
practices to avoid discharge of sediment and other pollutants from the project site is regulated through compliance with the
Municipal Code (Chapter 12.08 Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control). Erosion control measures
that would be required for future development pursuant to existing regulations may include, but not be limited to: scheduling
ground disturbance to avoid the rain events (if feasible), use of hydroseeding, planting, and mulch to stabilize soils, dust
control to stabilize stockpiles, unpaved roads, and graded areas, protection of storm drain inlets, use of sediment traps,
construction of a stabilized page of aggregate and filter fabric at the construction access entrance, street sweeping, and use of
silt fencing, sand/gravel bags, and fiber rolls. All construction projects in the city require the in stallation, maintenance,
routine inspection (i.e. weekly, before predicted rain events, after rain events and during prolonged rain events) and the repair
or replacement, as needed, of best management practices (BMPs) throughout the course of the construct ion project in order to
protect local water quality. Most BMPs (i.e. concrete / tool washouts and street sweeping) are required year long and others
are specifically required during the rainy season (i.e. October 15th through April 15th) or prior to a pred icted rain event, even
Item 4
Packet Page 224
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
17
if that rain event is predicted during the summer months. Enforcement of stormwater regulations occurs all year long. Failure
to develop a plan and/or failure to implement the plan in accordance with Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) erosion and sediment control requirements would result in the issuance of a “Notice to Comply.” For sites
with exposed soil, a Project Stop Work Notice may be issued at this time unless erosion and siltation control measures are
actively being installed. After October 15th, a Project Stop Work Notice would be issued for all work except the installation
of erosion control measures, and the RWQCB would be no tified. Therefore, based on compliance with existing state and
local regulations, potential impacts as a result of erosion and down-gradient sedimentation would be less than significant, and
no additional mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on the location of the project site and und erlying geologic and soil properties, and compliance with
existing regulations, potential impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
d) The site contains highly expansive soils as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (2001). A soils report
prepared by a qualified engineer is required upon review of the building permit to address the nature of the subsurface soils in
response to potential soil expansion, in accordance with the California Building Code Chapter 18, any issues identified in the
report will be addressed through site construction techniques. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on the location of the project site and und erlying geologic and soil properties, and compliance with
existing regulations, potential impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
e) The project site has access to the use of City sewers. No impact.
Conclusion: Based on the location of the project site, and existing and proposed connections to the City’s sewer system, no
impact would occur, and no mitigation is necessary.
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment? 1,8,9 X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. 1,8,9 X
Existing Setting
As outlined in the LUCE Update EIR, prominent GHG emissions contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide
(CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride
(SF6). Anthropogenic (human‐caused) GHG emissions in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for
intensifying the greenhouse effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s climate, known as global
climate change or global warming. Global sources of GHG emissions include fossil fuel combustion in both stationary and
mobile sources, fugitive emissions from landfills, wastewater treatment, agricultural sources, deforestation, high global
warming potential (GWP) gases from industrial and chemical sour ces, and other activities.
The major sources of GHG emissions in the City are transportation‐related emissions from cars and trucks, followed by
energy consumption in buildings. These local sources constitute the majority of GHG emissions from community ‐wide
activities in the city, and combine with regional, statewide, national, and global GHG em issions that result in the cumulative
effect of global warming, which is causing global climate change. A minimum level of climate change is expected to occur
despite local, statewide, or other global efforts to mitigate GHG emissions. The increase in aver age global temperatures will
result in a number of locally‐important adverse effects, including sea‐level rise, changes to precipitation patterns, and
increased frequency of extreme weather events such as heat waves, drought, and severe storms.
Statewide legislation, rules and regulations that apply to GHG emissions associated with the Project Setting include the
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill [AB] 32), Climate Pollution Reduction Beyond 2020 Healthier
Communities and a Stronger Economy (Senate Bill [SB] 32), the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of
2008 (Senate Bill [SB] 375), Advanced Clean Cars Rule, Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Renewable Portfolio Standard,
California Building Codes, and recent amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to SB 97
Item 4
Packet Page 225
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
18
with respect to analysis of GHG emissions and climate change impacts.
Plans, policies and guidelines have also been adopted at the regional and local level that address GHG emissions and climate
change effects in the City. The San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) adopted a CEQA Air Quality
Handbook (2012) and associated clarification memorandum (2017), as well as guidance on GHG emission thresholds and
supporting evidence (2012), that may be applied by lead agencies within San Luis O bispo County. The City also adopted a
Climate Action Plan (CAP) that includes a GHG emissions inventory, identifies GHG emission reduction targets, and
includes specific measures and implementing actions to both reduce community ‐wide GHG emissions and help the city build
resiliency and adapt to the effects of climate change.
Evaluation
a), b) The proposed project will result in infill development, located near to transit, services and employment centers. City
policies recognize that compact, infill development allow for more efficient use of existing infrastructure and Citywide
efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The City’s CAP also recognizes that energy efficient design will result in
significant energy savings, which result in emissions reductions. Construction activities would generate GHG emissions
through the use of on‐ and off‐road construction equipment in new development. Long-term emissions associated with the
project relate to indirect source emissions, such as electricity usage ; however, the emissions from project-related vehicle
exhaust comprise the vast majority of the total project CO2 emissions. State Title 24 regulations for building energy
efficiency are enforced with new construction.
Table 1-1 of the SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (as amended by the Clarification Memorandum for the San Luis
Obispo County Air Pollution Control District’s 2012 CEQA Air Quality Handbook , November 2017) shows that the
construction and operation of up to 76 single-family residences or 125 multi-family residential units would not exceed the
APCD GHG bright-line threshold of 1,150 CO2e (metric tons/year). Therefore, potential impacts would be less than
significant. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, potential impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are
required.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
29 X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
29 X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
29 X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, it would create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
4 X
e) For a project located within an airpor t land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
27 X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
27 X
g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, the
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation 4 X
Item 4
Packet Page 226
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
19
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death, involving wildland fires, including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are
intermixed with wildlands?
4 X
Evaluation
a) The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Future construction following the proposed subdivision would be required
to comply with applicable building, health, fire , and safety codes. Hazardous materials would be used in varying amounts
during construction and occupancy of the project. Construction and maintenance activities would use hazardous materials
such as fuels (gasoline and diesel), oils, and lubricants; paints and paint thinners; glues; cleaners (which could include
solvents and corrosives in addition to soaps and detergents); and possibly pesticides and herbicides. The amount of materials
used would be small, so the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardou s materials, as such uses would have to comply with applicable federal, state,
and local regulations, including but not limited to Titles 8 and 22 of the CCR, the Uniform Fire Code, and Chapter 6.95 of the
California Health and Safety Code.
With respect to operation of the future project, residential units would not generate significant amounts of hazardous
materials. Therefore, based on compliance with existing regulations, potential impacts would be less than significant. Less
than significant.
Conclusion: Based on compliance with existing regulations, potential impacts would be less than significant, and no
mitigation measures are required.
b), c) The proposed project site is located 1,264 feet from the nearest school. As discussed above (refer to response to a), the
proposed project would not result in the routine transport, use, disposal, handling, or emission of any hazardous materials that
would create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment. Implementation of Title 49, Parts 171–180, of the Code
of Federal Regulations and stipulations in the General Plan Safety Element would reduce any impacts associated with the
potential for accidental release during construction or occupancy of future residential development.
Construction of the future residential project would require the use of fuels and materials, if spilled, could result in a hazard
to the public. The applicant is required to comply with state and local water quality regulations (refer to Sections 6 and 9 of
this Initial Study), which would address this potential impact. Therefore, based on compliance with existing regulations,
potential impacts related to the accidental release of hazardous materials would be less than sign ificant.
Conclusion: Based on compliance with existing regulations, potential impacts would be less than significant, and no
mitigation measures are required.
d) Based on a review of the State of California Geotracker and Envirostor datab ases, the proposed subdivision is not located
on a site with any known hazardous materials and improvements necessary for the proposed land division would not result in
the emission of any hazardous materials or substances. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on compliance with existing regulations, potential impacts would be less than significant, and no
mitigation measures are required.
e), f) The project site is located approximately 2.1 miles north of the San Luis Obispo County Airport. According to the
Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), the consideration of airport safety factors has led to the delineation of “safety areas” with
respect to aviation safety risks. Please refer to the City LUCE Update EIR, Figure 4.8‐3, for a depiction of the airport safety
zones as delineated through the ALUP. As shown, the project site is located outside of all Airport Safety Zones. The subject
location is not located within a specific plan area and is not subject to any density limitations established by the ALUP; and
would therefore not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. No impact.
Conclusion: Based on the location of the project, no impact would occur.
Item 4
Packet Page 227
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
20
g), h) The project site is not within an area of fire hazard severity and is not adjacent to wildlands and would not interfere
with any emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plans. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on the location of the project site and existing and proposed access points, potential impacts would be less
than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements? 30 X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g. The production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses for which permits have been granted)?
19 X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation onsite or offsite?
30 X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding
onsite or offsite?
30 X
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
19 X
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 30 X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped
on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
26 X
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows? 26 X
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
26 X
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 26 X
Evaluation
a), f) Implementation of the project would include grading and development within a near level to gently sloping area.
Disturbance of soils and use of equipment may result in the discharge of sediment, hydrocarbons, and other pollutants into
the City storm system. The proposed project, including residential development of the site, is subject to several existing
regulations and programs, including the City’s Storm Water Management Program, the 2014 LUCE, and Drainage Design
Manual (DDM) of the Waterway Management Plan and Post Construction Requirements for storm water control . Best
Management Practices (BMPs) and Pollution Prevention Methods (PPMs) are required to be incorporated into grading and
construction plans for the short and long-term management and protection of water quality. Based on the limited size of the
project and compliance with existing regulations, potential impacts would be less than significant. Less than significant
impact.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, potential impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are
required.
b) The project site is within an area of an already developed residential subdivision and is served with water by the City’s
Utilities Department and will not use or otherwise deplete groundwater resources, interfere with groundwater recharge or
alter ground and surface water qu ality. Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued and the Water Impact Fee is
Item 4
Packet Page 228
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
21
paid. Water will need to be provided by the City’s Utilities Department and it must be shown that supplying the project will
not use or otherwise deplete groundwater resources or interfere with groundwater recharge. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, potential impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are
required.
c), d), e) The project will need to comply with the Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual, engineering
standards, water pollution control plan requirements, Post Construction Stormwater Requirements, and adopted building and
grading codes for water quantity/quality analysis. These plans and regulations were adopted for the purpose of ensuring water
quality and proper drainage within the City’s watershed. The Waterways Management Plan and Low Impact Development
(LID) stormwater treatment requires that site development be designed so that post-development site drainage does not
significantly exceed pre-development run-off. Therefore, based on compliance with existing regu lations, potential impacts
would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above and compliance with existing regulations, potential impacts would be less than
significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
g), h), i), j) The project site is not located within the 100 -year flood hazard area, is not located near a lev ee or dam, is not
downstream from a levee or dam, and is not located in an area where there is risk of inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow. No impact.
Conclusion: Based on the location of the project site and compliance with existing regulations, no impact would occur, and
no mitigation measures are required.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 1, 8 X
b) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
1, 10 X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plans? 5 X
Evaluation
a) The project complies with all provisions of the General Plan Land Use Element. The project proposes an exception to the
City’s Subdivision Regulations minimum lot area and width requirements. The proposed subdivision would create four lots
from three existing parcels, which requires an exception to the Subdivision Regulations for the minimum parcel area and
minimum width. The proposed corner lot (parcel 1) has a lot area of 5,315 square feet (5,750 square feet minimum required
for a corner lot) with a maximum width of 53-feet (60-feet minimum required for a corner lot). The project site is within an
already developed residential subdivision representing an infill development opportunity. The exception is requested to
provide for reasonable development of the property to meet the minimum requirements of lot depth, where the average lot
size of all four parcels is equivalent to 5,751 square feet. The proposed subdivision minimally conflicts with the parcel area
requirements of the Subdivision Regulations and the resulting parcels will be consistent with the size, density, and
development pattern of the neighborhood. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on the location of the project site, and the discussion above, no impact would occur.
b), c) The proposed subdivision is an infill project in an already developed urban area resulting in a development pattern
consistent with both the Zoning Regulations and General Plan and would not physically divide an established community,
nor conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans. No impact
Conclusion: Based on the location of the project site no impact would occur, and no mitigation is necessary.
11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Item 4
Packet Page 229
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
22
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
10
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
10
X
Evaluation
a), b) No known mineral resources are present at the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in
the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. The project site is not designated by the general plan, specific plan, or
other land use plans as a locally important mineral recovery site. No impact.
Conclusion: Based on the location of the project site no impact would occur, and no mitigation is necessary.
12. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
3, 18 X
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? 3, 18 X
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 30 X
d) A substantial temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
30 X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
9, 27 X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
9, 27 X
Existing Setting
The project site consists of an approximately half-acre property located within an urbanized residential neighborhood. The
project site is not located near any transportation-related or stationary noise sourced. The site is developed with one single-
family residence to remain.
Evaluation
a) The project site is not located near any transportation-related or stationary noise sources which would exceed noise
thresholds of the Noise Element. Therefore, based on the location of the project site within an existing residential
neighborhood, potential impacts would be less than significant. Less than significant impact.
b) The project will not expose people to the generation of excessive groun d-borne noise levels or vibrations. No Impact
c), d) Long-term operation of the project would be consistent with existing and future residential uses in the project vicinity.
Noise sensitive land uses in the area consist of existing residences, and operation of the project would not result in a long -
term significant noise impact. The proposed project would therefore have a less than significant impact related to producing a
substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
Construction activities also generate noise, and may temporarily raise the ambient noise levels above acceptable levels for the
duration of construction, including groundborne vibration and noise. Construction noise is regulated by the City’s Noise
Ordinance, which regulates time of construction and maximum noise levels that may be generated. The project would be
Item 4
Packet Page 230
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
23
required to meet the noise standards contained in the Ordinance, which includes thresholds for noise generation from
construction equipment and limitations on the days and hours of construction. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, potential impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
e), f) The project site is located outside of the 50-dB contour identified in Figure 1 of the San Luis Obispo County Airport
ALUP. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on the location of the project site, potential impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is
required.
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
6 X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
6 X
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 6 X
Evaluation
a) The project site is designated for residential development, and the proposed project includes subdivision of the property
and future residential development consistent with the anticipated land use based on the proposed project parcel size and
maximum allowed density identified in the City’s Zoning Regulations. The proposed project would not involve any other
components that would induce further growth not already anticipated under the General Plan. Impacts are considered less
than significant. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, potential impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are
necessary.
b), c) The project does not include the displacement of housing or people; therefore, no impact would occ ur. No impact.
Conclusion: Based on the location of the project, no impact would occur.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision, or need, of new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, o r other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? 12 X
b) Police protection? 12 X
c) Schools? 12 X
d) Parks? 12 X
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? 12 X
f) Other public facilities? 12 X
Evaluation
a), b), d), e), f) As an infill site, adequ ate public services (fire, police, roads and other transportation infrastructure, and other
public facilities) are available to serve the project. Future development must comply with applicable City codes and State
regulations and building permits will be issued to insure consistency with these requirements. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, potential impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are
Item 4
Packet Page 231
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
24
necessary.
c) The school districts in the state have the authority to collect fees at the time of issuance of building permits to offset the
costs to finance school site acquisition and school construction, and are deemed by State law to be adequate mitigation for all
school facility requirements. Any increases in demand on school facilities caused by the project are considered to be
mitigated by the district’s collection of adopted fees at the time of building permit issuance. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, potential impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are
necessary.
15. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
30 X
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
30 X
Evaluation
a), b) The project is not expected to produce such a volume of new users that any nearby parks or recreation areas will be
significantly impacted or deteriorated. No significant recreational impacts are expected to occur with subdivision of the site,
as the project provides the same residential development potential as the existing property before any subdivision. Park Land
In-Lieu fees will be required to be paid to the City to help finance additional park s pace, maintenance or equipment in the
vicinity, per existing City policy. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above and compliance with existing regulations, potential impacts would be less than
significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary.
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to
the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? 2 X
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads and highways?
2 X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.
farm equipment)?
30 X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 30 X
e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? 30 X
f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 2 X
g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land
Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,
noise, or a change in air traffic patterns?
27 X
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e), f) Based on the size and number of proposed parcels, future residential development of the site would not
generate significant levels of vehicular or non-vehicular traffic. The project site is served by existing transportation
infrastructure and the proposed project will result in improvements to the City’s circulation system. The project will dedicate
public right-of-way to provide for sidewalk improvements and vehicle access. The project has been evaluated by the Fire
Department for adequacy of emergency access and no impacts have been identified. The project does not conflict with any
plans or policies regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. The project is in conformance with City’s plans and
policies regarding public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Less than significant impact.
Item 4
Packet Page 232
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
25
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above and compliance with existing regulations, potential impacts would be less than
significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary.
g) The project will not result in any changes to air traffic patterns, nor does it conflict with any safety plans of the Airport
Land Use Plan because the project site is not located within any Airport Safety Zone. No impact.
Conclusion: Based on the location of the proposed project, n o impact would occur.
17. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources
as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
22
X
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
21, 23
X
Evaluation
On May 20, 2017, local Native American tribal groups were formally noticed that an Initial Study of Environmental Impact
was being completed for the proposed project at 309 Sandercock and invited to provide consultation on the proposed project.
No tribal representatives requested formal consultation, and the project is not located within an archaeologically sensitive
site, or near areas designated as burial sensitive areas.
a), b) The project site does not contain any structures that are: listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources or local register as defined in Public Resources Section 5020.1(k). The site does not contain any
resources considered significant by any California Native American tribe. Less than significant.
Conclusion: Based on discussion above and in Initial Study Section 5 (Cultural Resources), and compliance with AB52,
potential impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required
18. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? 12 X
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water
treatment, waste water treatment, water quality control, or storm
drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
12 X
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
12 X
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and
expanded water resources needed?
12 X
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate 12 X
Item 4
Packet Page 233
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
26
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addit ion to
the provider’s existing commitment?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 24 X
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste? 24 X
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e), f), g) The project is an infill development project within an existing residential subdivision which is already
served by drainage, sewer, and water facilitie s and is already served with solid waste service. The incremental increase in
demand on these facilities and services is not considered to be significant. Future site development on the newly created
parcel is subject to impact fees to ensure new development pays its fair share of the cost. The City’s ex isting fee structure is
intended to offset any of the incremental impacts of each new residential unit. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, and compliance with existing regulations, potential impacts would be less than
significant, and no mitigation is required.
19. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
X
The project is an infill commercial development in an urbanized area of the city. Without mitigation, the project could have
the potential to have adverse impacts on all of the issue areas checked in the Table on Page 3. As discussed above, potenti al
impacts to air quality, biological and cultural resources will be less than significant with incorporation of recommended
mitigation measures.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)
X
The impacts of the proposed project are individually limited and not considered “cumulatively considerable.” Although
incremental changes in certain issue areas can be expected as a result of the proposed Project, all environmental impacts that
could occur as a result of the propo sed project would be reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with
existing regulations and identified mitigation measures discussed in this Initial Study and/or implementation of the mitigation
measures recommended in this Initial Study for the following resource areas: air quality (AQ 1-6), biological resources (BIO
1-2), and cultural resources (CR 1).
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
Implementation of the proposed project would result in no environmental effects that would cause substantial direct or
indirect adverse effects on human beings with incorporation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study .
Item 4
Packet Page 234
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2017
27
20. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
N/A
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
N/A
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions of the project.
N/A
21. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element, December 2014
2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element, December 2014
3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element, May 1996
4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element, July 2000
5. City of SLO General Plan Conservation Element, April 2006
6. City of SLO General Plan Housing Element, January 2015
7. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element, February 1987
8. City of SLO General Plan EIR 2014 for Update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements
9. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
10. City of San Luis Obispo, Land Use Inventory Database
11. Site Visit
12. Staff Knowledge
13. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County
14. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency:
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/
15. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County, Air Pollution Control District, 2001
16. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Air Pollution Control District, 2012
17. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition, on file in the Community
Development Department
18. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Guidebook, May 1996
19. City of SLO Waterways Management Plan
20. City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community Development
Department
21. City of San Luis Obispo, Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community
Development Department
22. City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Site Map
23. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Map
24. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element, on file in the Utilities Department
25. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance w ith the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990
26. Flood Insurance Rate Map (Community Panel 0603100005 C) dated March 5, 2007
27. San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan
28. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines
29. 2001 Uniform Building Code
30. Project Plans
Item 4
Packet Page 235
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
28
31. CAAQS San Luis Obispo Attainment Status
All documents listed above are available for review at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department,
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California (805) 781-7188.
Attachments:
1. Reduced scale project plans
REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
AIR QUALITY MITIGATION
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Prior to grading plan approval, the project proponent shall ensure that a geologic evaluation be
conducted to determine if naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) is present within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not
present, an exemption request must be filed with the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD). If NOA
is found at the site, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the California Air Resources Board Air
Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Op erations (93105). This may
include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and an Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval b y the
APCD. Technical Appendix 4.4 of this Handbook includes a map of zones throughout SLO County where NOA has been
found and geological evaluation is required prior to any grading. More information on NOA can be found online at
slocleanair.org/business/asbestos.php.
➢ Monitoring Plan, AQ-1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the
contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. The name and telephone
number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior
to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements
to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Prior to grading plan and demolition plan approval, any scheduled demolition activities or
disturbance, removal, or relocation of utility pipelines shall be coordinated with the APCD Enforcement Division at (805)
781-5912 to ensure compliance with NESHAP, which include, but are not limited to: 1) written notification, within at least
10 business days of activities commencing, to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant,
and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM. More information on NOA can be found at
http://www.slocleanair.org/rules-regulations/asbestos.php.
➢ Monitoring Plan, AQ 2: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the
contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. Their duties shall include
holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall
be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of
construction.
Mitigation Measure AQ-3: During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following
particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on grading and building plans prior to issuance of
grading, demolition, and construction permits. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to moni tor the
dust control program and to order increased watering, modify practices as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site.
Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number
of such persons shall be provided to the Community Development and Public Works Departmen ts prior to commencement of
construction.
a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to p revent airborne dust from leaving the site and from
exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60 -minute period. Increased watering
frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used
whenever possible. Please note that since water use is a concern due to drought conditions, the contractor or builder shall
consider the use of an APCD-approved dust suppressant where feasible to reduce the amount of water used for dust
control. Please refer to the following link for potential dust suppressants to select f rom to mitigate dust emissions:
Item 4
Packet Page 236
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
29
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/PM10/Products%20Available%20for%20Controlling%20PM10%20Emissions.ht
m.
c. All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed.
d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be
implemented as soon as possible, following completion o f any soil disturbing activities.
e. Exposed grounds 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.
f. 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 APCD.
g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads
shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved surface at the construction site.
i. 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.
j. “Track-Out” is defined as sand or soil that adheres to and/or agglomerates on the exter ior surfaces of motor vehicles
and/or equipment (including tires) that may then fall onto any highway or street as described in California Vehicle Code
Section 23113 and California Water Code 13304. To prevent “track out”, designate access points and require all
employees, subcontractors, and others to use them. Install a nd operate a ‘track-out prevention device’ where vehicles
enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved streets. The ‘track-out prevention device’ can be any device or combination of
devices that are effective at preventing track out, located at the point of intersection of an unpaved area and a paved road.
Rumble strips or steel plate devices need periodic cleaning to be effective. If paved roadways accumulate tracked out
soils, the track-out prevention device may need to be modified;
k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall be
used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre -wetted prior to sweeping when feasible.
l. All PM10 mitigation measures required should be sho wn on grading and building plans and; The contractor or builder
shall designate a person or persons whose responsibility is to ensure any fugitive dust emissions do not result in a
nuisance and to enhance the implementation of the mitigation measures as ne cessary to minimize dust complaints and
reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period.
Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress (for exampl e, wind-blown
dust could be generated on an open dirt lot). The name and telephone number of such pers ons shall be provided to the
APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition (Contact Tim Fuhs at 805-781-
5912).
➢ Monitoring Plan, AQ 3: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the
contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as
necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may
not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community
Development and Public Works Departments prior to commence ment of construction.
Mitigation Measure AQ-4: The following Standard Mitigation Measures for Construction Equipment shall be shown on
plans prior to issuance of grading, demolition, and construction permits. The standard mitigation measures for reducing
nitrogen oxides (NOx), reactive organic gases (ROG), and diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from construction
equipment are listed below:
i. Maintain all construction equipment in prop er tune according to manufacturer’s specifications;
j. Fuel all off-road and portable diesel-powered equipment with CARB certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed
version suitable for use off-road);
k. Use diesel construction equipment meeting CARB's Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner off-road heavy-duty diesel engines,
and comply with the State Off-Road Regulation;
l. Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the CARB’s 2007 or cleaner certification st andard for on-road heavy-duty diesel
engines, and comply with the State On-Road Regulation;
m. Construction or trucking companies with fleets that 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;
n. Electrify equipment when feasible;
o. Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where feasible; and,
Item 4
Packet Page 237
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
30
p. Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied
natural gas (LNG), propane or biodiesel.
Mitigation Measure AQ-5: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that all
equipment and operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board and APCD permitting requirements Portable
equipment, 50 horsepower (hp) or greater, used during construction activities may require California statewide portable
equipment registration (issued by the California Air Resources Board) or an APCD permit. The follow ing list is provided as a
guide to equipment and operations that may have permitting requirements but should not be viewed as exclusive. For a more
detailed listing, refer to the Technical Appendices, page 4-4, in the APCD's 2012 CEQA Handbook.
j. Power screens, conveyors, diesel engines, and/or crushers;
k. Portable generators and equipment with engines that are 50 hp or greater;
l. Electrical generation plants or the use of standby generator;
m. Internal combustion engines;
n. Rock and pavement crushing;
o. Unconfined abrasive blasting operations;
p. Tub grinders;
q. Trommel screens; and,
r. Portable plants (e.g. aggregate plant, asphalt batch plant, concrete batch plant, etc.).
To minimize potential delays, prior to the start of the project, please contact the APCD Engineering & Compliance Division
at (805) 781-5912 for specific information regarding permitting requirements.
Mitigation Measure AQ-6: Prior to issuance of grading, demolition, and construction permits, the f ollowing measures shall
be shown on proposed plans. To reduce the sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and equipment used to
construct the project and export soil from the site, the applicant shall implement the following idling control t echniques:
1. California Diesel Idling Regulations
a. 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 100 feet of restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation.
b. 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.
c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the state’s 5-
minute idling limit.
2. Diesel Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). 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:
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors.
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted.
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended.
d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posted and enforced at the site.
3. Soil and Material Transport. The final volume of soil and material that will be hauled off-site, together with the fleet mix,
hauling route, and number of trips per day will need to be iden tified for the APCD. Specific standards and conditions will
apply.
➢ Monitoring Plan, AQ-4, AQ-5, AQ-6: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition,
the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as
necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall inc lude holiday and weekend periods when work may
not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community
Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide
documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
Item 4
Packet Page 238
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
31
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MITIGATION
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Prior to commencement of construction, to avoid conflicts with nesting birds, potential tree
removals and construction activities shall not be allowed during the nesting bird season (March to September), unless a City-
approved and applicant funded qualified biologist has surveyed the impact zone and determined that no nesting bird activities
would be adversely impacted. A qualified biologist shall conduct weekly inspections during the construction period and
submit weekly monitoring reports to the City Planning staff and the Natural Resources Manager.
Prior to construction activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct training for all construction personnel on best practices
concerning nesting birds. All construction personnel shall receive the training by the qualified biologist prior to initiating
construction activities for the duration of the nest bird season. The qualified biologist shall submit documentation verifying
completion of the training to City Planning staff and the Natural Resources Manager. If any evidence of nesting activities is
found, the biologist will determine if any construction activities can occur during the nesting p eriod and to what extent. The
results of the surveys will be passed immediately to the City with possible recommendations for variable buffer zones, as
needed, around individual nests.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Prior to construction permit issuance for both initial improvements and future development,
construction plans shall clearly delineate all trees within the project site and shall show which trees are to be removed or
impacted, and which trees are to remain unharmed. Construction plans shall also: show proposed tree protection measures to
protect those trees identified to remain and new trees to be planted, including the placement of protective fencing to be
inspected and approved by the City Arborist; identify the location, species, and size of trees to be planted; identify proposed
irrigation plans; and show the use of structural soils to enhance the success of new plantings. Tree protection measures shall
be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities per the approved grading and construction plans, and as approved by
the City Arborist. Tree protection measures shall remain in place until final inspection by the City Arborist.
➢ Monitoring Plan, BIO-1, BIO-2: Compliance with mitigation measures will be reviewed with plans as part of the
improvement plans and construction drawings. As applicable, the Natural Resources Manager will confirm receipt of
required resource agency permits and approvals. Compliance will be verified by the Natural Resources Manager in
consultation with the Community Development Director, who shall confirm the conclusion and recommendations of the
preconstruction nesting bird surveys and provide site inspections as n ecessary to ensure implementation.
CULTURAL RESOURCES MITIGATION
Mitigation Measure CR-1: In the event historic, paleontological, or archeological resources and/or human remains are
unearthed or discovered during any construction activities, the following standards apply:
a. Construction activities shall cease, and the City Community Development Department shall be notified so that the extent
and location of discovered materials may be recorded by a qualified specialist (paleontologist, historian , archaeologist)
and disposition of artifacts may be accomplished in accordance with state and federal law.
b. If human remains are unearthed, the applicant shall notify the City Community Development Department and shall
comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which requires that no further dis turbance shall occur until
the County of San Luis Obispo Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the human remains are
determined to be Native American, the County Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24
hours, which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD shall co mplete the inspection of the
site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human
remains and items associated with Native American burials.
➢ Monitoring Program, CR-1: Requirements for cultural resource mitigation, in the event of unforeseen encounter of
materials, shall be clearly noted on all plans for project grading and construction. Compliance will be verified by the
Community Development Director.
Item 4
Packet Page 239