HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-05-2017 Agenda Packet
Wednesday, July 5, 2017
4:30 PM
RESCHEDULED
REGULAR MEETING
Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo Page 1
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Heidi Harmon
ROLL CALL: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy
Pease, Vice Mayor Dan Rivoire and Mayor Heidi Harmon
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND BUSINESS ITEMS
1. STORMWATER RESOURCE PLAN AND STORMWATER PROGRAM UPDATE
(JOHNSON/HILL/OTTE – 60 MINUTES)
Recommendation
1. Adopt a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, approving the San Luis Obispo Creek Stormwater Resource Plan”;
and
2. Receive an update presentation regarding the current status of the City’s Stormwater
Program and provide direction to staff regarding future opportunities and constraints.
ADJOURNED TO THE RESCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 5, 2017
Packet Pg 1
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda July 5, 2017 Page 2
6:00 PM
RESCHEDULED
REGULAR MEETING
Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Heidi Harmon
ROLL CALL: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy
Pease, Vice Mayor Dan Rivoire and Mayor Heidi Harmon
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Andy Pease
PRESENTATIONS
2. PRESENTATION - POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMENDATIONS/AWARD
PINNING (CANTRELL – 10 MINUTES)
Presentation by Police Chief Cantrell recognizing two Officers and a Communications
Technician for their Life Saving and Distinguished Service actions.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA (not to exceed 15
minutes total)
The Council welcomes your input. You may address the Council by completing a speaker slip
and giving it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. At this time, you may address the Council
on items that are not on the agenda. Time limit is three minutes. State law does not allow the
Council to discuss or take action on issues not on the agenda, except that members of the
Council or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons
exercising their public testimony rights (gov. Code sec. 54954.2). Staff may be asked to
follow up on such items.
CONSENT AGENDA
A member of the public may request the Council to pull an item for discussion. Pulled items
shall be heard at the close of the Consent Agenda unless a majority of the Council chooses
another time. The public may comment on any and all items on the Consent Agenda within the
three minute time limit.
Packet Pg 2
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda July 5, 2017 Page 3
3. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
(GALLAGHER)
Recommendation
Waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
4. MINUTES OF APRIL 18, MAY 2, AND MAY 30, 2017 (GALLAGHER)
Recommendation
Approve the minutes of the City Council meetings of April 18, May 2, and May 30, 2017.
5. COLLECTION OF DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL ACCOUNTS (MATTINGLY/BOERMAN)
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, authorizing the San Luis Obispo County Assessor to assess amounts due
on delinquent solid waste collection and disposal accounts as liens against the properties
pursuant to California Government Code Section 25828, ET SEQ.”
6. 2017-18 COMMUNITY PROMOTIONS PROGRAM – TOURISM BUSINESS
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (TBID) & PROMOTIONAL COORDINATING
COMMITTEE (PCC) (JOHNSON/CANO)
Recommendation
As recommended by the Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID) Board and the
Promotional Coordinating Committee (PCC):
1. Authorize the City Manager to enter into various contracts and program expenditures for
the (TBID) not to exceed the 2017-18 program budget of $1,340,345 based on the
recommendations by the (TBID) Board.
a. This includes the addendum to the first two-year extension of the contract with BCA
and Matchfire (formerly Studio Good) for marketing services in the amount of
$19,200; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to enter into contracts utilizing the (TBID) Fund un-
appropriated fund balance from the 2016-17 fiscal year, following the completion of the
City’s financial statements audit, for tourism marketing expenditures in 2017-18 based
on the recommendations by the (TBID) Board; and
3. Authorize the City Manager to enter into contracts utilizing the (TBID) Fund Reserve of
$100,000 for tourism marketing expenditures in 2017-18 based on the recommendations
by the (TBID) Board; and
Packet Pg 3
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda July 5, 2017 Page 4
4. Authorize the City Manager to enter into various contracts and program expenditures for
Community Promotions not to exceed the 2017-18 program budget of $404,688 based
on the recommendations by the (PCC).
a. This includes the 2017-18 Grants-in-Aid (GIA) allocations in the amount of
$100,000 and authorization to execute individual agreements with each grant
recipient.
b. This includes the second one-year term renewal of the contract with Solve (formerly
FreshBuzz) for promotional services in the amount of $30,000; and
5. Adopt the strategic planning report prepared by the (PCC) for implementation starting in
fiscal year 2017-18.
7. AUTHORIZE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR THE PREPARATION
OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE PROPOSED
FROOM RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED ENTITLEMENTS (SPEC-0143-
2017; 12165 AND 12393 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD) (CODRON/SCOTT)
Recommendation
1. Authorize the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Froom Ranch Specific Plan and
related project entitlements; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to award a consultant services agreement with the
consultant that best responds to the RFP in terms of qualifications, cost, and approach to
the project analysis.
8. CONSIDERATION OF 2017-18 HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION (HRC)
GRANTS-IN-AID (GIA) FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (CODRON/OROZCO)
Recommendation
1. As recommended by the Human Relations Commission, approve the 2017-18 Grants-in-
Aid funding allocations in the amount of $139,885; and
2. Authorize the Community Development Director to execute agreements with each grant
recipient.
9. GRANT FUNDED CALLE JOAQUIN PARK & RIDE, SPECIFICATION NO. 91288
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE (GRIGSBY/RICE)
Recommendation
1. Approve the revised plans and specifications for the Calle Joaquin Park & Ride Lot,
Specification No. 91288; and
2. Authorize staff to advertise for bids, and authorize the City Manager to award the
Packet Pg 4
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda July 5, 2017 Page 5
contract if the lowest responsible bid is within the Engineer’s Estimate of $530,868.
10. SAN LUIS OBISPO DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION PROPERTY-BASED BUSINESS
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT (D. JOHNSON/L.
JOHNSON)
Recommendation
1. Approve a grant of up to $75,000 from the City to San Luis Obispo Downtown
Association for a feasibility study regarding the formation of a Property-Based Business
Improvement District; and
2. Authorize the City Attorney to make modifications to the terms and conditions of the
Grant Agreement; and
3. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Grant Agreement.
11. LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD/US 101 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT,
SPECIFICATION NO. 99821 – PG&E EASEMENT) (GRIGSBY/VAN BEVEREN)
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo,
California, approving the real property easement agreement with Pacific Gas & Electric for
utility lines” and authorizing the Mayor to execute the agreement to complete the PG&E
utility relocation in support of the Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 Interchange Improvement
Project.
CONTINUE TO NEXT PAGE
Packet Pg 5
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda July 5, 2017 Page 6
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND BUSINESS ITEMS
12. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE SAN LUIS RANCH PROJECT,
INCLUDING 1) RELATED ENTITLEMENTS AND 2) THE CERTIFICATION OF
THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR). PROJECT
ENTITLEMENTS INCLUDE: 1) SPECIFIC PLAN, 2) GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT, 3) VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, AND 4) INITIATION OF
ANNEXATION FOR THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING REVIEW OF A TERM
SHEET AS THE BASIS FOR A FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE SITE INCLUDE UP TO 580 RESIDENTIAL
UNITS; 200,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT; 150,000
SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE DEVELOPMENT; A 200-ROOM HOTEL; AND
APPROXIMATELY 60.4 ACRES OF THE SITE TO REMAIN FOR
AGRICULTURE AND OPEN-SPACE. (CODRON/LEVEILLE – 180 MINUTES)
Recommendation
As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt a resolution entitled “A Resolution of
the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, certifying the final EIR for and
approving the San Luis Ranch Project, including a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment,
Prezoning, Development Plan/Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 3096, initiation of
annexation for the project, and term sheet for property located at 1035 Madonna Road
(SPEC/ANNX/ER-1502-2015).”
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
(Not to exceed 15 minutes) Council Members report on conferences or other City activities.
At this time, any Council Member or the City Manager may ask a question for clarification,
make an announcement, or report briefly on his or her activities. In addition, subject to
Council Policies and Procedures, they may provide a reference to staff or other resources for
factual information, request staff to report back to the Council at a subsequent meeting
concerning any matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future
agenda. (Gov. Code Sec. 54954.2)
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to a Special Meeting to be held on Tuesday, July 1, 2017 at 6:00 p.m., at the Ludwick
Community Center, 864 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, California, to hold a Council
workshop on Housing Law and Policy.
Packet Pg 6
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda July 5, 2017 Page 7
The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 2:00 p.m., 4:00
p.m. and 6:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room and Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California.
LISTENING ASSISTIVE DEVICES are available for the hearing impaired--please see City Clerk.
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) 781-7107.
City Council regular meetings are televised live on Charter Channel 20. Agenda related
writings or documents provided to the City Council are available for public inspection in the
City Clerk’s Office located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California during normal
business hours, and on the City’s website www.slocity.org. Persons with questions concerning
any agenda item may call the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100.
Packet Pg 7
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 8
Meeting Date: 7/5/2017
FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Freddy Otte, City Biologist
SUBJECT: STORMWATER RESOURCE PLAN AND STORMWATER PROGRAM
UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve a resolution (Attachment A) adopting the San Luis Obispo Creek Stormwater
Resource Plan (Council Reading File B); and
2. Receive an update presentation regarding the current status of the City’s Stormwater
Program and provide direction to staff regarding future opportunities and constraints.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The City of San Luis Obispo maintains a team-based Stormwater Program. The program was
developed beginning in 2007 and began formal implementation in 2009 to provide a
decentralized, inter-departmental approach to the objectives outlined in the City’s permits
required by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Contemporary municipal
stormwater management entails objectives such as water quality protection, groundwater
percolation and recharge, community education, construction site management, clean up and
abatement of illicit discharges, and continual program assessment and improvement.
An accretion of state and federal mandates over the years has resulted in increased work
demands that have and continue to be absorbed by the existing staff that have stormwater
functions tied to their job. This includes daily inspections of sites or facilities, ensuring post
construction stormwater features are functioning as designed, inspection of the storm drain
system from inlet to outlet, controlling trash across the landscape and attending to water quality
impairments in locations such as Mission Plaza. The City’s stormwater team is constantly
working to maintain compliance and is in regular communication with Water Board staff;
however, program audits have shown areas where the City will need to continue to make
improvements to protect water quality.
City and Cal Poly staff with the assistance of a consultant team from Stillwater Sciences, Inc.
have recently completed a Stormwater Resource Plan (SRP) that identifies and maps sub-
watershed “catchment” areas, identifies problem spots, and prioritizes stormwater infrastructure
projects and techniques that address those problem spots. The SRP will allow the City to be
eligible to apply for funding under the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement
Act of 2014, or California Proposition 1 (“Prop 1”) to help pay for some these priority projects.
The SRP also helps lay the groundwork for a rebranding effort of the Stormwater Program under
a new “Healthy Watershed” campaign.
Packet Pg 9
1
DISCUSSION
Brief Overview of the History of Water Quality Protection
The contemporary water quality movement started along with the larger environmental
movement in the late 1960’s and was catalyzed when the Cuyahoga River in Ohio caught on fire
in 1969. It wasn’t the first time it had caught fire but the source of the pollution that caused the
fire was easily identified. “Point source” pollution became a strong focus for state and federal
agencies to address and eliminate. Large industrial facilities located along waterways
traditionally discharged polluted effluent into that waterway from an obvious pipe that allowed
the discharge to be easily traced back to the source. Today, stricter laws and regulations have
drastically reduced point source pollution.
“Non-point source” pollution, in the watershed context (it can also refer to air pollution), is the
comingling of rainwater and pollutants that rainwater encounters as it flows across the landscape.
Stormwater runoff pollution is a type of non-point source pollution. This means that the
pollution cannot be traced back to a specific source, but instead comes from many different
sources throughout the environment. Non-point source pollution is the primary cause of
watershed pollution today.
In 1966, The Department of Fish and Game published a report about San Luis Obispo Creek that
identified substantial point source and non-point sources of pollution (see Council Reading File
C). “San Luis Obispo Creek was an aesthetically disgusting experience…” and “…trash in the
creek seems to be the rule rather than the exception in City limits…” are quotes from the report.
The assessment of fish populations in San Luis Obispo Creek in that report was not
comprehensive, but indicated that all five native fish species known from our watershed were
accounted for despite deplorable conditions. Steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) were used
as a proxy for water quality. When test fish were exposed to the creek below the City’s sewage
treatment plant (as it was known as that time), all 30 died violently within ten minutes. This was
a local example of toxic water quality with an attributed point source of pollution.
In 1972, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 was expanded and updated to become
the Clean Water Act (“CWA”). The CWA outlines a federal framework with water quality
objectives and regulates discharges into surface water and the environment. The National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) was created by the CWA to regulate water
quality pollution and today includes numerous program areas, such as: agriculture, industrial and
municipal wastewater, and stormwater. Under the CWA, the Environmental Protection Agency
(“EPA”) authorizes the NPDES permit program at the state level, enabling them to perform
many of the permitting, administrative, and enforcement aspects of the NPDES program.
The NPDES stormwater program regulates stormwater discharges from three potential sources:
(1) municipal separate storm sewer systems (“MS4s”); (2) construction activities; and (3)
industrial activities. Operators of these sources are now required to obtain a NPDES permit
before they can discharge stormwater. This permitting mechanism is designed to prevent
stormwater runoff from washing harmful pollutants into local surface waters, with the expected
benefits being: (1) protection of wetlands and aquatic ecosystems; (2) improved quality of
receiving waterbodies; (3) conservation of water resources; (4) protection of public health; and,
Packet Pg 10
1
(5) flood control (EPA, 2017).
In California, NPDES requirements are carried out by the State Water Resources Control Board
and, in San Luis Obispo, by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. Permit
requirements for MS4 operators are tiered based on the size of the municipality. Phase I cities
(Salinas, Los Angeles) have a population over 100,000 people and the regulations they must
follow were established in 1990. Phase II cities (San Luis Obispo, Paso Robles) have a
population less than 100,000 and the regulations we must follow were established in 2003.
Permits are issued on five-year terms and contain progressively more stringent water quality
protection requirements. Contemporary water quality standards have addressed many of the
significant point source pollution facilities, but non-point source pollution continues to be the
primary target for Phase II municipalities like San Luis Obispo.
The City of San Luis Obispo’s Stormwater Program Background
In 2007, the City began development of the Stormwater Program and in 2009 implementation of
the mandated, regulatory program was launched. At this same time, the City’s Natural Resources
Program was asked to step forward to take leadership of the program. Being in the City
Administration Department, a main objective of the Natural Resources Program is water quality
protection and since this program requires participation of staff from every department, it was a
logical structure and one that responded to the financial constraints of the City. A Steering
Committee of Department Heads was established to provide direction and guidance to the
Technical Team, which is comprised of managers from each department, from key programs or
divisions.
The de-centralized, cross-department, team based program was developed at the onset of the
program and continues today. The main program elements are: (1) public education and
outreach; (2) construction site management; (3) municipal operations improvements; (4) storm
drain inspections and cleaning; and, (5) Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)1 monitoring and
implementation. Many of the requirements in the 2009 permit were activities City staff were
already doing, while other areas required new training and commitment to implementation. To
capture these commitments while utilizing the de-centralized approach, an inter-departmental
Memorandum of Understanding was signed by each department within the City.
Current Status of the Stormwater Program
The status of the Stormwater Program is currently in flux. The Technical Team is diligently
working to maintain compliance. The decentralized approach is still the recommended course of
action because this program cannot be run by one program or division due to the comprehensive
nature of the requirements and the diverse skill sets needed to address technical requirements.
Staff across all departments are effectively in charge of controlling pollutants coming from
sidewalks, gutters, streets, industrial facilities, buildings, construction sites, the storm drain
system, parks, and anywhere else pollution may be coming from.
For this comprehensive effort, the community needs to be better integrated into this program
1 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is a regulatory term in the Clean Water Act describing a plan for restoring
impaired waters that identifies the maximum amount of a pollutant that a body of water can receive while still
meeting water quality standards.
Packet Pg 11
1
since the health of San Luis Obispo Creek should be viewed as a community asset. With the
Utilities Department adopting the One Water philosophy, everyone needs to be engaged and
supportive to ensure the creek is protected. Healthy Watersheds is one of the primary focal points
of the One Water initiative. Stormwater starts as rainwater, but as it flows across the developed
landscape from the top of the watershed, pollutants are picked up and transported directly into
the creek system. Expanding the public/private partnership with the community is the only way
total water quality protection can be achieved. Traditional stormwater infrastructure like
stormdrain inlet filters, improving social norms like owners picking up after their dog, continual
outreach and partnering with the development community and collaborating with other
organizations, non-profits, and Cal Poly are some of the major efforts City staff are putting into
place to maintain compliance with the program.
As was first identified in the 1966 stream survey, the characteristics of the tunnel under
downtown that carries San Luis Obispo Creek lends itself to being a significant source of
pollution. At the current time, pigeons and other wildlife, direct urban run-off, and transients
collectively create a significant water quality impairment in Mission Plaza. This has resulted in
San Luis Obispo Creek being listed for a TMDL for pathogens (e.g. fecal coliform). Staff
continues to expand partnerships with Downtown SLO (formerly the Downtown Association)
and individual businesses to leverage resources to address the TMDL and restore some of the
ecological functions the creek has lost from years of alteration. Lastly, the City, County, and Cal
Poly stormwater staff collaborate as often as possible to focus on protection of our watershed and
have consolidated efforts to help address the TMDL, as well.
The City’s current State Water Resources Control Board permit requirements are as follows: (1)
Water Quality Order No. 2013-0001-DWQ, NPDES General Permit No. CAS000004; (2) Water
Code Section 13267 Technical Order (the “13267 Letter”); and, (3) Water Code Section 13383
Technical Order (the “13383 Letter”). Major expansions in the past few years of the program
under this permit regime have included: (1) Post-Construction Requirements (PCRs); (2)
monitoring of storm drain outfalls; and (3) a Program Effectiveness Assessment and
Improvement Plan (PEAIP). The 13267 Letter involves spatial analysis and prioritization of
problem spots, and the City is now working through the beginning elements of this Order. The
13383 Letter is also known as the “trash policy” and the City is now working to better
understand and develop an appropriate program for our watershed under this very recent Order
dated as of June 1, 2017 (see Council Reading Files D-F).
Stormwater Resource Plan
On June 21, 2016, the City Council authorized the issuance of a Request for Proposals to prepare
a Stormwater Resource Plan (SRP). Stillwater Sciences was selected to complete the plan,
together with significant input and collaboration from staff at Cal Poly, the Central Coast Low
Impact Development Initiative, and the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.
The four key areas of the SRP to improve watershed processes are: (1) identifying types and
locations of Low Impact Development (LID) projects; (2) criteria for ranking project types for
specific water quality improvements; (3) connecting efforts in the 13267 Letter to current and
future project designs; and, (4) a screening and ranking matrix for project prioritization. An
additional and important value of having an approved SRP is that it makes the City eligible for
Packet Pg 12
1
Prop 1 project implementation funding. The priorities of the SRP are to integrate the concepts
embodied in the General Permit but with a focus on the creek and the ecological functions
present and how to ensure long term protection of the creek and the underlying groundwater
basin; in this regard, projects that accrue multiple benefits are prioritized. The SRP document
also lays the groundwork for an opportunity to rebrand the current Stormwater Program as part
of a new, forthcoming “Healthy Watershed” campaign. In addition to the functional elements, it
is also important for the City to show its commitment to stormwater protection through adoption
of the SRP, which will ultimately be considered for approval by the State Water Resources
Control Board.
Future Stormwater Program Opportunities and Constraints
Funding the City’s Stormwater Program continues to be challenging in consideration of the
current financial position the City is in and how the Stormwater Program relates to other internal
City needs and external decisions that require immediate attention. Staffing resources have
remained constant over the years since program inception, yet program requirements have
increased. An emerging opportunity to address this situation is Senate Bill 231, which would re-
define stormwater as a resource that should be captured, treated and reused because of the value
lost as it runs off the landscape and carries significant amounts of pollutants into our waterways.
Specifically, SB 231 is in further response to the case of Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass’n v. City
of Salinas (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1351, which determined that fees imposed for stormwater
drainage services are not considered to be “water, sewer, or refuse collection” thus requiring
voter approval via election. SB 231 has been approved by the Senate and is now in the
Assembly for consideration. This bill would clarify that fees associated with stormwater fall
under the same class as fees associated with water, sewer or refuse collection which may be
imposed subject to certain procedural requirements and the right for the public to submit a
protest vote (see Council Reading File G). Prop 1, as mentioned earlier, identifies funding for
stormwater infrastructure improvements and once the City’s SRP is approved, staff can apply for
grant funds to design and implement LID projects. Lastly, consideration of the cost of service to
implement the requirements of the Stormwater Program related to private development or
industrial operations have been and will continue to be considered in the context of cost of
service fees.
Council Discussion Points
Staff would benefit from receiving feedback from the City Council on items including, but not
limited to, the following:
1. What questions does the City Council have about the program? Does the City Council
have additional information requests?
2. What ideas does the City Council have that would assist outreach to the community about
the vital importance of healthy creeks and clean water?
3. Does the Council wish to direct staff to continue to research external funding options?
Packet Pg 13
1
CONCURRENCES
The City Engineer has reviewed the SRP and has provided his concurrence and recommendation.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Adoption of the Stormwater Resource Plan is statutorily exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section §15262, Feasibility and Planning
Studies, and categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section §15306, Information
Collection, because the Project includes the process to gather data and create a planning
document and would not include major disturbance to an environmental resource, and Section
§15307, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment. Additionally, the
resulting Plan would provide support to better enable entities to comply with applicable total
maximum daily load implementation plans, national pollutant discharge elimination system
permits, and waste discharge permits. While the creation of a plan is exempt from CEQA, any
specific recommendations included in the SRP that promote the undertaking of future projects
such as, but not limited to, construction activities, would be subject to future evaluation under
CEQA as provided in Section §15307.
FISCAL IMPACT
The adoption of the SRP does not have a fiscal impact in and of itself. It will, however, provide
priorities and guidance for future funding requests presented to the City Council and other
funding partners. Ongoing administration of the Stormwater Program will have new, ad ditional
fiscal impacts in the future as implementation of the 13267 and 13383 Letters go into effect over
the next few years. Staff will come back to Council as these costs and requirements become
better understood.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The City Council could direct staff to provide additional information or clarification in
support of its recommendation.
2. The City Council could choose not to adopt the City of San Luis Obispo Stormwater
Resource Plan. This is not recommended because the objectives laid out in the plan will
accrue multiple benefits to the creek and watershed and will also position the City for
additional funding opportunities.
Packet Pg 14
1
Attachments:
a - Resolution
b - Council Reading File - San Luis Obispo Creek Stormwater Resource Plan - External
Review Draft
c - Council Reading File - 1966 CDFW SLO Creek Survey
d - Council Reading File - 2013 SWRCB General Permit
e - Council Reading File - 13267 Letter
f - Council Reading File - 13383 Letter
g - Council Reading File - SB 231 CASQA Fact Sheet
Packet Pg 15
1
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. ________ (2017 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CREEK
STORMWATER RESOURCE PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has adopted policies for protection,
management, and regulation of stormwater throughout the city; and
WHEREAS, contemporary stormwater management entails objectives such as water
quality protection, groundwater percolation and recharge, community education, construction site
management, clean up and abatement of illicit discharges, and continual program assessment and
improvement; and
WHEREAS, a Stormwater Resource Plan (“SRP”) has been prepared as part of a
Council-approved process, and staff has considered and incorporated comments of key
stakeholders where appropriate.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Adopt the San Luis Obispo Creek Stormwater Resources Plan. The City
Council does hereby adopt The San Luis Obispo Creek Stormwater Resource Plan, an official
copy of which shall be kept on record with the City Clerk, based on the following findings:
a. The San Luis Obispo Creek Stormwater Resource Plan is consistent with the
Ahwahnee Water Principles outlined as Policy 10.2.2 in the Conservation and Open
Space Element of the City’s General Plan; and
b. The San Luis Obispo Creek Stormwater Resource Plan is consistent with the City’s
municipal code chapter 12.08, Urban Storm Water Quality Management and
Discharge Control; and
c. The San Luis Obispo Creek Stormwater Resource Plan is in furtherance of the City’s
adherence to its State Water Resources Control Board, Water Quality Order No.
2013-0001-DWQ, NPDES General Permit No. CAS000004 and subsequent Water
Code Section 13267 and 13383 Technical Orders.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City Council hereby finds that adoption of
The San Luis Obispo Creek Stormwater Resource Plan is statutorily exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section §15262, Feasibility and Planning
Studies, and categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section §15306, Information
Collection, because the Project includes the process to gather data and create a planning
document and would not include major disturbance to an environmental resource, and Section
§15307, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment. Additionally, the
resulting Plan would provide support to better enable entities to comply with applicable total
maximum daily load implementation plans, national pollutant discharge elimination system
Packet Pg 16
1
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2
R ______
permits, and waste discharge permits. While the creation of a plan is exempt from CEQA, any
specific recommendations included in the SRP that promote the undertaking of future projects
such as, but not limited to, construction activities, would be subject to future evaluation under
CEQA as provided in Section §15307.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2017.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg 17
1
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 18
1
San Luis Obispo Page 1
Tuesday, April 18, 2017
Regular Meeting of the City Council
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, April
18, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, by Mayor Harmon.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor
Dan Rivoire, and Mayor Heidi Harmon.
Council Members
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; and Carrie
Gallagher, City Clerk; were present at Roll Call. Other staff members presented
reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes.
PUBLIC HEARING AND BUSINESS ITEMS
1. PUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW OF THE CITYWIDE USER AND REGULATORY
FEE STUDY, PREPARED TO INFORM A PROPOSED UPDATE TO FEES
CHARGED FOR SERVICES
Interim Finance Director Bradford and Special Projects Manager Carloni provided an in-
depth staff report with the use of a Power Point presentation and responded to Council
questions.
Public Comments:
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo spoke in opposition to an increase in appraisal fees.
Allen Cooper, Save our Downtown, San Luis Obispo, shared an idea of waiving appeal fees
in instances where the Council overrules an Advisory Body decision, and spoke in
opposition to an increase in appraisal fees.
Packet Pg 19
4
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of April 18, 2017 Page 2
Steve Delmartini, San Luis Obispo spoke in opposition to a non-applicant fee increase and
in support of spilt fees.
Sandra Rowley, San Luis Obispo, Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, spoke in opposition
to an increase in appraisal fees, she noted the differences in the fee schedule from one permit
fee to another.
Charlene Rosales, speaking on behalf of the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce voiced
support for split fees and increasing appeal fees.
Dominic Tartaglia, San Luis Obispo, speaking on behalf of San Luis Obispo Downtown
Association spoke in support of local businesses, he noted that both applicants and
appellants should pay their fair share to include 100% recovery of fees so the taxpayer is not
held responsible.
---End of Public Comment---
Council Member Pease introduced the inclusion of a onetime 6 month extension on fees as
long as the applicant can demonstrate that progress is being made toward the permit.
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE MAYOR RIVOIRE, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER PEASE, CARRIED 5-0 to adopt a Resolution 10790 (2017 Series) entitled “A
Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, amending the
City’s master fee schedule with updated user and regulatory fees based on the fee study
prepared by NBS Government Finance Group, as represented in the City Council agenda
report and attachments dated April 18, 2017,” to include the recommendation regarding
revised appeal fees. The resolution also includes adjustments to Parks and Recreation cost
recovery policies and an increase to 100% cost recovery for state-mandated multi-dwelling
inspections for the Fire Department. As amended to include: a one-time six month extension
will be granted upon the request of the applicant and based on evidence to the satisfaction
of the Community Development Director or designee that applicant is making substantial
progress toward obtaining a building permit.
2. STRATEGIC BUDGET DIRECTION AND MAJOR CITY GOAL WORK
PROGRAMS FOR THE 2017-19 FINANCIAL PLAN
Mayor Harmon announced that public comment will be taken when this item is continued at
the 6:00 p.m. meeting after Item 10.
City Manager Lichtig, Interim Finance Director Bradford and Contract Budget Manager
Steck provided an in-depth staff report with the use of a Power Point presentation and
responded to Council questions. Additional staff members presented reports and responded
to questions as requested.
1. Review updated General Fund Five-Year Fiscal Forecast and Enterprise Funds forecasts;
and
2. Review and provide guidance to the City Manager regarding proposed Major City Goals
and Other Important Objective work programs; and
Packet Pg 20
4
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of April 18, 2017 Page 3
3. Review and provide guidance to the City Manager regarding the recommended use and
allocation of one-time and ongoing budget resources to fund proposed Significant
Operating Program Changes (SOPCs), the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Fleet
Replacement Fund, Information Technology (IT) Replacement Fund, and Major Facility
Replacement Fund; and provide direction whether Parks Element Update should be
funded; and
4. Approve a policy for the Insurance Benefit Fund, establishing funding and fund balance
requirements for newly formed Excess Liability Insurance program; and
5. Receive an update on key informational items regarding future financial uncertainties and
challenges.
PUBLIC COMMENT TAKEN AT THE 6:00 P.M. MEETING AFTER ITEM 10.
RECESSED DURING THE CURRENT ITEM 2 AT 5:36 P.M. TO BE CONTINUED
AFTER ITEM 10 AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 18, 2017 TO BEGIN AT
6:00 P.M.
Packet Pg 21
4
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of April 18, 2017 Page 4
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, April
18, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, by Mayor Harmon.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor
Dan Rivoire, and Mayor Heidi Harmon.
Council Members
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; and Carrie
Gallagher, City Clerk; were present at Roll Call. Other staff members presented
reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council Member Aaron Gomez led the Pledge of Allegiance.
PRESENTATIONS
3. PRESENTATION BY PETER WILLIAMSON REPRESENTING SAN LUIS
OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (SLOCOG), REGARDING
RIDESHARE'S BIKE MONTH
Peter Williamson, representing San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG),
provided a presentation regarding Rideshare’s Bike Month.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Don Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of change for the good and restoring the faith in
the election system.
Allison Grace representing Hopes Hands Massaging Wellness Center spoke regarding healing
and restoration, noted she is in the process of filing for a non-profit trade school.
Steve Barasch, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding the need to deal with the Rental Housing
Inspection Program policy issues, he requested that all parties involved with rental properties,
both landlords and tenants receive notification when a complaint is filed.
Odile Ayral, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding Council recusals and conflicts of interest and
questioned one’s ability to run for office when these conflicts will exist.
Michelle Tassef, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding victimization of illegal immigrants.
Packet Pg 22
4
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of April 18, 2017 Page 5
Jadon Haught, speaking on behalf of Outside Now, spoke in support of Indigenous Peoples Day
as a replacement to Christopher Columbus Day.
Owen Richardson, representing Outside Now, spoke in support of Indigenous Peoples Day as a
replacement to Christopher Columbus Day.
Tyler Zane Key, speaking on behalf of Outside Now, spoke in support of Indigenous Peoples
Day as a replacement to Christopher Columbus Day.
Sage Taub, speaking on behalf of Outside Now, spoke in support of Indigenous Peoples Day as a
replacement to Christopher Columbus Day.
Noa Kamplain, speaking on behalf of Outside Now, spoke in support of Indigenous Peoples Day
as a replacement to Christopher Columbus Day.
Liliana Monge speaking on behalf of Outside Now spoke in support of Indigenous Peoples Day
as a replacement to Christopher Columbus Day.
Roberto Monge spoke in support of Indigenous Peoples Day as a replacement to Christopher
Columbus Day and requested an item be placed on a future agenda.
Violet Cavanaugh representing Northern Chumash Tribal Council provided a resolution and
spoke in support of Indigenous Peoples Day as a replacement to Christopher Columbus Day.
Susan Pendergast spoke in support of Indigenous Peoples Day as a replacement to Christopher
Columbus Day.
Bruce Severance, noted not being a local resident, stated he is a general contractor, energy
analysis and combustion safety specialist, voiced support for the City’s Rental Housing
Inspection Program stating that combustion safety issues and inspections are of great importance.
Leslie Halls, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding Westing House’s recent bankruptcy filing and its
relevance to the closing of the Diablo Power Plant; additionally, she spoke regarding a pension
obligation petition initiative recently filed in the City of San Diego.
---End of Public Comment---
Mayor Harmon requested consensus to place Indigenous Peoples Day on a future agenda. After
clarification by City Manager Lichtig that the City does not recognize Columbus Day, Council
Member Christianson provided an alternative option of presenting a proclamation in place of the
suggested resolution. Mayor Harmon agreed and Council consensus was reached.
CONSENT AGENDA
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to approve Consent Calendar Items 4 thru 8.
4. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
CARRIED 5-0, to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate. Packet Pg 23
4
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of April 18, 2017 Page 6
5. ACCEPTANCE OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 3057 (3080
ROCKVIEW, TR 202-13)
CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Resolution 10791 (2017 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, accepting the public improvements,
certifying completion of the private improvements, and authorizing release of the securities
for Tract 3057 (3080 Rockview Place, TR 202-13).”
6. MADONNA – LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD (LOVR) REHABILITATION PROJECT,
SPECIFICATION NO. 91511
CARRIED 5-0, to:
1. Approve plans and specifications for the Madonna – Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR)
Rehabilitation Project, Specification Number. 91511; and
2. Authorize staff to advertise for bids; and
3. Authorize the City Manager to award the construction contract including the Base Bid
and any Additive Alternatives if the lowest responsible bid is within the Publicly
Disclosed Funding Amount of $3,500,000
Public Comments:
Don Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, noted the cost of this project and spoke in support of
Council conversation on this item.
---End of Public Comment---
7. 2015-16 CENTRAL SERVICE COST ALLOCATION PLANS AND COST OF
SERVICES FEE CALCULATION
CARRIED 5-0, to:
1. Approve the 2015-16 Central Service Cost Allocation Plans dated March 2017; and
2. Approve the Cost of Services Fee Calculation.
8. REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS - TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND
ENGINEERING ON-CALL SERVICES
CARRIED 5-0, to:
1. Approve the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to provide Transportation Planning &
Engineering On-Call Services, Specification No. 100.50500.7227; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute agreements with selected consulting firms; and
3. Authorize the Finance Director or their designee to execute and amend Purchase Orders
for individual consultant services contracts in an amount not-to-exceed the authorized
Packet Pg 24
4
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of April 18, 2017 Page 7
project budget; and
4. Authorize the City Manager, or her designee, to amend or extend the agreement for
services in accordance with its terms and within the available annual budget
PUBLIC HEARING AND BUSINESS ITEMS
9. REPORT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE SECTION 9212 ON
THE PROPOSED INITIATIVE MEASURE TO REPEAL CHAPTER 15.10 OF THE
SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED “RENTAL HOUSING
INSPECTION” AND TO ADOPT NEW CHAPTER 15.10 ENTITLED “NON-
DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING.”
Community Development Director Codron and City Attorney Dietrick provided an in-depth
staff report and responded to Council questions.
Public Comments:
Kevin Rice, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding the City Attorneys role in the process.
Dale Stoker, San Luis Obispo, speaking on behalf of SLOU40 voiced opposition to the
proponent’s ordinance noting that it should not become City law.
---End of Public Comment---
By consensus, the Council received and filed a report on the potential impacts of the
proposed Initiative Measure Repealing Chapter 15.10 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code entitled “Rental Housing Inspection” (RHIP) and adopting New Chapter 15.10
Entitled “Non-Discrimination in Housing.”
10. INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE REGARDING RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION
AND NON-DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING OR PROVIDE DIRECTION TO
RETURN WITH DOCUMENTS TO ORDER A SPECIAL ELECTION
City Clerk Gallagher provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions.
Public Comments:
Michelle Tasseff, San Luis Obispo, stated having second thoughts regarding signing the
Rental Housing Inspection Housing initiative petition.
Kevin Rice, San Luis Obispo, SLO Voice Treasure, stated that Councils only choice tonight
is to either adopt the proponent’s ordinance or call for an election.
Stew Jenkins, San Luis Obispo, Initiative Proponent, stated that Councils only choice
tonight is to adopt the proponent’s ordinance or call for an election.
Steve Delmartini, stated his belief that most registered voters who signed the petition were
not fully aware of what they were signing.
Packet Pg 25
4
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of April 18, 2017 Page 8
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE MAYOR RIVOIRE, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to direct the City Clerk to prepare the
necessary documents to call for an All Mail Ballot Special Election pursuant to Elections
Code § 1405(a).
RECESS
Council recessed at 7:55 p.m. and reconvened at 8:10 p.m., with all Council Members present.
CONTINUED BUSINESS ITEM 2 FROM THE 4:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING
2. STRATEGIC BUDGET DIRECTION AND MAJOR CITY GOAL WORK
PROGRAMS FOR THE 2017-19 FINANCIAL PLAN
City Manager Lichtig, Interim Finance Director Bradford, Contract Budget Manager Steck
provided an in-depth staff report with the use of a Power Point presentation and responded
to Council questions. Additional staff members presented reports or responded to questions
as requested.
Public Comments:
Rob Davidson, San Luis Obispo, speaking on behalf of Friends of Laguna Lake, spoke in
support of funding the dredging project.
Dominic Tartaglia, San Luis Obispo, speaking on behalf of the Downtown Association,
spoke in support of placemaking.
Jonathan Roberts, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of funding bicycle projects.
Robin Schwartz, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of Safe Routes to School Program
bicycling and safety infrastructure.
Erik Justisen, San Luis Obispo, local business owner, spoke in support of the climate action
goal through housing.
Myron Amerine, spoke in support of a multi modal transportation.
Ermina Karim, San Luis Obispo, and CEO of San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
noted support for housing, multi modal transportation, fiscal sustainability and climate
action; she suggested focus be placed on programs that produce the highest impacts on
achieving these goals.
Geri La Chance, San Luis Obispo employer, spoke in support of fiscal sustainability and
suggested implementing a third-party task force.
Lea Brooks, San Luis Obispo, speaking on behalf of Bike SLO County, spoke in support of
safe routes goals.
Packet Pg 26
4
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of April 18, 2017 Page 9
Don Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of excavating Laguna Lake and
government living within its means.
Kristen Hazard, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of climate action.
Eric Meyer, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of safe routes goals; he noted the lack of a
full-time City expert on Climate Action.
---End of Public Comment---
By consensus, the Council received, provided direction and filed a report on Strategic
Budget direction and Major City Goal Work Programs for the 2017-19 Financial Plan
RECESS
Council recessed at 10:10 p.m. and reconvened at 10:20 p.m., with all Council Members present.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND LIAISON REPORTS
Mayor Harmon reiterated a desire by Council at a previously held Council Workshop to discuss
at a future meeting the time allocated to Public Comment for items not on the agenda.
City Manager Lichtig acknowledged the departure of KCBX Broadcast Technician, Christopher
Shelby and thanked him for his many years of hard work and dedication to the City during both
Council and Planning Commission meetings.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned to the next Regular City Council Meeting which is scheduled for
Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California.
__________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2017
Packet Pg 27
4
San Luis Obispo Page 1
Tuesday, May 02, 2017
Regular Meeting of the City Council
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, May
02, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, by Mayor Harmon.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor
Dan Rivoire, and Mayor Heidi Harmon.
Council Members
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson,
Assistant City Manager; and Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk; were present at Roll
Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated
in the minutes.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council Member Andy Pease led the Pledge of Allegiance.
PRESENTATIONS
1. PRESENTATION - MAYOR'S AWARD TO LAGUNA MIDDLE SCHOOL
STUDENTS
Mayor Harmon and Council Members presented the Mayor’s Awards for Community
Service to Laguna Middle School students for completing community service.
2. PRESENTATION - PLATINUM AWARD FOR CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
PRESENTED BY ASHLEY TRIM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
DAVENPORT INSTITUTE AT PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY
Ashley Trim, Executive Director of the Davenport Institute at Pepperdine University,
provided a presentation regarding the Platinum Award for Civic Engagement.
Packet Pg 28
4
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of May 02, 2017 Page 2
PROCLAMATIONS
3. PROCLAMATION - MUNICIPAL CLERKS WEEK
Mayor Harmon presented a proclamation to Carrie Gallagher, representing the San Luis
Obispo City Clerk’s Office, declaring May 7-13, 2017 as “Municipal Clerks Week.”
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Steve Pax, San Luis Obispo, speaking in support of SB562 Healthy California, requested Council
support for the bill.
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding climate change and in support of a climate
action plan.
Don Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding Geo Engineering and Chem Trail effects on
humans.
Sean Steavy spoke in support of publicly funded elections.
Sharon O’Leary, Los Osos, spoke in support of publicly funded elections.
Michael Latner, speaking on behalf of Citizens Congress spoke in favor of publicly funded
elections.
Nick Andre speaking on behalf of San Luis Obispo Progressive Democratic Club spoke in
support of publicly funded elections.
Claire Grether speaking on behalf of Citizens Congress spoke in support of democracy vouchers
and publicly funded elections.
Michael Costello spoke in support of democracy vouchers and publicly funded elections.
Sydnee Raphael speaking for Carol Rosewood spoke in support of democracy vouchers and
publicly funded elections.
Bill McCarthy, San Luis Obispo spoke in support of democracy vouchers and publicly funded
elections through campaign finance reform.
Jean’ne Blackwell, San Luis Obispo spoke in support of democracy vouchers and publicly
funded elections.
Tim Jouet, San Luis Obispo spoke in support of integrity in elections.
Kayne Randolph, spoke in support of integrity in elections.
Savanna Cooper, Grover Beach, spoke in support of publicly funded elections.
Stephen Vines, representing the NAACP, spoke in support of campaign finance reform.
Packet Pg 29
4
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of May 02, 2017 Page 3
Lanyce Mills, San Luis Obispo, speaking on behalf of resident John Ashbaugh, read from a letter
in support of agenizing public financing.
Bill Ostrander spoke in support of democracy vouchers and publicly funded elections.
Michelle Tasseff, spoke in support of local residents needs and priorities noting that many public
speakers tonight are from outside of the City and do not represent the majority.
Maia Kiley, spoke in support of integrity in elections.
Debbie Peterson, Grover Beach, speaking on behalf of Citizens Congress spoke in support of
publicly funded elections.
---End of Public Comment---
Mayor Harmon questioned City Attorney Dietrick regarding Health Care Bill Support and how it
relates to the Legislative platform; Mayor Harmon spoke in support of agandizing a resolution to
support the Health Care bill, Vice Mayor Rivoire and Council Member Pease supported bringing
the item back in the future to support the bill as a resolution.
Mayor Harmon spoke in support of agendizing campaign finance reform, however due to lack of
support by Council consensus, this matter was tabled indefinitely.
CONSENT AGENDA
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to approve Consent Calendar Items 4 thru 8
4. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
CARRIED 5-0, to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
5. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS OF FEBRUARY 21, 2017
CARRIED 5-0, to approve the Minutes of the City Council meeting of February 21, 2017
6. MARSH STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Resolution 10792 (2017 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, certifying the final Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) for the Marsh Street Bridge Replacement Project.”
7. HOUSING AUTHORITY REQUEST TO REASSIGN LEASE FOR CITY OWNED
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1090 AND 1092 ORCUTT ROAD, AND 1105 LAUREL
LANE
CARRIED 5-0, to approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a reassignment of the
Lease Agreement for City owned property located on Orcutt Road from the Housing
Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo to SLO 55 Limited Partnership.
Packet Pg 30
4
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of May 02, 2017 Page 4
8. WATER METER STANDARD AND REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL SPECIFICATION
NO. 91456
CARRIED 5-0, to:
1. Adopt a City standard for water meters sized 3/4 inch, 1 inch, 1 1/2 inch, and 2 inch; and
2. Approve a Request for Proposal under Specification No. 91456 for annual purchase of
water meters; and
3. Authorize the City Manager to approve contract for water meter purchases not to exceed
the annually budgeted amount as approved by Council.
PUBLIC HEARING AND BUSINESS ITEMS
9. PUBLIC HEARING - TAX AND EQUITY FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT
(TEFRA) HEARING REGARDING THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO ISSUANCE OF A TAX-EXEMPT DEBT OBLIGATION TO FINANCE
CONSTRUCTION OF 46 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AT 3680 BROAD
STREET
Community Development Director Codron and Acting Housing Programs Manager Wiseman
provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions.
Public Comments:
Scott Smith, speaking on behalf of HASLO San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding tax exempt bonds
and the TEFRA process.
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY VICE
MAYOR RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0 to:
1. Conduct a public hearing under the Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) of
1982 and pursuant to the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
2. Adopt Resolution 10793 (2017 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving the incurring of a tax-exempt obligation
by the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo for the purpose of providing
financing for the development of Iron Works Apartments” located at 3680 Broad Street.
10. PUBLIC HEARING - TAX AND EQUITY FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT
(TEFRA) HEARING REGARDING THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO ISSUANCE OF A TAX-EXEMPT BOND TO ACQUIRE AND
REHABILITATE 55 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AT 1092 ORCUTT ROAD,
1102 IRONBARK, AND 1363 PISMO STREET
Packet Pg 31
4
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of May 02, 2017 Page 5
Community Development Director Codron and Acting Housing Programs Manager Wiseman
provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions.
Public Comments:
None
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY
COUNCIL MEMBER GOMEZ, CARRIED 5-0 to:
1. Conduct a public hearing under the Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA)
of 1982 and pursuant to the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
2. Adopt Resolution 10794 (2017 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving the incurring of a tax-exempt obligation
by the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo for the purpose of providing
financing for the acquisition and rehabilitation of Laurel Creek, Ironbark and Pismo
Buchon Apartments.”
11. PUBLIC HEARING – ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION - REVIEW OF
AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17: ZONING REGULATIONS,
ASSOCIATED WITH ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT PROVISIONS WITH A
STATUTORY EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Community Development Director Codron and Acting Housing Programs Manager Wiseman
provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions.
Public Comments:
Steven Lefler, VP of Newport Pacific Modular Lifestyles, spoke regarding ADU law and
benefits of factory built housing.
Claire Grether, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding a desperate housing situation and requested a
fast track for ADU’s.
Michelle Tasseff, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of hardship waivers.
Greg Wynn, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of the ADU ordinance however stated it needs a
vision to minimize burden.
John Galbreath, stated he lives in a City affordable housing unit, he spoke regarding a need for
residents to have an option to purchase these units.
LynAnne Wiest, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of an increase in rental and ADU stock.
Anne Wyatt, representing Home Share SLO, noted the availability of approximately 10 shared
homes, she encouraged Council to go forward with State law and further and supports 150 square
Packet Pg 32
4
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of May 02, 2017 Page 6
feet.
Don Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding success stories of tiny house living.
Mila Vuyovich–Le Barre, San Luis Obispo spoke in support of the placement of affordable
ADU’s at the Sunny Acres sober living facility.
---End of Public Comment---
RECESS
Council recessed at 8:20 p.m. and reconvened at 8:35 p.m., with all Council Members present.
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY
COUNCIL MEMBER GOMEZ, CARRIED 5-0 to introduce Ordinance 1634 (2017 Series)
entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, amending
Title 17 (Zoning Regulations) of the Municipal Code associated with accessory dwelling units
with a statutory exemption from environmental review (CODE-0107-2017).” As amended: Item
F to read: owner occupied exemption granted by the director in one year increments not to
exceed 5 year maximum based on a showing of a hardship
12. REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE 2016 GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL REPORT
(GENP-0244-2017)
Community Development Director Codron and Planning Technician Orozco provided an in-
depth staff report and responded to Council questions.
Public Comments:
None
---End of Public Comment---
By consensus, Council directed staff to receive and file the presentation of the Review and
Acceptance of the 2016 General Plan Annual Report.
13. DISCUSSION OF A POTENTIAL CITY COUNCIL INITIATED ALTERNATIVE
TO THE CURRENTLY QUALIFIED RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION
INITIATIVE BALLOT MEASURE ON THE UPCOMING ALL MAIL SPECIAL
ELECTION
City Manager Lichtig and City Attorney Dietrick provided an in-depth staff report and responded
to Council questions.
Public Comments:
Leslie Hall spoke in support of adopting the proponent’s ordinance to save taxpayers the cost of
an election.
Packet Pg 33
4
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of May 02, 2017 Page 7
Don Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, questioned whether the City was in violation of the law by
amending the agenda to include this item.
Michelle Tasseff, San Luis Obispo, noted signing the petition without knowing all the details;
she does not support the ordinance.
---End of Public Comment---
Council consensus was reached and direction provided to not bring back language to add an
alternative council initiated measure to the special election ballot.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND LIAISON REPORTS
Council Member Pease spoke regarding citizens’ concerns regarding traffic impacts due to the
recent City marathon, additionally, she noted attending the Latino Outreach Council meeting last
month and stated that valuable resources are available to local undocumented residents.
Vice Mayor Rivoire reported attending “Walk a Mile in Her Shoes”, he noted other local
officials in attendance and the fundraising efforts achieved.
Council Member Gomez reported attending “Walk a Mile in Her Shoes” event as well as the
League of California Channel Counties dinner; he noted receiving valuable information
regarding upcoming state and local level housing bills.
Mayor Harmon reported attending a Cal Poly undocumented students event, the Senior Center
and noted their need for a new van, as well as attending the “Take Back the Night” event, in
addition to the “Day of the Child” at Pacheco she ran the half marathon and noted moving
forward on the neighborhood walking program. She stated a desire to revisit the public comment
issue.
City Manager Lichtig restated the Council direction as provided at the recent Council Retreat in
regards to changes to Public Comment for Items not on the Agenda; discussion ensued regarding
Councils flexibility to make changes. Council consensus was reached to add an item to the next
agenda in regards to this item.
Mayor Harmon suggested agendizing a tiny home distributor, decision was reached to instead
include this individual in a Citywide outreach effort as opposed to a future agenda.
City Manager Lichtig added information regarding the May 12th Inaugural event “Coffee with a
Cop” as presented by the Police Department created to engage the community in casual
conversation regarding issues important to their neighborhood.
Assistant City Manager Johnson provided an update on the upcoming Amgen Tour of California
events within the City.
Packet Pg 34
4
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of May 02, 2017 Page 8
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned to the next Regular City Council Meeting scheduled for Tuesday,
May 16, 2017 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California.
__________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2017
Packet Pg 35
4
San Luis Obispo Page 1
Tuesday, May 30, 2017
Special Meeting of the City Council
CALL TO ORDER
A Special Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, May 30,
2017 at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, by Mayor Harmon.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor
Dan Rivoire, and Mayor Heidi Harmon.
Council Members
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson,
Assistant City Manager; and Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk; were present at Roll
Call.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council Member Aaron Gomez led the Pledge of Allegiance.
BUSINESS ITEMS
1. AS AUTHORIZED BY ELECTIONS CODE § 9282, REVIEW AND FINALIZE
COUNCIL BALLOT ARGUMENTS AGAINST MEASURE B-17 – RE: RENTAL
HOUSING INSPECTIONS
Public Comments:
None
---End of Public Comment---
Packet Pg 36
4
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of May 30, 2017 Page 2
1. Discuss and finalize Council Ballot arguments against Measure B-17; and
2. Determine order of authors for publication in the Voters Information Guide and sign
Form of Statement To Be Filed By Authors of Arguments.
By consensus, Council accepted and approved the draft Argument against Measure B-17 for
submission as written by Council Members Christianson and Gomez. The Form of
Statement to Be Filed by Authors of Arguments was circulated amongst Council and
signatures obtained in the order they are to appear in the Voter Information Guide.
2. AS AUTHORIZED BY ELECTIONS CODE § 9285, DISCUSS AND FINALIZE
COUNCIL REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF MEASURE B-17 RE:
RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTIONS
Public Comments:
None
---End of Public Comment---
1. Discuss and make determination of Authors of Argument to authorize others to prepare,
submit and sign the Rebuttal to the Argument; and
2. If necessary, sign form of Authorization For Another Person To Sign Rebuttal Argument.
By consensus, Council agreed to authorize others then themselves to prepare, submit and
sign a Rebuttal Argument to any argument received in favor of Measure B-17. The form
giving authorization for others to prepare, submit and sign the Rebuttal to the Argument was
circulated and signed by a majority of the Council.
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to a Special City Council Meeting to be held on Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. in
the City Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, to hold a preliminary
budget workshop.
The next Regular City Council Meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the
City Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
__________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2017
Packet Pg 37
4
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 38
4
Meeting Date: 7/5/2017
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director
Prepared By: Mychal Boerman, Water Resources Program Manager
SUBJECT: COLLECTION OF DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL ACCOUNTS
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution authorizing the San Luis Obispo County Assessor to assess amounts due to
San Luis Garbage Company on delinquent accounts for provision of solid waste collection and
disposal services as described in City Municipal Code Section 8.04.070 as liens against
properties involved.
DISCUSSION
Background
Based on the need to protect public health and safety, the Municipal Code establishes that
occupants of all developed properties within the City benefit from regular periodic collection of
solid waste. Section 8.04.070 of the Municipal Code states:
1. That all developed properties in the City must use the solid waste collection and disposal
service provided by the City's franchisee.
2. That the franchisee is responsible for collecting all fees for the service.
3. That the owners of developed properties are ultimately responsible for paying for the
service.
4. That once each year the franchisee may take actions to collect from delinquent solid
waste collection and disposal accounts.
5. That, after the franchisee has completed the actions established within the Muni cipal
Code, the City will adopt a resolution authorizing the San Luis Obispo County Assessor
to assess amounts due on delinquent accounts as liens against the properties.
San Luis Garbage Company has taken the actions prescribed in the Municipal Code to c ollect
delinquent solid waste collection and disposal accounts. In adherence to the Municipal Code, San
Luis Garbage Company has presented the City with a list of property owners whose accounts
were more than 120 days past due, has sent certified letters to those property owners requesting
payment, and has presented the City with a final list of property owners whose accounts are still
past due. Additionally, City staff has sent a separate notification to property owners on the list to
inform them of the action being taken by the Council.
The attached resolution authorizes the San Luis Obispo County Assessor to assess the amounts
due on delinquent accounts as liens against the properties.
Packet Pg 39
5
CONCURRENCES
This process is consistent with the procedure prescribed in Municipal Code Section 8.04.070.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The recommended actions are not a project 1 as defined under the California Environmental
Quality Act.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City. The Municipal Code states that any fees charged by the San
Luis Obispo County Assessor to lien the affected properties will be borne by the franchisee.
ALTERNATIVES
The City’s Municipal Code Section 8.04.070 provides a process for San Luis Garbage Company
to collect payment for delinquent solid waste collection and disposal accounts. The City Council
could choose not to approve the recommended action if it believes San Luis Garbage Company
has not taken the actions prescribed in the Municipal Code. Based on the information provided to
the City, staff has determined that San Luis Garbage Company has taken the actions prescribed
in the Municipal Code to collect delinquent solid waste collection and disposal accounts.
Attachments:
a - Resolution for Delinquent Solid Waste Accts 2017
1 The term project refers to the whole of an action that has the potential, directly or ultimately, to result in a physical change to the enviro nment
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15378). This includes all phases of a project that are reasonably foreseeable, and all related projects that are directly
linked to the project.
Packet Pg 40
5
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2017 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY ASSESSOR TO ASSESS AMOUNTS DUE ON DELINQUENT
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL ACCOUNTS AS LIENS
AGAINST THE PROPERTIES PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 25828, ET SEQ.
WHEREAS, Section 8.04.070 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code establishes that all
developed properties in the City must use the solid waste collection and disposal service provided
by the City's franchisee, that the franchisee is responsible for collecting fees for its services, and
that owners of developed properties are responsible for paying for the service; and
WHEREAS, Section 8.04.070 of the Municipal Code further provides a method by which,
once each year, the franchisee may take actions to collect fees from the owners of developed
properties which have delinquent solid waste collection and disposal accounts; and
WHEREAS, the City and franchisee, San Luis Garbage Company, have taken all actions
required in Section 8.04.070 of the Municipal Code to collect fees from delinquent accounts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
that the San Luis Obispo County Assessor is hereby authorized to assess the amounts due on
delinquent accounts as established and certified by franchisee San Luis Garbage Company as liens
against the properties listed below.
Property Owner Parcel Number Property Address Amount
CHARLES C SNYDER 053-182-029 3191 S HIGUERA ST 410.23
ROBERT GRAHM TRUST 002-313-007 1031 WALNUT ST 339.99
KATHRYN & LADELL JR TRUST 004-106-003 841 VENABLE ST 305.86
CHARLES C SNYDER 001-251-019 2038 SAN LUIS DR 257.62
LAWRENCE M WAMPLER 053-414-003 966 FULLER 201.07
STEPHEN RONCA 052-485-003 625 AL HIL 197.13
ELEANOR SNYDER 003-564-007 1672 FAIRVIEW ST 197.13
DANA WINDES (TE) C/O
GEORGINA WALTERS 053-300-020 1286 CHAPARRAL CIR 197.13
PATRICIA MCCOWEN 004-413-046 1614 VINCENTE DR 169.63
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Packet Pg 41
5
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2
R ______
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2017.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg 42
5
Meeting Date: 7/5/2017
FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Molly Cano, Tourism Manager
SUBJECT: 2017-18 COMMUNITY PROMOTIONS PROGRAM – TBID & PCC
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID) Board and the
Promotional Coordinating Committee (PCC):
1. Authorize the City Manager to enter into various contracts and program expenditures for
the Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID) not to exceed the 2017-18 program
budget of $1,340,345 based on the recommendations by the TBID Board.
a. This includes the addendum to the first two-year extension of the contract with
BCA and Matchfire (formerly Studio Good) for marketing services in the amount
of $19,200; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to enter into contracts utilizing the TBID Fund un-
appropriated fund balance from the 2016-17 fiscal year, following the completion of the
city’s financial statements audit, for tourism marketing expenditures in 2017-18 based on
the recommendations by the TBID Board; and
3. Authorize the City Manager to enter into contracts utilizing the TBID Fund Reserve of
$100,000 for tourism marketing expenditures in 2017-18 based on the recommendations
by the TBID Board; and
4. Authorize the City Manager to enter into various contracts and program expenditures for
Community Promotions not to exceed the 2017-18 program budget of $404,688 based on
the recommendations by the Promotional Coordinating Committee (PCC).
a. This includes the 2017-18 Grants-in-Aid (GIA) allocations in the amount of
$100,000 and authorization to execute individual agreements with each grant
recipient.
b. This includes the second one-year term renewal of the contract with Solve
(formerly FreshBuzz) for promotional services in the amount of $30,000; and
5. Adopt the strategic planning report prepared by the Promotional Coordinating Committee
for implementation starting in fiscal year 2017-18.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The City’s Community Promotions program is comprised of the Tourism Business Improvement
District Board and the Promotional Coordinating Committee. While these advisory bodies have
separate program functions and budgets, together they both work to promote San Luis Obispo
locally, regionally, nationally and internationally.
After thorough review and consideration beginning in January, the TBID Board has identified
the following program priorities and budget allocations for the focus of the TBID marketing
efforts in fiscal year 2017-18. In addition to expanded involvement in various tradeshows and
sales efforts in 2017-18, attendance at industry conferences, and additional partnerships,
marketing and promotional initiatives – the TBID Board has prioritized these items:
Packet Pg 43
6
• Strategic Partnerships: Chamber of Commerce for Guest Services & two-year Public
Relations contract, annual SLO Wine Country Association partnership, and a three-year
partnership with Learfield/Mustang Sports Properties for Cal Poly Athletics.
• Additions to the existing Marketing Services Contract: including funding for the
development of the new marketing campaign.
• General Event Promotions: including the sponsorship of community events with a focus
to attract visitors to San Luis Obispo.
Over the course of the past year, the PCC has developed a Strategic Planning Report to identify
work functions and committee focus. This document will be a roadmap for the committee for
their decisions and they will continue to revise the report when needed. With this plan in mind,
the PCC identified the following program priorities and budget allocations for the focus of the
community promotions efforts in fiscal year 2017-18.
• SLO Happenings Program: continue to utilize the promotional services of the agency on
record Solve for the marketing of the app and utilize GFL Technologies for the
maintenance of the app.
• Chamber of Commerce Contract Services: two-year agreement for Visitor Center
Operations, shared public relations services in partnership with the TBID for two years,
marketing and public relations support of the GIA recipients, and the production &
distribution of the city tear-off-maps
• General Event Promotions: sponsorship of community events with a focus to enhance the
quality of life for residents & visitor experience in coordination with the TBID.
The last major focus for the PCC is the Grants-In-Aid (GIA) program. After the competitive
review of the applications, the committee recommends the awarding of $100,000 collectively to
over 20 local non-profit organizations for the promotion of cultural, social and recreational
events held in the City of San Luis Obispo that will benefit residents and visitors.
DISCUSSION
Background
With the 2017-19 Financial Plan, the City Council approved the budget and defined the work
program for the Community Promotions program and the Tourism Business Improvement
District (TBID) (Attachment a - Council Action Update from June 20, 2017). Both programs are
overseen and administered by advisory bodies to the City Council. The PCC makes
recommendations regarding the use of Community Promotions funding and the TBID Board
recommends the use of the TBID assessment. Both advisory bodies developed a budget and
work program for the 2017-19 Financial Plan, and thus established recommendations for use of
funding in 2017-18 with respective contract considerations.
Tourism Business Improvement District
The TBID began their program development and budget allocation process in January, when the
TBID’s Marketing and Management committees began discussing the goals, priorities and
direction for the 2017-18 TBID programs. During this process, the TBID Board communicated
the importance of continuing to align the budget direction, program priorities and funding
commitments with the fulfillment of the TBID’s five-year strategic clarity plan imperatives.
During fiscal year 2016-17, the TBID Board preformed a mid-plan review and created an
Packet Pg 44
6
updated plan with revised initiatives to further develop the tourism program. The complete TBID
strategic clarity plan including the updated document is available for review as a Council
Reading File.
The TBID strategic initiatives are to:
• Deliver smart growth.
• Develop the SLO brand.
• Build meaningful partnerships.
• Contribute to an unforgettable SLO experience.
• Ensure organizational excellence.
Strategic Partnerships
Strategic partnership proposals were received from the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce,
SLO Wine Country Association, and Learfield/Mustang Sports Properties representing Cal Poly
Athletics. The full proposals can be reviewed in the Council Reading File.
In the budget deliberation, the TBID Board, with the recommendation from the Management
Committee, considered all activity and program commitments including: strategic partnerships
and contracts, marketing and advertising, events promotions, tradeshow, tourism organization
and research, and support. Based on the content of the annual proposals and the recommendation
from the Management Committee, the TBID Board recommends that Council authorize the City
Manager to enter into separate contracts with the following organizations for the specified
programs (Attachment b - TBID Minutes, May 10, 2017):
1. SLO Chamber of Commerce: The Board recommends full funding of proposal for Guest
Services including: the continuation of the phone & availability service and the Special
Promotions support service in the amount of $42,000. In addition, the committee
recommended the continuation of the TBID’s partnership with PCC for the public
relations services. The investment into this program directly supports the TBID’s
strategic initiative to develop the SLO brand and is an efficient approach to partner with
the PCC which maximizes the contract scope and reduces duplication of efforts. The
Board recommends that the TBID maintain funding up to 60% of the two-year Public
Relations service agreement at $51,000 each year and fully cover the media mo nitoring
service at the fee of $8,400 annually.
2. SLO Wine Country Association: The Board recommends funding the partnership
proposal with SLO Wine at the amount of $21,000. The elements of partnership to be
funded would be: Membership & Marketing Benefits at $6,000; Sip in SLO tasting pass
integration at $2,000; Visitor Guide and Program advertising at $2,000; PR/Media
Hosting as presented but managed by staff and funded at $3,000; and targeted Trade and
Media Marketing at $8,000. For the Trade and Media Marketing piece, the TBID’s
Marketing Committee will weigh in and approve the selection of the roadshow activation.
3. Learfield/Mustang Sports Properties for Cal Poly Athletics: The Board recommends
renewing the partnership with Learfield/Mustang Sports Properties for Cal Poly Athletics
Packet Pg 45
6
for an additional three-year commitment with an annual sponsorship fee of $35,000 plus
605 complimentary rooms, to be purchased through the TBID not to exceed $60,500, for
a total package of $95,500. Through the previous partnership, the Board established a
reimbursement schedule that allocates a specific amount ($100 inclusive) paid per room/
per night. This agreement will continue the exclusivity of San Luis Obispo lodging for all
events and teams connected to Cal Poly Athletics with one exception. The football team
will continue to lodge its recruits at an oceanfront property in Pismo Beach due to the
capacity of San Luis Obispo hotels individually and the requirements of the football
guests. In addition, through this agreement the TBID will partner with Cal Poly Alumni
Association and receive the opportunity to promote San Luis Obispo tourism to the over
80,000 active email addresses of alumni, most of who live within the TBID’s top target
markets of Los Angeles and the Bay Area. Staff is expected to continue to coordinate
between Cal Poly and the hotels. This will be the third renewal of the exclusive
partnership with Cal Poly Athletics.
Marketing Services Contract Addendum
The TBID is currently within the first two-year extension agreement with BCA and Matchfire for
marketing services. The base contract amount is $814,500 which includes all services and fees
associated with TBID marketing costs. In 2017-18, the TBID Board recommends amending the
current agreement to include the hard costs associated with the development of the new
marketing campaign in the amount of $19,200. These funds will go toward the creation of new
graphic design for print and digital advertisements, radio spots, videography and photography.
The new campaign, which is expected to launch in the fall of 2017, will replace the “It Means
Something Different Here” campaign which has been used since October 2015.
The complete marketing initiatives are outlined within the marketing plan that was presented at
the June 14, 2017 TBID Board meeting. The 2017-18 TBID Marketing Plan is available for
review as a Council Reading File.
Based on the recommendation from the Management Committee, the TBID Board recommends
that Council authorize the addendum of the contract with BCA and Matchfire for campaign
production hard costs in the amount of $19,200. (Attachment b - TBID Minutes, May 10, 2017)
General Event Promotions
In their programmatic approach and budget deliberation, both the TBID and the PCC invest i n
destination events in San Luis Obispo. In order to coordinate the effort, both advisory bodies
elected three members to serve on a joint Events Promotion Subcommittee that meets
semiannually entertain funding requests from events organizations. To be considered for joint
funding through the TBID and PCC, the event must meet both purposes: of tourism promotion
advantage to the City of San Luis Obispo and of cultural, social, and/or recreational benefit to the
residents of the City of San Luis Obispo. In 2017-18, the TBID has allocated $117,000 to
sponsorship funding for events that meet the criteria of tourism promotion advantage to the City
of San Luis Obispo resulting in overnight stays at TBID lodging businesses.
Packet Pg 46
6
The remaining program funds are allocated to program expenses including: expanded
involvement in various tradeshows and sales efforts in 2017-18, attendance at industry
conferences, and additional partnerships, marketing and promotional initiatives. (Attachment c –
Line Item Budget Allocations).
Any un-appropriated fund balance from 2016-17 will be used for marketing programs in 2017-
18.
Promotional Coordinating Committee
The purpose of the PCC is to enhance the quality of life for residents of San Luis Obispo and to
enhance the quality of experience for visitors to San Luis Obispo. This mission was the guiding
force behind the budget consideration for the PCC. During the May 10, 2017 meeting, the PCC
finalized the 2017-18 budget allocations and continued programmatic approach for the SLO
Happenings program, Visitor Services, event promotions, and GIA funding. (Attachment c –
Line Item Budget Allocations; Attachment d – PCC Minutes May 10, 2017)
Strategic Planning Report
In fiscal year 2016-17, the PCC embarked on a strategic planning process to clarify and define
the program focus for the committee. The plan includes a practical vision for the community,
defines the current reality for the committee, and provides overarching strategies to guide the
committee work for the next three years. The focus of the process was to address how the
Promotional Coordinating Committee, (PCC) can be better positioned to improve and develop
projects to support the community, independently and in collaboration with the Tourism
Improvement Business District (TBID), and serve as an effective advisory body to City Council.
The three strategic directions were identified through the process:
1. Updating and maintaining current projects.
2. Creating and establishing new projects that are innovative and relevant to our
community.
3. Improving internal operations and processes more efficiently.
The committee used these strategic directions to develop the 2017-18 work programs and
priorities. (Attachment e– PCC Strategic Planning Report)
SLO Happenings Program
In fiscal year 2015-16, the PCC made a focused effort to refine the purpose of the SLO
Happening mobile app to benefit the needs of the residents by offering a consolidated local
events calendar application. The promotion of the app, the feature enhancements, and the
dedication to expand the content included within the app was done to further engage the
community in the cultural and recreational offering with the City. Over the course of the past two
years the enhancements made to the app have significantly increased the usership. Currently the
app has over 13,000 downloads and over 200 event listings.
Based on the success of the division of work for the SLO Happening program in the functions of
Packet Pg 47
6
technology management and program promotions, the PCC recommends continuing the
technology service agreement with GFL Technologies in the amount of $8,000 for the hosting
and maintenance of the SLO Happenings app. GFL is uniquely suited for this agreement as they
are the custom developers of the app and the maintenance can not be done efficiently by an
alternative vendor. In addition, the PCC has allocated $30,000 for the promotional plan and
services to Solve (formerly FreshBuzz Media) and recommends the approval of the second of
three one-year term extensions noted within their agreement for the contract services. The full
proposals can be reviewed in the Council Reading File.
Chamber of Commerce Contract Services
The PCC received a presentation from the Chamber of Commerce for the proposed on-going
contract services which include: Visitor Center Operations, shared public relations services in
partnership with the TBID, marketing and public relations support of the GIA recipients, and the
production of the city tear-off-maps. The Chamber requested an increase in contract funding for
the Visitor Center operations contract due to increased costs in operation and the addition of
services; increase in the production of the tear off maps for increased printing costs; and two -
year agreements for both Visitor Center Operations and Public Relations. The full proposals can
be reviewed in the Council Reading File.
During budget deliberations at the May 10, 2017 meeting, the Committee determined that it was
of high priority to maintain contract services with the Chamber of Commerce and decided to
fully fund and authorize all the proposals for the 2017-18 year including the establishment of
two-year agreements for the Visitor Center Operations and Public Relations Services.
(Attachment d – PCC Minutes May 10, 2017)
Grants-In-Aid (GIA)
In February of each year the PCC advertises the annual GIA process for the promotion of
cultural, social and recreational events held in the City of San Luis Obispo that will benefit
residents and visitors. Notices are placed on the City web site and in the Tribune to advertise the
availability of the grant funding application for local non-profit organizations. Additionally,
previous grant recipients are notified via email regarding the grant availability. The PCC
maintained their available budget for GIA awards at $100,000 and is recommending that full
amount in funding based on the application review process.
Grant Application and Evaluation and Process
The grant cycle was opened on February 1, 2017 and applications were due on March 17, 2017.
On February 8, 2017, the PCC’s GIA subcommittee held a mandatory meeting with all interested
organizations to introduce the grant funding criteria used during the evaluation process and
answers any questions from the applicants. At deadline for grant applicati on submittal, the City
had received 25 applications with a funding requests amounted to $179,803. GIA applications
can be reviewed in the Council Reading File.
The PCC’s GIA subcommittee met to review the applications, compare the requests to the grant
Packet Pg 48
6
criteria, and allocate funding accordingly. On May 17, 2017, the PCC held a public hearing with
all applicants to allow for presentation and discussion before the recommendation was forwarded
to the City Council for consideration and approval. There were ov er 15 application
representatives present at the meeting. The committee received 12 public comments from the
grant applicants and ultimately approved the recommendation for the 2017-18 GIA funding
allocations (Attachment f – PCC Minutes May 17, 2017; Attachment g- GIA Funding
Recommendations).
FISCAL IMPACT
The total amount currently budgeted in the 2017-19 Financial Plan for the TBID Fund for 2017-
18 is $1,340,345. The TBID fund balance at the end of fiscal year 2016-17 is estimated at
approximately $100,000 in access of $100,000 policy required fund reserve, bringing the
available TBID program budget to $1,440,345. The exact amount will not be known until the
City’s audited financials for 2016-17 will be substantially complete.
The total amount currently budgeted in the 2017-19 Financial Plan for the Community
Promotions Program is $404,688 in 2017-18. Within the 2017-18 budget, the PCC recommends
the total GIA event funding amount of $100,000 based on the application process and evaluation.
There is sufficient funding for the contracts as recommended by the two advisory bodies.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council could choose to fund the contracts at different levels or modify the scope of
services. The advisory bodies and staff do not recommend adjustments, as the proposed
contracts are the result of careful review, discussion, and negotiations between the
parties.
2. The Council could direct the advisory bodies and staff to release Request for Proposals
for all the services outlined. This is not recommended since the recommended contractors
are well positioned to execute the established work scope in a cohesive and economical
manner.
3. The Council could re-allocate funding provided through the GIA process. This is not
recommended as the PCC reviewed the applicati ons thoroughly and applied the funding
per the set criteria and expected benefit to the City’s residents and visitors.
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
A hard copy of the Grants in Aid applications is available for public review in the City Clerk’s
Office.
Packet Pg 49
6
Attachments:
a - 06-20-2017 Agenda Action Update
b - 05-10-2017 TBID minutes DRAFT
c - 2017-18 Line Item Budget Allocations
d - 05-10-2017 PCC Minutes DRAFT
e - PCC Strategic Planning Report
f - 05-17-2017 PCC Special Meeting Minutes DRAFT
g - GIA 2017-18 PCC Recommendations
h - Council Reading File - TBID Strategic Clarity Plan Update
i - Council Reading File - 2017-18 TBID Proposal Chamber of Commerce
j - Council Reading File - 2017-18 TBID Proposal SLO Wine
k - Council Reading File - 2017-20 TBID Proposal Cal Poly Athletics
l - Council Reading File - SLOTBID 2017–18 Marketing Plan
m - Council Reading File - 2017-18 PCC Proposal GFL SLO Happenings
n - Council Reading File - 2017-18 PCC Propsal SOLVE SLO Happenings
o - Council Reading File - 2017-18 PCC Proposal Chamber of Commerce
Packet Pg 50
6
Action Update
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, June 20, 2017
Regular Meeting of the City of San Luis Obispo City Council
ROLL CALL
Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor Dan
Rivoire, and Mayor Heidi Harmon
Absent: None.
Staff: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson, Assistant
City Manager; and Heather Goodwin, Deputy City Clerk
AGENDA ITEMS ACTION
CLOSED SESSION
A) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL –EXISTING
LITIGATION
Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code § 54956.9
Name of case: Friends of 71 Palomar v. City Council of San Luis
Obispo, et al.; San Luis Obispo Superior Court Case No. 17CV-
0259
NO REPORTABLE
ACTION
PRESENTATIONS
1) PRESENTATION - POLICE DEPARTMENT
COMMENDATIONS /AWARD PINNING
PRESENTED
2) PROCLAMATION - SAN LUIS OBISPO MUSEUM OF ART PRESENTED
CONSENT CALENDAR
3) WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND
ORDINANCES
APPROVED
(5-0)
4) MINUTES OF MARCH 28, 2017 APPROVED
(5-0)
5) REVISED 2016 WATER RESOURCES STATUS REPORT APPROVED
(5-0)
6) RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE DELEGATION OF
INVESTMENT AUTHORITY TO THE CITY TREASURER
THROUGH THE 2017-18 FISCAL YEAR
RESOLUTION 10809 (2017 SERIES)
ADOPTED
(5-0)
Packet Pg 51
6
Action Update – City of San Luis Obispo City Council Meeting of June 20, 2017 Page 2
7) APPROVAL OF THE FINAL MAP FOR TRACT 2928, 1321
OSOS STREET (TR 96-13)
RESOLUTION 10810 (2017 SERIES)
ADOPTED
(5-0)
8) RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PETSAFE® BARK FOR
YOUR PARK™ GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION
RESOLUTION 10811 (2017 SERIES)
ADOPTED
(5-0)
9) APPROVAL OF A REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
WITH AMBIENT COMMUNITIES FOR OFFSITE AND
OVERSIZED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED
WITH ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS
CONTINUED TO
AFTER ITEM 13
10) RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY’S
COLLECTION OF FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY INSPECTION
FEES
RESOLUTION 10813 (2017 SERIES)
ADOPTED
(5-0)
11) MONTEREY/OSOS TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION,
SPECIFICATION NO. 91377
APPROVED
(5-0)
12) APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR 2017-18
RESOLUTION 10814 (2017 SERIES)
ADOPTED
(5-0)
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND BUSINESS ITEMS
13) PUBLIC HEARING - ADOPTION OF 2017-19 FINANCIAL
PLAN AND 2017-18 BUDGET
RESOLUTION 10815 (2017 SERIES) – As Amended:
1. Amend the Major City Goals Work Program to eliminate the
Citizen Task Force on pg C1-37 of the Financial Plan;
include where appropriate as separate item or as amendment
to the existing work program number 2 on pg C1-38 of the
Financial Plan other options to engage the community to
achieve those goals including the following: create a
speakers’ bureau, establish a repository of information
available to the public, and/or hold community
meetings/workshops.
2. Amend the Major City Goals Work Program to include a new
section 13 to implement strategies to reduce plastic water
bottles consumption at City facilities and implement
ADOPTED
(5-0)
As Amended
Packet Pg 52
6
Action Update – City of San Luis Obispo City Council Meeting of June 20, 2017 Page 3
measures to reduce plastic straws through a program of only
demand on request.
CONSENT CALENDAR CONTINUED
9) APPROVAL OF A REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH
AMBIENT COMMUNITIES FOR OFFSITE AND
OVERSIZED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED
WITH ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS
RESOLUTION 10812 (2017 SERIES)
ADOPTED
(5-0)
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND BUSINESS ITEMS
14) PUBLIC HEARING - TAX AND EQUITY FISCAL
RESPONSIBILITY ACT (TEFRA) HEARING REGARDING
THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ISSUANCE OF A TAX-EXEMPT DEBT OBLIGATION TO
FINANCE THE REHABILITATION BOND OF 55
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AT 1092 ORCUTT
ROAD, 1102 IRONBARK, AND 1363 PISMO STREET
RESOLUTION 10816 (2017 SERIES)
ADOPTED
(5-0)
15) RESCINDING THE LOCAL DROUGHT EMERGENCY
AND ASSOCIATED RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION 10817 (2017 SERIES) – As Amended
1. Strike Section 3 and Recital 4 and any other necessary
changes to the resolution (Attachment F) to conform to the
Councils action to allow limited non-resident use of
corporation yard well for a period of time and eliminate use
of the well by City residents.
2. Directed staff to send a letter from the City Council to the
Board of Supervisors letting them know the actions that took
place from tonight’s meeting; look at an alternative way to
monitor the Corp Yard well use; continue the Corp Yard
well program for O’Conner Way, Cotton Wood, West
Foothill area where the wells are dry; and work with the
community and county to see what solutions present
themselves. Staff to provide an update to Council within 1
year.
ADOPTED
(5-0)
As amended and
direction received
16) COMMUNITY BUDGET TASK FORCE
ITEM NOT HEARD
Removed from Work
Program in Item 13
Packet Pg 53
6
Action Update – City of San Luis Obispo City Council Meeting of June 20, 2017 Page 4
17) BUSINESS LICENSE COMPLIANCE PROGRAM
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
ADOPTED
(5-0)
As Amended:
Extend the
implementation period
to 3 months
18) SUPPORT FOR THE GOALS OF CALIFORNIA SENATE
BILL 562: THE HEALTHY CALIFORNIA ACT
RESOLUTION 10818(2017 SERIES)
ADOPTED
(4-1) (CHRISTIANSON
VOTING NO)
Packet Pg 54
6
DRAFT Minutes – Tourism Business Improvement District Board Meeting of May 10, 2017 Page 1
Minutes - DRAFT
TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BOARD
Wednesday, May 10, 2017
Regular Meeting of the Tourism Business Improvement District Board
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Tourism Business Improvement District Board was called to order on
Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 10:03 a.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Wilkins.
ROLL CALL
Present: Board Members Pragna Patel-Mueller, LeBren Young-Harris, Vice-Chair Nipool Patel,
and Chair Matthew Wilkins
Absent: Board Members Clint Pearce and Kimberly Walker (one seat empty)
Staff: Tourism Manager Molly Cano, Tourism Coordinator Liesel Kuehl, and Recording
Secretary Kevin Christian.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Ermina Karim, Chamber of Commerce President/CEO, invited everybody to Visit the “Expo at
the Expo” which is a business-to-business trade show being held from 4pm to 7pm today.
CONSENT AGENDA
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE-CHAIR PATEL, SECOND BY BOARD MEMBER PATEL-
MUELLER, CARRIED 4-0, to approve the Consent Calendar Items C1 through C6.
C1. Minutes of regular meeting on Wednesday, April 12, 2017
C2. Smith Travel Report
C3. Chamber Public Relations Report
C4. BCA + Matchfire Marketing Report
C5. Chamber Visitor Center Report
C6. Transit Occupancy Tax (TOT) Report
Packet Pg 55
6
DRAFT Minutes – Tourism Business Improvement District Board Meeting of May 10, 2017 Page 2
PRESENTATIONS
1. Marketing Agency Monthly Report
Representatives from BCA + MatchFire presented their marketing activities for the past
month for the SLO TBID . Current promotions, promotional metrics, and newsletter
items were reviewed. It was noted that a break from using paid media promotion during
the upcoming summer tourism season is planned, that updated homestay pages will be
launched in June, and that there is now a new “Visiting” web page on GoPoly.com
directing users to SanLuisObispoVacation.com
Public Comments:
None.
---End of Public Comments---
No action was taken on this item.
2. SLO Chamber of Commerce Quarterly Report
Chamber of Commerce representative Molly Kern, Director of Communications and
Business Education, presented the public relations activities report for the past month.
Highlights included a review of Hosted Experiences, television programs, and
magazines pieces which featured San Luis Obispo. An increase of pieces covering
travel on the Amtrak Coast Star Light was specifically noted.
Public Comments:
None.
---End of Public Comments---
No action was taken on this item.
Packet Pg 56
6
DRAFT Minutes – Tourism Business Improvement District Board Meeting of May 10, 2017 Page 3
BUSINESS ITEMS
1. 2017-19 Budget Recommendation
Tourism Manager Cano and members of the Management sub-Committee reviewed the
2017-19 budget allocation recommendations from the Management sub-Committee. It
was noted that the Board had previously decided to budget based on a no-growth
assumption from the current budget. The Cal Poly New Student Transition Program
(NSTP), was discussed, along with noting that further consideration of tradeshows by
the Marketing committee is planned.
Public Comments:
None.
---End of Public Comments---
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE-CHAIR PATEL, SECOND BY BOARD MEMBER HARRIS,
CARRIED 4-0, to approve the Budget Recommendation as presented in B1 of the Agenda
Packet.
2. Partnership & Funding Recommendation
The Management sub-Committee partnership recommendations for the San Luis
Obispo Chamber of Commerce, Cal Poly Athletics/Learfield Sports, and the SLO Wine
Country Association were briefly reviewed:
Public Comments:
None.
---End of Public Comments---
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE-CHAIR PATEL, SECOND BY BOARD MEMBER PATEL-
MUELLER, CARRIED (4-0), to approve the Partnership and Funding proposal for the San Luis
Obispo Chamber of Commerce as presented in B2 of the Agenda Packet.
ACTION: MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER PATEL-MUELLER, SECOND BY BOARD
MEMBER HARRIS, CARRIED (4-0), to approve the Partnership and Funding proposal for Cal
Poly Athletics/Learfield Sports as presented in B2 of the Agenda Packet, contingent upon an
exclusive hotel partnership.
ACTION: MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER PATEL-MUELLER, SECOND BY VICE-
CHAIR PATEL, CARRIED 4-0, to approve the Partnership and Funding proposal for the SLO
Wine Country Association as presented in B2 of the Agenda Packet.
Packet Pg 57
6
DRAFT Minutes – Tourism Business Improvement District Board Meeting of May 10, 2017 Page 4
3. Marketing Agency Agreement Amendments
The Management sub-Committee recommendation for additional marketing contract
terms and expenditures were reviewed.
Public Comments:
None.
---End of Public Comments---
ACTION: MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER HARRIS, SECOND BY VICE CHAIR PATEL,
CARRIED 4-0, to approve the marketing agency agreement funding amendments as presented in
B3 of the Agenda Packet.
4. 2017-18 Annual Event Promotion Application
The 2017-18 Annual Event Promotion Application was reviewed.
Public Comments:
None.
---End of Public Comments---
ACTION: MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER PATEL- MUELLER, SECOND BY VICE
CHAIR PATEL, CARRIED 4-0, to approve the application and timeline, contingent on approval
by the Promotional Coordinating Committee.
Packet Pg 58
6
DRAFT Minutes – Tourism Business Improvement District Board Meeting of May 10, 2017 Page 5
5. 2017 IPW Co-op Consideration
The Management sub-Committee presented their recommendation to begin
participation at the 2017 IPW tradeshow with Visit SLO CAL in June 2017, and to
consider it for future events. Tourism Manager Cano reviewed past participation by the
TBID, explained the cost breakdown proposal total of $ 8,125, reviewed line item
budget sources for funding, and described the need to view this as a long-term
investment for participation.
Public Comments:
Bruce Skidmore, Director of Sales and Marketing for Embassy Suites, expressed his
support, noting the value of connections made at this event.
---End of Public Comments---
ACTION: MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER PATEL-MUELLER, SECOND BY BOARD
MEMBER PATEL, CARRIED 3-1 (HARRIS NO), to approve participation at the IPW
tradeshow with representation done by Tourism Manager Cano.
6. Tourism Marketing District (TMD) Board Appointment
The Board discussed the appointment of the SLO TBID representative to the TMD
Board. The position is currently held by Vice Chair Patel and the seat is up for renewal
on July 1, 2017.
Public Comments:
None.
---End of Public Comments---
ACTION: MOTION BY CHAIR WILKINS, SECOND BY BOARD MEMBER HARRIS,
CARRIED (4-0), to approve continued Tourism Marketing District Board representation by Vice
Chair Patel.
TBID LIAISON REPORTS &COMMUNICATIONS
1. Hotelier Update
No reports at this time.
2. Management Committee Update
No further updates at this time.
Packet Pg 59
6
DRAFT Minutes – Tourism Business Improvement District Board Meeting of May 10, 2017 Page 6
3. Marketing Committee Update
No further updates at this time.
4. Promotional Coordinating Committee (PCC) Update
Chair Wilkins reported on the current status of PCC GIA event applications,
encouraged the TBID board members to download and review the SLO Happenings
app, and noted that there are new members on the committee.
5. Visit SLOCAL Update
Tourism Manager Cano reviewed recent activity by the committee, reported the
approval and three-year extension for the CEO, noted that the Conference Center
Feasibility Study was released on May 9, 2017, and noted top web traffic came from
the Los Angeles and Seattle areas.
6. Tourism Program Update
Tourism Manager Cano reviewed the following:
- Recruitment for the open TBID seat is ongoing, with one application received to
date.
- Inaugural flight to Seattle
- Visit SLO CAL Tourism Exchange activities
- CCTC retreat review
- The next Visit California meeting will be held May 31, 2017
- AMGEN Tour of California May 16th activities and downtown “block party”
- Jazz Festival May 20th need for additional ticket sales
- The next Management sub-Committee meeting will be held May 23, 3 pm
- The next Marketing sub-Committee meeting will be held May 25, 10 am
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:21 a.m. The next Regular meeting of the Tourism Business
Improvement District Board is scheduled for Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 10:00 a.m., in the
Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
APPROVED BY THE TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BOARD: XX/XX/2017
Packet Pg 60
6
2017-18 Budget Allocation Recommended by the Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID) Board
* Does not include Staffing & Administration Overhead Fee; the un-appropriated fund balance will not be known
until the entire 2016-17 collection has occurred and the City’s audit has been substantially completed
Campaign Elements/Contractors Budget Allocation Work scope
Contracts $ 935,100
Marketing Contract- BCA/Matchfire $ 833,700
General Marketing Services with
addendum
Chamber of Commerce - PR $ 51,000
Comprehensive program for Public
Relations and Media Relations in
partnership with PCC
Chamber of Commerce - Guest
Services $ 42,000
Guest Services including Telephone
Fulfillment & Availability Assistance;
Promotional Support
Chamber of Commerce - Media
Monitoring Service Fee $ 8,400
Digital targeting, distribution and tracking
service for media
Partnerships $ 116,500
Learfield/Cal Poly Athletics $ 95,500
Partnership for 2017-18: Sponsorship &
Room Costs
SLO Wine Partnership $ 21,000
Partnership for 2017-18: Sponsorship &
Room Costs
Events Promotion $ 119,000
General Events Promotion $ 117,000
Earmarked budget for event sponsorship
commitments
Event Activations $ 2,000
Funds to be used for costs associated
with events
Tradeshows $ 51,000
Trade Shows & Travel Shows $ 45,000
Including: Travel & Adventure Shows;
IPW 2018
Tourism Conferences $ 6,000 Industry Conferences like Outlook Forum
Tourism Organizations/Research $ 5,200
Central Coast Tourism Council -
Membership Fee & Black Diamond $ 2,200 Membership & co-op fees
Smith Travel Report $ 3,000
Daily & Monthly in-county data
comparison reports
Support/ Meetings $ 46,708
Tourism Program Expenses $ 7,000
Expenses associated with program &
database service fee
FAM Trip Hosting $ 6,000
Budget for hosting media and
travel/trade guests
Past Due CP Rooms $ 1,000 Funds for past due rooms
Contingency $ 32,708
Un-allocated budget for opportunity
projects
Total Expenditure $ 1,273,508
Packet Pg 61
6
2017-18 Budget Allocation Recommended by the Promotional Coordinating Committee (PCC)
Campaign Elements/Contractors Budget Allocation Work scope
Grants-in-Aid Program $ 100,000 Funding used for grant awards
Chamber - Grants-in-Aid Support $ 28,000
Marketing and promotional support to
grant recipients
General Events Promotion $ 40,000
Earmarked budget for event sponsorship
commitments
GFL - SLO Happenings Program $ 8,000
Technology & maintenance for SLO
Happenings program
Solve - SLO Happenings Program $ 30,000
Marketing and content support for SLO
Happenings program
General Contract Services $ 5,649
Un-allocated budget for opportunity
projects
Chamber - Visitors Center $ 112,600 Operation of the Visitor Center
PR Contract $ 34,000
Comprehensive program for Public
Relations and Media Relations in
partnership with TBID
City Maps $ 8,750
Production and distribution of tear-off
City Maps
Support Cost $ 5,000 Expenses associated with program
Total Expenditure $ 371,999
* Does not include Tourism Manager Staffing expense
Packet Pg 62
6
Minutes - DRAFT
PROMOTIONAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE
Wednesday, May 10, 2017
Regular Meeting of the Promotional Coordinating Committee
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Promotional Coordinating Committee was called to order on
Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Daniel Levi.
ROLL CALL
Present: Committee Members, Diana Cozzi, Vice-Chair Patricia Loosley, Matthew Wilkins
(5 :37), and Chair Daniel Levi.
Absent: Committee Members Zoya Dixon, Sasha Palazzo, and Jill LeMieux
Staff: Tourism Manager Molly Cano, and Recording Secretary Kevin Christian.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
CONSENT AGENDA
Consent items were reviewed following Presentation Item 1.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER LOOSLEY, SECOND BY COMMITTEE
MEMBER COZZI, CARRIED (4-0) to approve the Consent Agenda items C1 to C8.
C.1 Minutes of the Meeting on April 12, 2017
C.2 Community Promotions Budget Report
C.3 Public Relations Report
C.4 Grants-in-Aid (GIA) Support Report
C.5 Visitors Center Report
C.6 SLO Happenings Promotions Report
Packet Pg 63
6
DRAFT Minutes – Promotional Coordinating Committee Meeting of May 10, 2017 Page 2
C.7 SLO Happenings Technology Report
C.8 TOT Report
PRESENTATIONS
This item was presented following the call for Public Comment On Items Not On the Agenda.
1. SLO Chamber of Commerce Monthly Report
Chamber of Commerce representative Molly Kern, Director of Communications and
Business Education, presented the public relations activities report for the past month.
Highlights included a review of Hosted Experiences, television programs, and
magazines pieces which featured San Luis Obispo. An increase of pieces covering
travel on the Amtrak Coast Star Light was specifically noted.
Public Comments:
None.
---End of Public Comments---
BUSINESS ITEMS
1. 2017-18 SLO Happenings Program Proposals
Contractors for SOLVE and GFL presented their 2017-18 proposals for the SLO
Happenings program based on the direction and work scope requests given by the
committee during the April meeting. SOLVE presented a detailed review of their
proposed promotional strategies along with event promotion outreach strategies, and
responded to committee questions. GFL presented highlights of proposed changes for
2017-18, reviewed ongoing management and maintenance of the app, and responded to
committee questions.
Public Comments:
None.
---End of Public Comments---
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER WILKINS, SECOND BY COMMITTEE
MEMBER LOOSLEY, CARRIED (4-0) to form a task force consisting of Committee Members
Wilkins and Levi for a one month period, to review the SLO Happenings app user experience,
and provide feedback to the contractors.
Packet Pg 64
6
DRAFT Minutes – Promotional Coordinating Committee Meeting of May 10, 2017 Page 3
2. 2017-19 Budget Allocations
Tourism Manager Cano reviewed the proposed budget allocations for the 2017-19
Community Promotions budget.
Public Comments:
None.
---End of Public Comments---
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER LOOSLEY, SECOND BY COMMITTEE
MEMBER COZZI, CARRIED (4-0) to approve the budget as presented (Attachment A).
3. Contractor Agreement Recommendations
The Committee discussed terms of the agreements for the SLO Chamber of Commerce,
SOLVE, and GFL Systems.
By consensus as discussed during presentation of Business Item 1, the Committee
agreed to the overall cost presented by SOLVE and GFL Specific work scope budget
line item discussion will be held during the June meeting following recommendations
to be made by the formed task force.
Public Comments:
None.
---End of Public Comments---
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER WILKINS, SECOND BY COMMITTEE
MEMBER LOOSLEY, CARRIED (4-0) to approve the SLO Chamber of Commerce agreement
for Visitor Center and Public Relations on a 2-year term, GIA Support, and City Maps.
Packet Pg 65
6
DRAFT Minutes – Promotional Coordinating Committee Meeting of May 10, 2017 Page 4
4. 2017-18 Grants-In-Aid (GIA) Preliminary Recommendation
The GIA sub-committee presented their preliminary 2017-18 funding recommendations
reviewing each of the twenty-five applicants. “Comments and Funding Requirements”
notes were modified per committee discussion and will be presented to applicants
during the upcoming special meeting.
Public Comments:
None.
---End of Public Comments---
No action was taken at this time.
5. 2017-18 Annual Event Promotion Application
The committee reviewed the following revised 2017-18 Annual Event Promotion
Application and timeline:
June 19 – application information available
June 21 – special meeting of the Events Promotion subcommittee
July 21 – completed application due
July 31 to August 4 – Events required question and answer session with
subcommittee
August 9 – subcommittee recommendations presented to PCC/TBID
September – grants available to approved organizations
Public Comments:
None.
---End of Public Comments---
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER LOOSLEY, SECOND BY COMMITTEE
MEMBER COZI, CARRIED (4-0) to accept the revised timeline as presented, contingent on
approval by the TBID.
PCC LIAISON REPORTS AND COMMUNICATION
1. Grants In Aid (GIA) Update
No additional reports at this time.
Packet Pg 66
6
DRAFT Minutes – Promotional Coordinating Committee Meeting of May 10, 2017 Page 5
2. TBID Board Report
Committee Member Wilkins reviewed the May 10, 2017 meeting, noting that the Board
approved their budget and approved funding for Tourism Manager Cano to attend the
IPW tradeshow in June.
3. Tourism Program Update
Tourism Manager Cano reviewed the following:
- Inaugural flight to Seattle
- Visit SLO CAL Tourism Exchange activities
- CCTC retreat review
- The next Visit California meeting will be held May 31, 2017
- AMGEN Tour of California May 16th activities and downtown “block party”
- Jazz Festival May 20th need for additional ticket sales
- There will be a special PCC GIA meeting to announce specific grant award
allocation on May 17th.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:29 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Promotional
Coordinating Committee is scheduled for Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 5:30 p.m., in the Council
Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
APPROVED BY THE PROMOTIONAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE: XX/XX/2017
Packet Pg 67
6
ATTACHMENT A
DRAFT Minutes – Promotional Coordinating Committee Meeting of May 10, 2017 Page 6
Budget 2017-19 Amount 2017-18 Projected 2018-19 Projected
Budget 403,609$ 404,688$
Carryover 6,000$
Total Budget 409,609$ 404,688$ -$
Expenditure
2016-2017 2017-18 2018-19 Notes
Expenditure
Grants-in-Aid Program 100,000$ 100,000$
Grants-in-Aid Support 28,000$ 28,000$
Events Promotion 40,000$ 40,000$
SLO Happenings Program
(Tech)15,900$ 8,000$
SLO Happenings Program
(Marketing/Support)30,000$ 30,000$
General Contract Services 13,600$ 5,649$
Visitors Center 103,000$ 112,600$ 112,600$ 2 year request
PR Contract 34,000$ 34,000$ 34,000$
2 year with exisiting 60/40 split
with TBID
Downtown Maps 8,500$ 8,750$
Support Cost 5,000$ 5,000$
Media Monitoring Services -$
$8400 in the proposal- TBID has
covered 100% in past 2 years
Administration (.25 FTE)31,609$ 32,689$ 34,326$
Subtotal Amount 409,609$ 404,688$ 180,926$
Funds Remaining -$ -$ (180,926)$
Total 404,688$ -$
Community Promotions Budget Worksheet
Packet Pg 68
6
Strategic Planning Report
City of San Luis Obispo Promotional Coordinating Committee—January- March 2017
Facilitated by Regenerate Group: BethMarie Ward, CTF
Contents
Workshop Review Pages
ToP® Participatory Strategic Planning .......................... p. 2
Strategic Plan Summary ............................................... p. 3
3 Year Practical Vision ...............................................p. 4-6
Current Reality (underlying contradictions) ................... p. 7
2 Year Strategic Directions ........................................... p. 8
Focused Implementation Pages
Priorities ....................................................................... p. 9
First Year Accomplishments .................................. p. 10-11
First Year Calendar and Responsibilities .............. p. 10-11
90-Day Implementation Steps | Blank Worksheet ....... p. 12
Appendix Pages
Recommendations for Keeping the Plan on Track .. p.13-14
Packet Pg 69
6
City of San Luis Obispo Promotional Coordinating Committee Strategic Plan Report, March 2017
Prepared by BethMarie Ward, CTF Regenerate Group
Page 2 of 14
TECHNOLOGY OF PARTICIPATION® | Participatory Strategic Planning Process
Overarching Question for the Entire Process: How can the Promotional Coordinating Committee, (PCC), be better positioned to improve and
develop projects to support the community independently and in collaboration with the Tourism Improvement Business District, (TBID), and serve as an
effective advisory body to City Council?
Packet Pg 70
6
City of San Luis Obispo Promotional Coordinating Committee Strategic Plan Report, March 2017
Page 3 of 14
Prepared by BethMarie Ward, CTF Regenerate Group
City of San Luis Obispo Promotional Coordinating Committee Strategic Plan
PRACTICAL VISION
What we want to see in place
in the next 3 years…
Strengthened External Relations:
1. Established City Partnerships
2. Enhanced Community Engagement
3. Increased Awareness and Support of PCC
Enhanced, Relevant Programming and
Content:
4. New, Vibrant Projects
5. Effective GIA Program
6. Program Evaluation
CURRENT REALITY
What does our current reality look like in terms
of our strengths and weaknesses to achieve our
practical vision…
We examined our internal strengths and
weaknesses, external opportunities and
threats, and the benefits and dangers of
success. The Current Reality allows us to
examine the current status so that we can
strategically leverage our strengths and
overcome our blocks that may get in the way.
STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS
What will deal with underlying contradictions
and move us towards our vision…
1. Updating and maintaining current
projects.
2. Creating and establishing new projects
that are innovative and relevant to our
community.
3. Improving internal operations and
processes more efficiently.
KEEPING THE PLAN ON TRACK
Recommend planning retreat in January 2018 to review and update the
plan and set 2018-2019 strategic directions and focused implementation
IMPLEMENTATION
What are our priority actions for the first year?
1. Establishing evaluation guidelines
2. Communications plan
3. Review GIA Program
4. Survey local business community
5. SLO Happenings review
6. Identify new partnerships
7. PCC member skillset criteria and succession plan
Packet Pg 71
6
City of San Luis Obispo Promotional Coordinating Committee Strategic Plan Report, March 2017
Prepared by BethMarie Ward, CTF Regenerate Group
Page 4 of 14
PRACTICAL VISION | Definition and Summary
The Practical Vision workshop asks the question:
What do we want to see in place the next 2-3 years
as a result of our efforts?
The vision of an organization is held in part by all its stakeholders. This workshop seeks to bring representatives together to create their shared picture of
the future. The practical vision is the responsive statement of hope within the given environment. It provides a sense of the destination of the effort. It
tells us where we are going, what the accomplishments, outcomes, changes and results are that we are seeking by our efforts.
Our vision is to continuously strengthen external relationships and enhance programming that is relevant to the needs of our community highlighting our
unique regional economy and natural resources.
The PCC conducted a survey to grant/funding recipients, strategic partners, city staff/council members, past PCC members and other advisory body
members. Over 100 surveys were sent out with 34 responses, most whom were GIA recipients. The responses were mainly feedback about the GIA
program experience and ways that the program might be improved. There was a 98% positive response regarding programming and staffing. A more
targeted business survey for finding ways to collaborate with our business community is set in our priorities in the first year to more actively engage
businesses with the promotion of the City of San Luis Obispo.
Packet Pg 72
6
City of San Luis Obispo Promotional Coordinating Committee Strategic Plan Report, March 2017
Prepared by BethMarie Ward, CTF Regenerate Group
Page 5 of 14
3 YEAR PRACTICAL VISION
City of San Luis Obispo Promotional Coordinating Committee Practical Vision Workshop, February 4, 2017
“What do we want to see in place in the next two to three years as a result of our actions?”
Strengthened External Relations: Enhanced, Relevant Programming & Content:
Established City
Partnerships
Enhanced
Community
Engagement
Increased
Awareness &
Support of PCC
New, Vibrant
Projects
Effective GIA
Program
Program
Evaluation
Support public art
i.e.- cows/painted
boxes
Identify
partnerships for
beautification
projects
Partnerships with
Community
Foundation, Art
Obispo/Cultural
orgs, City-Park &
Rec, etc.
Bridge between
the community &
visitors
Map/list promo of
current public
features (public
art, temp displays,
walking tours
Community
academy? Learn
about where you
live
Support Plaza and
Cultural Center
downtown
Neighborhood
support
Identify other
ways to better the
community (not
just events)
PCC members
engaged in $ ask
Council
Educate
community of
what PCC does
(scope)
Community
informed of PCC
accomplishments
Locals are aware
that we exist
Stop saying PCC-
make people say
it: Promotional
Coordinating
Committee!
More funding
Council & staff
buy in of the PCC
vision
More
events/activities
that benefit all
residents!
Service
businesses we
haven’t been
Projects that the
committee is
passionate about
Visitors &
Residents: Free
Wi-Fi downtown
Support evening
events- next
anchor attraction
(local & visitor
friendly)
Vibrant tourist
destination
Best way to fund
marketing
services for GIA
Workshops to
support GIA
applicants with
other agencies
Effective help to
non-profits
Understand &
evaluate the way
we handle PR
Next generation
SLO Happenings-
not just an app.
This data was created in response to the above focus question by members of the City of SLO PCC. The center columns are the areas where the most consensus was reached by the most
data produced by the group. The facilitated process utilized was a ToP® Practical Vision Consensus Workshop, a method of the Institute of Cultural Affairs. Facilitator: BethMarie Ward, CTF,
Packet Pg 73
6
City of San Luis Obispo Promotional Coordinating Committee Strategic Plan Report, March 2017
Prepared by BethMarie Ward, CTF Regenerate Group
Page 6 of 14
VICTORY!
Images of success!
How will we know our plan is successful?
What will be in place in on year? What will
people be saying? What will be happening
because of our actions?
✓ Communication & clear understanding
✓ PCC made a greater difference in the community
✓ Commitment and follow through in our work
✓ PCC knows what they are doing
✓ We’re feeding into the economy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
➢ New category of programs
➢ New appreciation of people
➢ City Pride
➢ San Luis seen as innovative city
➢ Flawless implementation and collaboration
➢ GIA bigger budget
➢ GIA support for recipients
➢ PCC and community partnerships=strong
Packet Pg 74
6
City of San Luis Obispo Promotional Coordinating Committee Strategic Plan Report, March 2017
Prepared by BethMarie Ward, CTF Regenerate Group
Page 7 of 14
CURRENT REALITY
Internal Strengths
Committee members responsive to collaboration
Diverse viewpoints
City support
Fiscally responsible
Various networking contributions
Thought, deliberate decision making
Molly
Commitment
Internal Weaknesses
Limited budget
City’s budget might soften
Satisfaction funding granted
Possible decreased enthusiasm for existing projects
Lack of ability to pursue projects with less resources
Limited communication with elected
Additional staff support decrease
City capacity/limitation
Committee member turnover = less history
External Opportunities
New relationship with City Council
New relationships with businesses
New events
Informed about new businesses in town for new
opportunities
New programs
Regional Business: Wine/Beer/Spirits
External Threats
Lack of City Council funding/support
Rebellion of established non-profits that might not like
changes
Competition with media and other organizations
Too much success encouraging tourism: local vs. tourists
City limitation
Benefits of Success
Positive city image
Well- rounded cultural offerings
Increased city departmental collaboration
Larger contribution to economic development
More opportunities for business/community engagement
Increased budgets
Internal & external satisfaction
Dangers of Success
Upset non-profits
Setting the bar higher might make it harder to maintain
quality
More funding, less programming quality
More responsibility for PCC and staff
More expectations and visibility requires more time
commitments
Packet Pg 75
6
Prepared by BethMarie Ward, CTF Regenerate Group
Page 8 of 14
ty of San Luis Obispo Promotional Coordinating Committee Strategic Plan Report, March 2017
➢ Analyze/ review SLO Happenings App projects
➢ Develop and improve marketing plan for GIA events
➢ Create and expand promotions throughout SLO County cities
➢ Survey local businesses to collaborate with them
➢ Identify new community service project in partnership with another city department
➢ Provide support for Downtown Master Plan
➢ Create new, innovative category
➢ Identify possible partnerships and categorize purpose
➢ Establish more effective evaluation method for current programming &contracts
➢ Determine skill set needed for new PCC members & recruit
➢ Develop a communication plan
➢ Prioritize and set budget for long term goals
Action removes the doubt that theory and analysis cannot solve. In signing up to work on a ‘strategic direction’ and scheduling
actions and accomplishments, commitment and realism are brought into the planning efforts. The journey of implementation is
mapped out and steps are decided which will begin the realization of our vision.
This data was generated on February 19, 2017 by the City of SLO PCC Session #3—Strategic Directions and Focused Implementation Workshop facilitated
by BethMarie Ward, Regenerate Group. Data is synthesized by top 7 priorities for Fiscal Year 2017-2018 and color coded by three strategic directions:
1) Updating and Maintaining Current Projects 2) Creating and Establishing New Projects 3) Improving Internal Operations
Ci Strategic Directions focus question: What innovative, substantial actions will deal with our Current Reality and
move us toward our vision?
towards…Improving
Internal Operations
towards…Updating
and maintaining
current projects
towards...Creating and
establishing new
projects
Packet Pg 76
6
City of San Luis Obispo Promotional Coordinating Committee Strategic Plan Report, March 2017
Page 9 of 14
Prepared by BethMarie Ward, CTF Regenerate Group
FOCUSED IMPLEMENTATION | Priorities | July 2017- August 2018
Focus Question: “What will our specific, measurable accomplishments be for our first year?” We generated Specific, Measurable, Actions, Results
Oriented and Timebound.
This prioritization data was set in the Focused Implementation Workshop on February 19, 2017.
SLO Happenings Review
October
Review GIA Program-
July &
Communications Plan-
July Establish
evaluation
guidelines- July Survey Local Business Community-
August
PCC member skillset
criteria and succession
plan November
Identify new
partnerships January
Packet Pg 77
6
City of San Luis Obispo Promotional Coordinating Committee Strategic Plan Report, March 2017
Prepared by BethMarie Ward, CTF Regenerate Group
Page 10 of 14
SLO PCC – Timeline—Year One Priorities
Strategic Direction
Project by Priority
Victory July-Sept
2017
Oct-Dec
2017
Jan-Mar
2018
April-June
2018
Resources Needed
Current Projects/
Review GIA
Make
improvements
GIA Support
Launch July
Review existing survey
results
Review current program
components/ application
process
Identify needed
changes
Council
approval
if needed
Implement
changes
PCC
Molly
External Support
Survey data
Budget
Internal/ Evaluation
Process
PCC knows what
they’re doing
Committee has a
clear
understanding
Launch July
Identify who/what we
need to evaluate— July
(PCC)
Create criteria for
evaluation- July (PCC)
Create tool to use for
evaluation- August
(Molly)
Implement
evaluation
Oct(quarter)
(PCC)
Review
program
evaluation
(quarter)
Nov.
(PCC)
Molly
Committee
Internal/
Communication Plan
Communication
Clear
understanding
Follow Through
Launch July
Define the purpose of
the plan- July (PCC)
Form a taskforce to
draft Communication
Plan- July (PCC)
Define who the
Present draft
plan- Oct.
(Taskforce)
Approve &
implement-
Nov. (PCC)
Taskforce & time
Molly
PCC
Packet Pg 78
6
City of San Luis Obispo Promotional Coordinating Committee Strategic Plan Report, March 2017
Prepared by BethMarie Ward, CTF Regenerate Group
Page 11 of 14
message needs to go
to- July- PCC
Identify what we need to
communicate- July
(PCC)
Write the draft plan
Aug-Sept. (Taskforce)
Current Projects/SLO
Happenings Review
PCC made
difference in the
community
Launch Oct.
Assess current
program based
on needs and
goals
Identify
program
changes
Develop RFP
Complete, release
RFP
Identify contractor
Committee
Molly
Task Force
New Projects/
Survey Local
Businesses &
Community
Feeding into the
economy
PCC made
difference in the
community
Launch Nov.
Develop survey
Develop
stakeholder
database
Release survey
Collect results
Analyze results Survey
Molly
Committee
Stakeholder
New
Projects/Identify
New Partnerships
Communication
and clear
understanding
Launch April
Use survey results
for discussion and
prioritization for
2019
Molly
Committee
Survey results
Internal/ PCC
Member Skillset
Criteria and
Succession Plan
PCC knows what
we are doing
Launch Nov.
Evaluate current
description
Identify areas
for
opportunities
and updates
Committee
participation
and
recruitment
Chair/Vice
Chair
participation
interview/selec
tion
Develop
onboarding
plan
Onboarding
committee
members
Molly
Committee
Council liaisons
Clerk’s office
New members
Packet Pg 79
6
City of San Luis Obispo Promotional Coordinating Committee Strategic Plan Report, March 2017
Prepared by BethMarie Ward, CTF Regenerate Group
Page 12 of 14
FOCUSED IMPLEMENTATION | 90-Day Implementation Steps | Blank Worksheet
STRATEGIC DIRECTION ACCOMPLISHMENT/ ACTION
INTENT: (ARTICULATE ONCE MORE...WHY ARE WE DOING THIS?) START DATE END DATE
IMPLEMENTATION STEPS (HOW)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
WHO WHEN WHERE
COORDINATOR COLLABORATORS/ PARTNERS EVALUATION MEASURES BUDGET NEXT MEETING DATE
Packet Pg 80
6
City of San Luis Obispo Promotional Coordinating Committee Strategic Plan Report, March 2017
Prepared by BethMarie Ward, CTF Regenerate Group
Page 13 of 14
Recommendations for Keeping the Plan on Track
Strategic planning bears the most fruit when seen as both a planning retreat or event and a continuous process in which the plan is regularly reviewed, evaluated and
refined. The following Quarterly Evaluation flow will be crucial in keeping the City of San Luis Obispo Promotional Coordinating Committee plan “on track” for monitoring
and evaluation purposes.
Quarterly Evaluation and Refinement Sessions:
Check into affirm accomplishments, acknowledge struggles, capture learnings, make adjustments, build anticipation, and establish commitment for the next
quarter.
The face-to-face nature of this event is very important. Memos, emails, and other forms of communication do not allow for adequate team building and
consensus building.
These Quarterly Evaluation events work best if everyone who is involved in the implementation attends. At minimum, those responsible for the
accomplishments should attend quarterly evaluation and refinement sessions
Invisible benefits often include strengthening the organization’s learning process and allows for system-wide adjustment to unforeseen influences that must be
considered.
Annual Planning:
The 4th Quarter evaluation is the time to do a new 12-month plan.
Review the whole year
Develop plan for the next year
Celebrate, celebrate, celebrate!
Proposed Planning Rhythm:
Objectives: Assess accomplishments, plan for the next period; affirm and re-energize individuals and teams
Product/Outcome: Clear tasks and roles for the next period
Quarterly Planning Event Agenda:
Review Vision, Obstacles, Strategic Directions
Evaluation of 90-Day Plans – accomplishments? What didn’t getdone,
blocks, learning, implications
Plan for the next 90 Days – Measurable accomplishments on quarterly
timeline, 90-day action plan for each accomplishment
Annual Planning Event Agenda
Review Vision, Obstacles, Strategic Directions
Evaluation of 90-Day Plans – accomplishments? What didn’t getdone,
blocks, learning, implications
Development of measurable accomplishments for next 12 monthson
quarterly calendar
Plan for next 90 Days (first quarter, new year)
Packet Pg 81
6
City of San Luis Obispo Promotional Coordinating Committee Strategic Plan Report, March 2017
Prepared by BethMarie Ward, CTF Regenerate Group
Page 14 of 14
The Facilitator
Thank you for this opportunity to work with you all and congratulations on your plan!
Kind regards,
-BethMarie Ward, Regenerate Group
Please contact us at:
BethMarie Ward, MA, CTF
Regenerate Group
www.regenerategroup.com
bmw@regenerategroup.com
612-210-5657
Packet Pg 82
6
SPECIAL MEETING Minutes - DRAFT
PROMOTIONAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE
Wednesday, May 17, 2017
Special Meeting of the Promotional Coordinating Committee
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Promotional Coordinating Committee was called to order on
Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 5:34 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Vice Chair Patricia Loosley.
ROLL CALL
Present: Vice-Chair Patricia Loosley and Committee Members Diana Cozzi, Matthew Wilkins,
Jill LeMieux, Zoya Dixon, and Sasha Palazzo.
Absent: Chair Daniel Levi.
Staff: Tourism Manager Molly Cano.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Public comment from:
Vanessa Martinez, Downtown Association, spoke regarding Santa’s House, Holiday Parade,
Concerts in the Plaza
Tom Mitchell, SLO Railroad Museum, spoke regarding Central Coast Railroad Festival and Elf
Express
Vicki Carroll, The Monday Clubhouse Conservatory, spoke regarding Becoming Julie Morgan
event
Cozy Faber, SLO Classical Academy, spoke regarding An Evening of Story Telling with Jim
Wiess
Brian Asher Alhadeff, Opera San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding Madame Butterfly
Andrea Castillo and Chris Milfen, Performing Arts Center, spoke regarding Family Day
Patty Thayer, SLO Little Theatre, spoke regarding Introducing the San Luis Obispo Repertory
Theatre
Packet Pg 83
6
DRAFT Minutes – Promotional Coordinating Committee Meeting of May 17, 2017 Page 2
Leslie McKinley, United Way of SLO County, spoke regarding Flavors of SLO
Dave Kastner, Central Coast Shakespeare Festival, spoke regarding Summer Plays 2017
Susan Poteet, Foundation for San Luis Obispo County Public Libraries, spoke regarding Book
and Author Series
Denise Leader Stoeber, Cal Poly Arts, spoke regarding American Masters Series
Diane Marchetti, SLO Railroad Museum, spoke regarding Central Coast Railroad Festival and
Elf Express
BUSINESS ITEMS
1. GRANTS-IN-AID 2017-18 ALLOCATIONS
The committee presented the preliminary recommendation for the 2017-18 Grants-In-
Aid grant funding allocations. Vice-Chair Loosley introduced the item and noted that
the committee meet during our regular monthly meeting on May 10 and reviewed the
initial recommendations made by the GIA subcommittee. There were no proposed
changes made to recommended allocations. The committee commented and
acknowledged the work the applicants did to complete the applications.
Public Comments:
---End of Public Comments---
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER MATTHEW WILKINS, SECOND BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER JILL LEMIEUX, CARRIED (6-0) to recommend to City the approval
of the 2017-18 GIA awards as presented, excluding the Downtown Association’s grants for
Santa’s House, Concerts in the Plaza and the Holiday Parade.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER JILL LEMIEUX, SECOND BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER DIANA COZZI, CARRIED (5-0-1) to recommend to City Council
the approval of the 2017-18 GIA awards for the Downtown Association’s grant requests for 2017
Santa’s House, 2017 Concerts in the Plaza and the 2017 Holiday Parade. (Committee Member
Zoya Dixon was recused from voting on this item.)
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5:59 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Promotional
Coordinating Committee is scheduled for Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 5:30 p.m., in the Council
Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
APPROVED BY THE PROMOTIONAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE: XX/XX/2017
Packet Pg 84
6
Packet Pg 85
6
Organization Event(s)Event Dates
Special
Meeting
2017-18
Request
2017-18 Funding
Recommendation Comments & Funding Requirements
1
Associated Quilt Guilds of the
Central Coast (AQGCC)Seven Sisters Quilt Show June 23 & 24, 2018 YES $7,500.00 $4,300.00
Starting sustainably track. Funding to be used toward
the overall media plan as presented on the
application.
2
Cal Poly Corporation (for Cal Poly
Arts)
Cal Poly Arts "Masters of
American Music" Series
(2017-2018)
September 22, 2017; January
16, 2018; February 26, 2018;
+ 2 additional dates TBD YES $12,000.00 $10,000.00
Funding to be used toward the media plan as
presented on the application. Grant funding is to be
divided to $2k per show.
3 Canzona Women's Ensemble
Canzona Women's Ensemble
Concerts
November 5, 2017, March 4,
2018 YES $4,785.00 $3,925.00
Starting sustainably track. Funding to be used toward
the media plan as presented on the application with
the exception of the allocation for constant contact
service. Funding may not to be used for constant
contact service fee.
4 Central Coast Shakespeare Festival Shakespeare Under the Stars
July 13, 2017 - August 6,
2017 YES $9,570.00 $8,000.00
Funding to be used toward the media plan as
presented on the application with the exception of
the allocation for consultant services. Funding may
not to be used for consultant services.
5 Cuesta College Foundation
Friends of the CPAC 7th
Annual Gala November 12, 2017 YES $5,000.00 $5,000.00
Funding to be used toward the overall media plan as
presented on the application.
Committee Note: sold out event in 16/17, committee
encourages the event to look for ways to expand
participation.
6
Foundation for San Luis Obispo
County Public Libraries
Library Foundation Book &
Author Series (2017-2018)
September 30, 2017; April
15, 2018; TBD YES $12,000.00 $6,000.00
Funding to be used toward the media plan as
presented on the application.
7 History Revisited
Central Coast Renaissance
Festival July 15-16, 2017 YES $8,000.00 $8,000.00
Funding to be used toward the media plan as
presented on the application.
8 Opera San Luis Obispo
Madam Butterfly: A Citywide
Arts Collaboration October 14-15, 2017 YES $12,000.00 $4,000.00
2nd year of the sustainably track. Funding to be used
toward the media plan as presented on the
application.
9 Orchestra Novo
Labor Day Weekend Pops
Concert September 3, 2017 YES $6,549.00 $4,000.00
Funding to be used toward the media plan as
presented on the application.
10
Performing Arts Center, San Luis
Obispo Family Day at the PAC April 14, 2018 YES $5,000.00 $3,000.00
Funding to be used toward the media plan as
presented on the application.
11
Saint Andrew Greek Orthodox
Church An Evening in Greece October 21, 2017 NO $4,500.00 $0.00
No funding due to not attending the mandatory
meeting.
12
Saint Andrew Greek Orthodox
Church San Luis Greek Festival June 2nd - 3rd, 2018 NO $4,500.00 $0.00
No funding due to not attending the mandatory
meeting.
13 San Luis Obispo Classical Academy
An Evening of Story with Jim
Wiess January 12, 2018 YES $6,500.00 $6,000.00
Funding to be used toward the media plan as
presented on the application.
14 San Luis Obispo Little Theatre
Introducing the San Luis
Obispo Repertory Theatre July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2018 YES $12,000.00 $7,000.00
Funding to be used toward the media plan as
presented on the application.
15 San Luis Obispo Railroad Museum
Central Coast Railroad
Festival and Elf Express
October 7-15, 2017;
December 2, 2017 YES $7,500.00 $5,000.00
2nd year of the sustainably track. Funding to be used
toward the media plan as presented on the
application.
16 San Luis Obispo Soccer Club
SLO Summer Classic - Girls
Edition August 4-6, 2017 YES $4,000.00 $2,000.00
Funding to be used toward the media plan as
presented on the application.
Committee Note: Based on the similarity of the event
and target outreach, the committee suggests
combining the advertising for both Aug tourament.
Grant funding should be used to promote both
tournaments.
17 San Luis Obispo Soccer Club
SLO Summer Classic - Boys
Edition August 11-13, 2017 YES $4,000.00 $0.00 See above
18 San Luis Obispo Soccer Club SLO Junior's Classic April 6-8, 2018 YES $4,000.00 $2,000.00
Funding to be used toward the media plan as
presented on the application.
19 San Luis Obispo Symphony
New Year's Eve Celebration
and Concert December 31, 2017 NO $10,000.00 $0.00
No funding due to not attending the mandatory
meeting.
20
San Luis Obispo Vocal Arts
Ensemble 2017-2018 Season
December 2017, April 2018,
June 2018 YES $3,500.00 $3,500.00
Starting sustainably track. Funding to be used toward
the media plan as presented on the application.
Committee Note: It was recognized by the committee
that the event reduced ask on their own to adhere to
the sustainability track. Thank you!
21 SLO Downtown Association 42nd Annual Holiday Parade December 1, 2017 YES $6,473.00 $2,500.00
Funding to be used toward the media plan as
presented on the application.
22 SLO Downtown Association
Santa's House (25th
Anniversary!)
Friday, November 24th -
Sunday, December 24th
2017 YES $4,935.00 $4,000.00
Anniversary year for the event. Funding to be used
toward the media plan as presented on the
application.
23 SLO Downtown Association
22nd Annual Concerts in the
Plaza
Fridays, June 9th -
September 8th, 2017 YES $7,991.00 $2,500.00
Funding to be used toward the media plan as
presented on the application.
24
The Monday Clubhouse
Conservancy Becoming Julia Morgan October 6-8, 2017 YES $7,500.00 $1,500.00
Funding to be used toward the media plan ($1000) &
programs only ($500).
25 United Way & Rotaract Flavors of SLO 2018 May 5-6, 2018 YES $10,000.00 $7,775.00
Anniversary year for the event. Funding to be used
toward the media plan as presented on the
application with the exception of the allocation for
GoDaddy expenses and Thank You ad. Funding may
not to be used for GoDaddy expenses and Thank You
ad.
Total $179,803.00 $100,000.00
$0.00
Packet Pg 86
6
Meeting Date: 7/5/2017
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Emily Creel, Contract Planner
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR THE
PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR
THE PROPOSED FROOM RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED
ENTITLEMENTS (SPEC-0143-2017; 12165 AND 12393 LOS OSOS VALLEY
ROAD)
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Authorize the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Froom Ranch Specific Plan and
related project entitlements; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to award a consultant services agreement with the consultant
that best responds to the RFP in terms of qualifications, cost, and approach to the project
analysis.
DISCUSSION
Background
The Froom Ranch property, a 110-acre site located immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road
between U.S. Highway 101 and the Irish Hills Plaza, is one of three sites identified in the 2014
Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update as requiring the preparation of a Specific
Plan prior to annexation and development (Land Use Element Specific Plan Area 3 – Madonna
on LOVR).
Initiation of the Specific Plan process was authorized by the City Council on April 5, 2016 , with
the understanding that preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) would be required (detailed background
information including City Council and Planning Commission Minutes and Agenda Reports are
available in Attachment C for reference). The draft Request for Proposals (Attachment A) and
Initial Study (Attachment B) incorporate direction provided by the City Council at the Specific
Plan authorization request hearing, including but not limited to, the scope of the EIR and
identification and evaluation of specific project alternatives.
The City envisions CEQA compliance for the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project to be a Project
EIR that tiers from and addresses potential environmental effects and project alternatives not
included in the Final Program EIR prepared for the LUCE Update. The LUCE EIR did not
include site-specific analyses for the Froom Ranch Specific Plan site, and the applicant’s request
includes elements that differ from the performance standards and assumptions identified in the
LUCE Update and associated Final Program EIR, including:
Packet Pg 87
7
1) Development above the 150-foot elevation, which would require consideration of a
General Plan Amendment to modify the current language presented in LUE Irish Hills
Hillside Protection Policy 6.4.7.H;
a. The EIR will include evaluation of a complete and feasible alternative for
development below the 150-foot elevation.
2) A Life Plan Community (also known as a Continuing Care Retirement Community); and,
3) Realignment and restoration of Froom Creek.
The successful EIR consultant must be prepared to critically evaluate the LUCE EIR and
determine the extent to which it can be used as the basis for tiering. Staff will welcome creative
input from consultants regarding issues that will require special focus, and ways to streamline
future development proposals within the Specific Plan area. If approved by Council, the RFP will
be published on the City’s website and distributed to consultants with relevant experience in the
preparation of tiered, project-level EIRs with similar environmental issues and constraints on the
Central Coast.
CONCURRENCES
The Draft RFP and Initial Study incorporate comments provided by other City Departments
including Public Works (Transportation), Fire, Utilities, Parks and Recreation, and
Administration (Natural Resources). The Draft RFP and Initial Study also incorporate review
comments provided by the City Council, Planning Commission, Cultural Heritage Committee,
and Parks and Recreation Commission during pre-application and conceptual reviews of the
project.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The issuance of an RFP for consultant services is not a project under CEQA, and therefore, no
environmental review is required.
FISCAL IMPACT
The applicant for the Froom Ranch Specific Plan and related entitlements will enter into a
Reimbursement Agreement with the City and will be responsible for the costs of the Project EIR,
including the City’s administrative fees. Therefore, the RFP would have no fiscal impact on the
City.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Provide direction regarding an amended RFP and continue authorization of the RFP to a date
uncertain. This alternative is recommended if the City Council would like to review and consider
major revisions to the RFP.
2. Provide direction regarding an amended RFP and authorize the RFP based on finalization and
approval by the Community Development Director. This alternative is recommended if the
Council provides direction resulting in minor revisions to the RFP.
Packet Pg 88
7
3. Decline to authorize an RFP and provide direction to staff as to whether the work should be
done “in house” or deferred to a future time. This is not recommended because staff does not
have the resources to prepare the EIR in-house, the applicant has submitted a Specific Plan and it
is the appropriate time to begin the environmental review process, and the City Council assumed
that preparation of an EIR would be required upon authorization of the Specific Plan process.
Attachments:
a - Froom Ranch Specific Plan Request for Proposal
b - Froom Ranch Specific Plan Initial Study
c - Council Reading File - Specific Plan Initiation Agenda Minutes and Agenda Reports
April 5, 2016
Packet Pg 89
7
Notice Requesting Proposals
for Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project
Specification No. 0143-2017
The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting proposals to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project. All proposals must
be received by the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department at 919 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, CA 93401 by 3:00 P.M. on _______________, 2017.
Proposals received after said time will not be considered. To guard against premature opening, each proposal
package must be submitted to the Community Development Department in a sealed envelope plainly marked with
the request title, specification number, Consultant name, and time and date of the pr oposal opening. Proposals
must be submitted using the forms provided in the specification package.
Obtaining a Specification Package
Download from the City’s Web site www.slocity.org - Bids & Proposals link
Questions
Contact Contract Planner Emily Creel at (805) 543-7095 x6814 or ecreel@swca.com, or Associate Planner
Shawna Scott at (805) 781-7176 or sscott@slocity.org with any questions regarding this Request for Proposals.
Disadvantaged Business Participation
DBE and other small businesses as defined in Title 49 CFR 26, are encouraged to participate in the performance
of agreements financed in whole or in part with federal funds.
Packet Pg 90
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 2 of 30
Specification No. 0143-2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section A ....................................................................................................................................................................3
DESCRIPTION OF WORK .........................................................................................................................................3
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.................................................................................................................. 13
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................................................................... 13
CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION ........................................................................................................... 14
PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS .......................................................................................... 15
PROPOSAL CONTENT ...................................................................................................................................... 15
PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONSULTANT SELECTION ......................................................................... 16
FORM OF AGREEMENT ........................................................................................................................................ 17
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORMS .......................................................................................................................... 25
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...................................................................................................................................... 25
INSURANCE CERTIFICATE .............................................................................................................................. 25
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................ 26
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................... 27
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: Consultant Services ........................................................................................... 29
Packet Pg 91
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 3 of 30
Section A
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
The City is requesting proposals from consultants to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project. The project includes
a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and related actions that would allow for the development of the Froom
Ranch Specific Plan Area, including annexation into the City of San Luis Obispo .
Please refer to the following link for available background information:
www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/documents-online/environmental-
review-documents/-folder-1911
Background
Site Overview
The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area consists
of two parcels, totaling approximately 110
acres (APNs 067-241-030 and 067-241-031)
within unincorporated San Luis Obispo
County, and adjacent to City of San Luis
Obispo (City) city limits. The Specific Plan
Area is within the City’s Sphere of Influence
and a portion of the site is within the City’s
Urban Reserve Line. The site is located
immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road
between U.S. Highway 101 and the Irish Hills
Plaza.
The Specific Plan area is primarily
undeveloped with the exception of an
assemblage of historical ranch and dairy
structures on the portion of the site, including
the John Madonna Construction office (within
the historic Main Residence) directly south of
Home Depot. The site also includes
unimproved roads, construction staging and
materials storage areas, a quarry area, and
stormwater detention basins that treat runoff
from the adjacent Irish Hills Plaza.
Development of the project site is constrained by a variety of existing resources and conditions, including: an
historic ranch complex; Froom Creek, which generally bisects the site from north to south; existing agricultural
and open space easements; onsite wetlands; substantial stormwater flows from the Irish Hills Plaza and adjacent
Irish Hills Natural Reserve; steep slopes; archaeological resources; and current General Plan restrictions on
development over the 150-foot elevation (see Land Use Element Policy 6.4.7.H. Hillside Planning Areas, The Irish
Hills area).
Packet Pg 92
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 4 of 30
General Plan Basis
Froom Ranch is identified in the City of San Luis Obispo Land Use Element as Specific Plan Area 3 (SP -3,
Madonna on LOVR), and is subject to preparation of a Specific Plan to accommodate development proposals and
address pertinent issues within the Specific Plan Area. The Specific Plan Area is within the City’s Sphere of
Influence and the General Plan anticipates annexation of this area into the City. The Land Use Element requires
that a Specific Plan be adopted prior to annexation. Guidance for the project is found in Chapter 8, Section 8.1.5,
of the Land Use Element. This section states the following (in added italics):
8.1.5. SP-3, Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Area
Location: This site includes just over 111 acres and is located directly west of the int ersection of Los Osos Valley
Road and Calle Joaquin.
Purpose: The purpose of the specific plan is to provide design flexibility that will secure the appropriate
development of the site while protecting sensitive environmental resources on the site. Develo pment on the site
should be a compact, mixed use project that provides workforce housing options and neighborhood commercial
uses that support pedestrian and bicycle access. The specific plan for this area should consider and address the
following land use and design issues.
a. Develop a design that is sensitive to environmental constraints and adjusts accordingly through
design. Constraints include wetland protection, slope protection, historic structures, and open
space protection.
b. Maintain viewshed of surrounding mountains and secure steeper hillsides as protected open
space areas.
c. Variable height limits will be required to protect views of adjacent hills.
d. Provide access to trails.
e. Provide a plan for adequate and safe infrastructure, including appropriate points of access to Los
Osos Valley Road.
f. Address neighborhood commercial needs of new neighborhood.
g. Provide connectivity to adjacent development.
Performance Standards: This specific plan shall meet the following performance standards.
Type Designations
Allowed % of Site Minimum1 Maximum
Residential (Mixed
Use)
MDR
MHDR
HDR
200 units 350 units
Commercial NC
CR
50,000 sf 350,000 sf
Parks PARK
Open
Space/Agriculture
OS
AG
Minimum 50%
Public n/a
Infrastructure n/a
1 There can be a reduction in the minimum requirement based on specific physical and/or
environmental constraints.
Packet Pg 93
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 5 of 30
Initiation of the Specific Plan and Advisory Body Review
As described below (Proposed Project Overview), the applicant envisions a Specific Plan that differs somewhat
from the performance standards identified in the Land Use Element. The City Council considered this change in
vision for the area, and authorized initiation of the S pecific Plan on April 5, 2016. The Council generally supported
the concept to reduce the amount of commercial development within the Specific Plan area, and the development
of a Life Plan Community within the City. The City Council specifically identified the need for a Project Design
Alternative that complies with existing Land Use Element Policy 6.4.7.H. (Hillside Planning Areas, The Irish Hills
area), which states that “The Irish Hills area should secure permanent open space with no building sites above
the 150-foot elevation, in conjunction with any subdivision or development of the lower areas. (See also Section 8,
Special Focus Areas)”. Following initiation by the City Council, the applicant presented preliminary plans to the
Parks and Recreation Commission and Cultural Heritage Committee.
The City encourages prospective consultants review past agenda report packages and meeting minutes, which
are available at the following link:
www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/documents-online/environmental-
review-documents/-folder-1911
Proposed Project Overview
Froom Ranch is envisioned as a primarily residential project with some commercial development in the northeast
portion of the site closest to Los Osos Valley Road and the adjacent Irish Hills Plaza. A major component of the
planned residential uses is a Life Plan Comm unity (LPC) known as Villaggio. Villaggio would provide a variety of
different unit types for independent senior housing as well as access to higher levels of care such as Assisted
Living, Memory Care, and Skilled Nursing, when needed. Additional residential uses in the northern portion of the
site will be multiple-family. As required by the Land Use Element, a minimum of the project site must be
designated as Open Space; the current Plan designates approximately 51% of the site as Open Space. The
Specific Plan also includes a Neighborhood Trailhead Park to connect to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, which
may incorporate onsite historic structures. The treatment and potential use of the historic structures is currently
under evaluation by the applicant.
Table 1 identifies the land uses proposed within the Specific Plan area. The proposed project includes the
following land use/zoning designations, currently under review by the City:
Residential Land Use Zones
R-3-SP – Medium-High Density Residential
R-3-LP-SP – Medium-High Density Residential Life Plan Community
R-4-SP – High-Density Residential
Non-Residential Land Use Zones
CR-SP – Commercial Retail
C/OS-SP – Conservation/Open Space
PF-SP – Public Facilities
Packet Pg 94
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 6 of 30
Table 1 Proposed Froom Ranch Specific Plan Land Use and Zoning Summary
Land Use Zoning Acres Density Potential
Units
Potential
Square
Feet
RESIDENTIAL
Medium-High Density Residential
- Multi-family units R-3-SP 5.3 20 du/ac 130
Medium-High Density Residential –
Life Plan Community
- Independent living
- Assisted living units
- Health Center including assisted
care, memory care, and skilled
nursing
- Ancillary facilities such as
recreation center, restaurants, and
theaters (26,000 sf)
R-3-LP-SP 31.5 20 du/ac
- 61 villas
- 108
garden
apts.
- 150 apts.
- 47 village
suites
- 38
assisted
living
units
- 51
memory
care and
skilled
nursing
beds
40,000
High-Density Residential
- Multi-family apartments R-4-SP 1.9 24 du/ac 44
Residential Subtotal 38.7 578
NON-RESIDENTIAL
Commercial Retail
- 30,000 sf commercial
- 70,000 sf hotel (120 rooms)
CR-SP 3.5 100,000
Conservation/Open Space C/OS-SP 59.01
Public Facilities
- Neighborhood Park P-F-SP 2.9
Other (Roads) 5.6
Non-Residential Subtotal 71.0
TOTAL 109.7
1 Includes proposed project open space (51.3 acres) as well as existing open space easement (7.1 acres)
Relationship of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR to the LUCE Final EIR
The City updated its Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) and approved a Final Program Environmental
Impact Report for the LUCE in 2014. The City envisions CEQA compliance for the Froom Ranch Specific Plan to
be a Project EIR that tiers from the Final Program EIR prepared for the LUCE Update. It is acknowledged that the
LUCE EIR did not examine the Froom Ranch site in great detail, but it did identify a series of programmatic
impacts and mitigation measures (primarily Citywide with some site-specific measures) that may or may not apply
to development on the Froom Ranch site. The successful consultant must be prepared to critically evaluate the
LUCE EIR and determine the extent to which it can be used as the basis for tiering. The successful candidate
must also consider the potential use of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project EIR to tier future environmental
analysis required for specific development proposals within the Specific Plan Area. The City is interested in
hearing ideas on how the Specific Plan EIR can be structured to provide the best tool for the City to use in the
environmental review of later development proposals at Froom Ranch.
Packet Pg 95
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 7 of 30
In your proposal, please discuss examples of projects where your firm’s key personnel have applied this type of
expertise. The City is seeking clear and concise writing, a simplified organizational framework for t he analysis,
and discussion of how the LUCE EIR and Specific Plan EIR can be used to streamline current and future
environmental reviews. Please provide examples demonstrating your key personnel’s experience related to
preparing Project EIRs that tier from Program EIRs for General Plans , preparing Specific Plan EIRs or similar
EIRs that can be used to streamline future development proposals, experience preparing CEQA documentation
for projects within the City’s sphere of influence, and familiarity with the City’s LUCE, LUCE EIR, and other
applicable planning documents.
The LUCE Final EIR was certified on September 16, 2014. A copy of the Final EIR may be found at the City’s
website at:
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/planning-zoning/general-plan
Prospective EIR consultants are encouraged to examine the adopted LUCE and LUCE EIR documents available
on the City’s website. It should not be assumed that all issues that need to be examined in the Froom Ranch
Specific Plan EIR were identified in the LUCE EIR. The City has drafted an Initial Study for the Froom Ranch
Specific Plan Project and welcomes creative input from consultants regarding which issues (in your firm’s opinion)
will require special focus, and ways to streamline the CEQA process to the extent possible through the Froom
Ranch Specific Plan EIR.
Key Issues to be Addressed in EIR
The EIR will be a full-scope document, which covers all environmental issue areas as summarized in the
preliminary Initial Study and as required by State CEQA Guidelines Article 9, Contents of Environmental Impact
Reports. Please ensure your scope of work includes an Energy section or chapter (refer to State CEQA
Guidelines Appendix F: Energy Conservation for additional guidance). In addition, the following anticipated key
issues are highlighted and summarized below.
Potential Impacts to Environmental Resources Due to Development Above the 150-foot Elevation
The applicant’s request includes a General Plan Amendment to modify the current language presented in LUE
Policy 6.4.7.H to allow for hillside development above the 150 -foot elevation. The applicant presented preliminary
visual simulations during the initiation hearings for this project; these graphics are available for review through the
link to available background information provided above. Please note that independent visual simulations
completed by the retained EIR consultant will be required to fully and independently evaluate potential impacts.
The EIR shall evaluate the potential impacts to visual, biological, and hydrological resources, potential geologic
and soils hazards, and consistency with plans and policies specifically identified to protect these sensitive
resources. Additional analysis conducted by the retained EIR consultant, including photo simulations of the
proposed development within the hillside context will be necessary to determine if the project could be designed
to protect hillside views, consistent with LUE hillside development policies and LUE resource protection policies,
Open Space Policies protecting scenic vistas, and Circulation Element policies which call for the protection of
views from roadways designated as having scenic value.
Potential Impacts as a Result of Froom Creek Realignment
The proposed project includes the realignment and restoration of Froom Creek within the property boundaries,
and construction of pathways. City creeks and wetlands management objectives applicable to Froom Creek
include:
“A. Maintaining and restoring natural conditions and fish and wildlife habitat;
B. Preventing loss of life and minimizing property damage from flooding;
C. Providing recreational opportunities which are compatible with fish and wildlife habitat, flood protection,
and use of adjacent private properties.
D. Recognizing and distinguishing between those sections of creek s and Laguna Lake which are in
urbanized areas, such as the Downtown core, and sections which are in largely natural area s. Those
Packet Pg 96
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 8 of 30
sections already heavily impacted by urban development and activity may be appropriate for multiple
use whereas creeks and lakeshore in a more natural state shall be managed fo r maximized ecological
value” (LUE Section 6.6.1 Creek and Wetlands Management Objectives).
City staff and the applicant have met with resource agencies including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and
California Department of Fish and Wildlife to review conceptual plans and determine preliminary information that
will be required for the agencies to formally respond to the project. Key considerations incl ude review of
hydrological modeling to determine the gradient and width necessary to provide suitable conditions for steelhead
migration from the upper pools of Froom Creek, through the project site, and connecting with San Luis Creek.
Additional project details and technical information will be provided by the applicant (refer to Available Supporting
Documents, below), which shall be peer reviewed by the retained EIR consultant. In addition, additional analysis
required to ensure consistency with regulati ons specific to floodway and floodplain management will be submitted
by the applicant and peer reviewed by the retained EIR consultant, in coordination with the City Public Works
Department (refer to Available Supporting Documents, below).
Potential Impacts to Historic Resources
The Froom Ranch Historic Complex is located within the project site, approximately at and below the 150 -foot
elevation line. This complex is not currently accessible to the public, and is generally blocked from public view.
The applicant submitted an evaluation of prehistoric and historic resources present on the project site (First
Carbon Solutions 2015), which determined that the Froom Ranch complex (seven structures) is historically
significant under National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, and City of San
Luis Obispo Historic Resources criteria. The LUE states that the proposed project design should be sensitive to
environmental constraints, including historic structures, and adjust acco rdingly through design. The Conservation
and Open Space Element (COSE) provides additional specific policy direction including the following:
• “Significant historic and architectural resources should be identified, preserved, and rehabilitated.
• Historically or architecturally significant buildings shall not be demolished or substantially
changed in outward appearance, unless doing so is necessary to remove a threat to health and
safety and other means to eliminate or reduce the threat to acceptable levels are infeasible.
• Buildings and other cultural features that are not historically significant but which have historical
or architectural value should be preserved or relocated where feasible. Where preservation or
relocation is not feasible, the resource shall be documented and the information retained in a
secure but publicly accessible location. An acknowledgement of the resource should be
incorporated within the site through historic signage and the reuse or display of historic materials
and artifacts.
• Changes or additions to historically or architecturally significant buildings should be consistent
with the original structure and follow the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Buildings. New buildings in historical districts, or on historically significant sites, should
reflect the form, spacing and materials of nearby historic structures. The street appearance of
buildings which contribute to a neighborhood’s architectural character should be maintained ”
(COSE Section 3.2 and 3.3, Historical and Architectural Resources and Policies).
Further review by the Cultural Heritage Committee and full analysis of historic resources in the EIR will be
necessary. The EIR shall include an evaluation of the proposed pr oject, in addition to feasible alternatives to
mitigate potential impacts to historic resources. The EIR shall also provide a preliminary assessment of the
project’s consistency with the General Plan and Historic Preservation Ordinance and Guidelines.
Project Alternatives
The EIR shall include project alternatives, which would avoid or minimize potentially significant environmental
effects. As directed by the City Council, the EIR shall include a project alternative that locates all development
below the 150-foot elevation line. The City has requested this design alternative from the applicant for
incorporation and analysis in the EIR. The Alternatives Analysis shall also include an Alternative that retains and
restores Froom Creek in its current location. In order to present actionable alternatives in the EIR, the alternatives
Packet Pg 97
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 9 of 30
chapter shall be comprehensive, provide clear descriptions and graphics , and clearly identify potential impacts,
associated levels of significance, and identification of the mitigation measures tha t would be required to reduce
potential impacts.
Cumulative Impacts
The EIR shall evaluate project-specific and cumulative impacts, in addition to secondary effects that may occur as
a result of implementation of mitigation measures and conditions of approval. The scope of work approach shall
identify how cumulative impacts will be addressed in the EIR, noting the two large development projects (San Luis
Ranch and Avila Ranch) currently under review by the City, in addition to existing and reasonably foreseeable
development such as the build-out of the four Gearhart parcels (located at the terminus of Calle Joaquin Road,
adjacent to the City Farm and proximate to San Luis Ranch).
Available Supporting Documents
The following technical studies have been prepared to support the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project and are
available online at:
www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/documents-online/environmental-
review-documents/-folder-1911
Draft Froom Ranch Specific Plan (RRM 2017)
Preliminary Exhibits (RRM 2016)
Preliminary Initial Study of Froom Ranch Specific Plan (City of San Luis Obispo)
Section 106 Prehistoric Report (FirstCarbon Solutions 2015) – please contact Emily Creel directly to
review this confidential report
Biological Resources Inventory (Kevin Merk Associates, LLC 2016)
Delineation of Waters of the United States and State of California (Kevin Merk Associates, LLC 2015)
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2016)
Preliminary Transportation Analysis (Central Coast Transportation Consulting 2015)
Preliminary Engineering Geology Investigation (GeoSolutions, Inc. 2016)
Preliminary Soils Engineering Report (GeoSolutions, Inc. 2016)
In addition, the applicant is in the process of completing the following additional studies to support the Froom
Ranch Specific Plan. These will be made available to the EIR preparers upon their completion and submittal to
the City:
Subsurface Fault Investigation and Development Setback Map (John Kammer)
Structural Analysis of Historic Structures (Stork, Wolfe & Associates)
Updated Visual Simulations (RRM)
Updated Transportation Analysis (Central Coast Transportation Consulting)
Water Supply Assessment (RRM)
Water Demand and Sewer Flows Analysis (RRM)
Froom Creek Geomorphology Study (RRM)
Froom Creek Hydrology Study (RRM)
Froom Creek Preliminary Planting Concepts and Plant List (RRM)
In addition to these applicant-prepared studies, the City Public Works Department will be issuing a separate RFP
for the preparation of a multi-modal transportation impact study (TIS) for the project. The TIS will be reviewed and
approved by the City Public Works Department and incorporated into the EIR. No additional peer review by the
EIR consultant is necessary.
Previously prepared studies should be utilized to the greatest extent feasible in the EIR. It should be noted,
however, that the technical studies that have already been prepared and are being prepared may not be sufficient
for evaluating all project-specific impacts associated with the corresponding issue areas. The City recommends
Packet Pg 98
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 10 of 30
that prospective firms review the available documents and include a list of any additional technical studies that are
anticipated to be necessary and include the preparation of those studies in the proposed Scope of Work. The
successful candidate should also clearly explain their proposed approach to utilizing existing reports and how the
peer review process (if necessary) will be managed to maintain the overall project schedule.
Considerations in Presenting Consultant Experience and Personnel
The proposal should focus on the relevant experience of personnel currently at the firm and proposed for the
consultant team, and not the historical experience of the firm. It is the City’s expectation that personnel identified
in a consultant’s proposal will play a major role in the execution of the assignment if the firm is selected. The
proposal should include an appropriate range of senior and junior level staff that realistically reflects the team that
would likely work on the assignment. The proposal can present information about relevant experience and key
personnel in a variety of ways. A recommended approach is to provide a matrix listing key personnel, their
potential roles in preparing the EIR, and associated relative experience. For larger firms, please be realistic about
the effort assigned to company principals or high-level senior staff. For smaller firms, please demonstrate how
your firm has adequate qualified staff to complete an assignment of t his magnitude. The City seeks honest,
transparent, and realistic responses to this RFP relative to a company’s qualifications and its ability to complete
the assignment.
A proposal can, but is not required to, include other firms that would be subconsultants and part of the team i f
selected for the assignment. If your proposal does not address one or another specific type of expertise that may
be required to prepare the EIR (e.g., aesthetics, noise, air quality, cultural resources, biology), please describe
how you intend to address these issues if selected. The proposal should demonstrate that all identified
subconsultants are adequately qualified to complete their identified scope of work and demonstrate how the firm
has successfully worked with these subconsultants in the past.
The successful consultant should be prepared to discuss an approach to maintaining an aggressive EIR schedule
concurrently with finalization of the Specific Plan and details for proposed site development. In your proposal,
please discuss examples of projects where your firm’s key personnel have addressed this issue and successful
approaches to maintain the overall EIR schedule.
Project Management Approach
Please identify your firm’s proposed Project Manager and describe how your firm would address key project
management tasks, including those related to maintaining the EIR schedule, cost control, delegation of tasks,
quality control, and technical review. Provide examples, if applicable, of how your firm ensures that projects are
completed on time and within budget. Explain how your firm envisions interacting with City staff and the applicant
team throughout the EIR process, in a manner that is collaborative but ensures an independent analysis of the
issues. Describe how you intend to manage a process that is cost -effective, timely, efficient, inclusive of public
input, and ultimately produces an EIR that is easily understandable to the public and decision makers. The City
values creativity, clear thinking, and exceptional writing skills in evaluating your approach to project management,
and the EIR process in general.
Please describe your selected Project Manager’s specific experience with similar assignmen ts, and how the
issues described above were addressed. Where past projects presented challenges, please describe how your
Project Manager was able to successfully address them, and how these lessons might be applied to the Froom
Ranch Specific Plan Project.
The selected consultant’s Project Manager will be expected to be the City’s primary point of contact, and must
understand the overall contract agreement and manage paperwork associated with it.
Packet Pg 99
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 11 of 30
Scope of Work
The following section describes the tasks that are anticipated for the preparation of the EIR. Proposers shall
consider the scope and recommend any additional services (such as additional technical studies and/or
investigations) that would meet the intent of the RFP and would assist the Cit y in preparing the EIR for the project
in a streamlined timeframe. Proposers are requested to recommend a strategy to achieve this goal and
incorporate the necessary scope into the tasks described below.
1. Kickoff Meeting and Review of Available Studies and Documentation
2. Prepare Project Description
3. Peer review applicant-prepared technical studies
4. Prepare Technical Studies (identify any additional technical studies anticipated to be necessary/prepared
by the proposer’s team)
5. Prepare Administrative Draft EIR
6. Prepare Public Review Draft EIR
7. Prepare Administrative Final EIR and Response to Comments
8. Prepare Final EIR
9. Prepare CEQA Findings, Notice of Determination (NOD), and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP)
10. Public Hearings
Proposers shall assume up to two rounds of review and comments on Administrative versions of the documents
to be prepared. Additionally, proposers shall be responsible for all document production , draft notices, and
distribution requirements associated with producing and circul ating the Draft EIR and Final EIR. The Draft EIR
shall include the Draft Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The Final EIR shall include the
MMRP and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR. Proposers should assume production of:
- Ten (10) hard copies (body only) and an electronic copy (body and appendices) of the Administrative
Draft EIR
- One (1) electronic copy of the revised Administrative Draft EIR (showing tracked changes)
- One (1) hard copy of the print-check copy of the Draft EIR (body and appendices)
- Twenty (20) hard copies (Draft EIR body only, bound) and 40 electronic copies (CDs; Draft EIR body
and appendices)
- One (1) hard copy (Draft EIR body and appendices, bound)
- One (1) web-ready electronic copy of the Draft EIR and appendices (PDF sections)
- Twenty (20) hard copies (stand-alone, bound) of the Executive Summary of the Draft EIR
- Ten (10) hard copies (body only) and an electronic copy (body and appendices) of the Administrative
Final EIR
- One (1) electronic copy of the revised Administrative Final EIR (showing tracked changes)
- One (1) hard copy of the print-check copy of the Final EIR (body and appendices, bound)
- Twenty (20) hard copies (Final EIR body only, bound) and 40 electronic copies (CDs; Final EIR body
and appendices)
- One (1) web-ready copy of the Final EIR and appendices (PDF sections)
- One (1) electronic copy of the CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Proposers should assume attendance at the following public hearings:
- Bicycle Advisory Committee, assume one hearing (one for the Draft EIR);
- Airport Land Use Commission, assume two hearings (one for the Draft EIR, one for the Final EIR);
- Cultural Heritage Committee, assume two hearings (one for the Draft EIR, one for the Final EIR);
- Parks and Recreation Commission, assume one hearing (one for the Final EIR);
- Planning Commission, assume four hearings (two for the Draft EIR, two for the Final EIR);
- Architectural Review Commission, assume two hearings (two for the Final EIR); and
- City Council, assume two hearings (two for the Final EIR).
Packet Pg 100
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 12 of 30
Schedule
Please provide an estimated schedule detailing your firm’s projected timeline for completing each of the tasks
detailed in the Scope of Work in a timely and efficient manner. The successful candidate should show a
commitment to completing the EIR in an expedited timeframe and provide a clear discussion of their approach to
keeping the EIR on schedule.
Cost of Services
Please provide a detailed fee schedule showing the hourly rates for staff and any other direct materials and
equipment costs that are anticipated for completion of the identified scope of work. The proposed fee schedule
should outline all costs to prepare and distribute the Draft and Final EIR, including duplication and mailing costs,
administrative costs, and travel costs.
Packet Pg 101
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 13 of 30
Section B
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Requirement to Meet All Provisions. Each individual or firm submitting a Proposal (Consultant) shall meet
all of the terms, and conditions of the Request for Proposals (RFP) specifications package. By virtue of its
proposal submittal, the Consultant acknowledges agreement with and acceptan ce of all provisions of the RFP
specifications.
2. Proposal Submittal. Each Proposal must be submitted on the form(s) provided in the specifications package
and accompanied by any other required submittals or supplemental materials. Proposal documents shall be
enclosed in an envelope that shall be sealed and addressed to the Community Development Department,
City of San Luis Obispo, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401. Each submittal shall include three
hard copies and one electronic copy of the proposal, submitted in Adobe Acrobat format on CD or flash drive.
In order to guard against premature opening, the proposal should be clearly labeled with the proposal title,
specification number, name of Consultant, and date and time of proposal opening. No facsimile (fax) or
emailed submittals will be accepted.
3. Insurance Certificate. Each proposal must include a certificate of insurance showing:
a. The insurance carrier and its A.M. Best rating.
b. Scope of coverage and limits.
c. Deductibles and self-insured retention.
The purpose of this submittal is to generally assess the adequacy of the Consultant’s insurance coverage
during proposal evaluation; as discussed under paragraph 12 below, endorsements are not required until
contract award. The City’s insurance requirements are detailed in Section F.
4. Submittal of References. Each proposer shall submit a proposal and references on the form provided in the
RFP package.
5. Statement of Contract Disqualifications. Each proposer shall submit a statement regarding any past
government disqualifications on the form provided in the RFP package.
6. Proposal Withdrawal and Opening. A Consultant may withdraw its proposal, without prejudice prior to the
time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to the City for its withdrawal, in which
event the proposal will be returned to the Consultant unopened. No proposal received after the time specified
or at any place other than that stated in the "Notice Requesting Proposals" will be considered. All qualification
proposals will be opened and declared publicly. Consultants or their representatives are invited to be present
at the opening of the qualification proposals.
7. Submittal of One Proposal Only. No individual or business entity of any kind shall be allowed to make or
file, or to be interested in more than one proposal, except an alternative proposal when specifically requested;
however, an individual or business entity that has submitted a sub -proposal to a Consultant submitting a
proposal, or who has quoted prices on materials to such Consultant, is not thereby disqualified from
submitting a sub-proposal or from quoting prices to other Consultants submitting qualification proposals.
8. Communications. All timely requests for information submitted in writing will receive a written response from
the City. Telephone communications with City staff are not encouraged, but will be permitted. However, any
such oral communication shall not be binding on the City.
9. Alternative Qualification Proposals. When specifically requested, the proposer may submit an alternative
qualification proposal (or proposals) that it believes will also meet the City's project objectives but in a
different way. In this case, the proposer must provide an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of
Packet Pg 102
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 14 of 30
each of the alternatives, and discuss under what circumstances the City would prefer one alternative to the
other(s). If an alternative proposal is submitted, the maximum length of the proposal may be expanded
proportionately by the number of alternatives submitted.
CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION
10. Proposal Retention and Award. The City reserves the right to retain all qualification proposals for a period
of 60 days for examination and comparison. The City also reserves the right to waive non-substantial
irregularities in any proposal, to reject any or all qualification proposals, to reject or delete one part of a
proposal and accept the other, except to the extent that proposals are qualif ied by specific limitations. See the
"Special Terms and Conditions" in Section C of these specifications for proposal evaluation and contract
award criteria. The City may choose to interview any number of qualified consultants as the basis for making
a final selection.
11. Competency and Responsibility of Consultant. The City reserves full discretion to determine the
competence and responsibility, professionally and/or financially, of Consultants. Consultants will provide, in a
timely manner, all information that the City deems necessary to make such a decision.
12. Contract Requirement. The Consultant to whom award is made shall execute a written contract with the City
within ten (10) calendar days after notice of the award has been sent by mail to it at the add ress given in its
proposal. The contract shall be made in the form adopted by the City and incorporated in these specifications.
13. Insurance Requirements. The Consultant shall provide proof of insurance in the form, coverages an d
amounts specified in Section F of these specifications within 10 (ten) calendar days after notice of contract
award as a precondition to contract execution.
14. Business License & Tax. The Consultant must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business license and
tax certificate before execution of the contract. Additional information regarding the City's business license
and tax program may be obtained by calling (805) 781-7134.
15. Failure to Accept Contract. The following will occur if the Consultant to whom the award is made fails to
enter into the contract: the award will be annulled and an award may be made to the next highest ranked
Consultant with whom a responsible compensation is negotiated, who shall fulfill every stipulation as if it were
the party to whom the first award was made.
Packet Pg 103
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 15 of 30
Section C
PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS
PROPOSAL CONTENT
1. Submittal Forms
a. Acknowledgement
b. Certificate of Insurance
c. References
d. Statement of Past Disqualifications
2. Qualifications
a. Experience of your firm in performing CEQA and Planning work for government clients and facilities, any
other qualifications or specialties which you make your firm well -suited in assisting the City for this
assignment.
b. Experience of the staff to be assigned to this work in performing similar services.
c. Redundancy in the company of staff experienced in this type of work .
d. Resumes of the individuals who would be assigned to this work.
e. Proximity and staffing levels of the nearest company office.
f. Statement and explanation of any instances where your firm has been removed from a project or
disqualified from proposing on a project
g. Standard hourly billing rates for consultant and sub-consultant staff
h. Detailed list of services available directly from your firm.
3. Work Program
a. A detailed work program and project schedule is required as part of the proposal. The work program shall
itemize major tasks and work products, responsible staff, special information or studies required, and
special methods or equipment, if any, you anticipate using. The City welcomes creative ideas that might
be useful in the approach to this assignment, which should be based on your key personnel’s past
experience. Procedures should be included showing how the consultant plans to coordinate with key City
staff and responsible and trustee agencies.
b. The work program should identify all other elements of the EIR needed to assure CEQA compliance,
which may not be listed in the scope of work, and should explain how th ese tasks will be accomplished.
The consultant, in consultation with the City’s Project Manager, shall be responsible for the preparation of
the required Notice of Completion & Environmental Transmittal, Environmental Summary Form, and
Notice of Completion of Draft EIR. The consultant will also be responsible for mailing these documents to
relevant agencies and interested citizens, as well as distributing Draft EIRs. The costs for these tasks and
mailing costs should be factored into the total EIR budget.
c. Tentative schedule by phase and task for com pleting the work. Examples of key tasks are: data
collection, data verification and analysis, completion of the Administrative Draft EIR, completion of the
Draft EIR, preparation of responses to comments, attendance at public hearings, and certification of the
Final EIR.
d. Estimated hours for your staff in performing each major phase of the work, including sub -consultants,
organized by major task to be accomplished and by level of employee who will be assigned to do this
work. The time for firm members to attend public hearings where the EIR is considered.
e. Services or data to be provided by the City that is not already identified in the scope of work.
f. Any other information that would assist us in making this contract award decision.
4. Proposal Length and Copies
a. Proposals should be the minimum length to provide the required information. Charts and other short form
approaches to conveying information are encouraged.
Packet Pg 104
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 16 of 30
b. Three printed hard copies of the proposal must be submitted.
c. One Adobe Acrobat format electronic copy must be submitted on CD or flash drive.
PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONSULTANT SELECTION
Proposals will be evaluated by a review committee and the successful consultant will be selected as follows:
Written Proposal Review and Finalist Candidate Selection
Evaluation of the proposals will be based on the following:
1. Understanding of the work involved in completing Project EIRs under CEQA for Specific Plans and
other long-range plans, and how these can most effectively be tiered from Program EIRs on General
Plans and facilitate future tiering opportunities for development proposals within the Specific Plan
Area.
2. The qualifications and experience of your firm’s Project Manager, and your firm’s proposed approach
to Project Management.
3. Demonstrated competence, professional qualifications of proposed staff within the firm assigned to
this project.
4. Recent experience in successfully performing similar services .
5. Ability to work collaboratively with City staff, the project applicant team, and the general public within
the legal requirements of the CEQA process.
6. Demonstrated ability to think clearly and creativity, and to provide succinct analysis that is well -
organized and exceptionally well-written in plain language.
Proposals will be reviewed by a selection committee and ranked in accordance with the above criteria. The
City may choose to conduct consultant interviews to better evaluate the competing proposals, but may
choose a consultant without an interview if one proposal stands out clearly from the others. The City will work
with the selected consultant to finalize a detailed work scope and cost for the purpose of entering into a
contract. If an acceptable scope of work and cost cannot be achieved, the City will work with the second-
ranked consultant to develop an acceptable scope of work and cost proposal that leads to a signed contract.
5. Proposal Review and Consultant Selection Schedule
The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule for proposal review and consultant selection:
Issue RFP.................................................. __________, 2017
Receive proposals ..................................... __________, 2017
Complete proposal evaluation .................. __________, 2017
Consultant Selection ................................. __________, 2017
Packet Pg 105
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 17 of 30
Section D
FORM OF AGREEMENT [EXAMPLE]
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on [day, date, year] by and
between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, and
[CONSULTANT’S NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS], hereinafter referred to as Consultant.
W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, on [date], requested qualifications, work scope, and cost proposal for preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report for the Froom Ranch Specific Plan per Specification No. XX.
WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Consultant submitted a proposal that was accepted by City for said
services.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter
contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and entered, as first written
above, until acceptance or completion of said services.
2. Start and Completion of Work. Individual projects shall be completed in accordance with approved project
schedules.
3. Contract Term. The services identified in this specification will be contracted for by the City based on a
mutually agreed scope of work, cost and schedule to be negotiated between the City and EIR consultant
following consultant selection.
4. Contract Modification. The scope, cost, and schedule of the agreed-upon contract may not be change
except either by City approval of a prior written request by the consultant to respond to changing project
conditions outside the consultant’s control, or as otherwise directed by the City.
5. Work Delays. Should the Consultant be obstructed or delayed in the work required to be done hereunder by
changes in the work or by any default, act, or omission of the City, or by strikes, fire, earthquake, or any other
Act of God, or by the inability to obtain materials, equipment, or labor due to federal government restrictions
arising out of defense or war programs, then the time of completion may, at the City's sole option, be
extended for such periods as may be agreed upon by the City and the Consultant. In the event that there is
insufficient time to grant such extensions prior to the completion date of the contract, the City may, at the time
of acceptance of the work, waive liquidated damages that may have accrued for failure to complete on time,
due to any of the above, after hearing evidence as to the reasons for such delay, and making a finding as to
the causes of same.
6. Termination. If, during the term of the contract, the City determines that the Consultant is not faithfully
abiding by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify the Consultant in writing of such defect
or failure to perform. This notice must give the Consultant a 10 (ten) calendar day notice of time thereafter in
which to perform said work or cure the deficiency.
If the Consultant has not performed the work or cured the deficiency within the ten days specified in the
notice, such shall constitute a breach of the contract and the City may terminate the contract immediately by
written notice to the Consultant to said effect. Thereafter, neither party shall have any further duties,
obligations, responsibilities, or rights under the contract except, however, any and all obligations of the
Packet Pg 106
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 18 of 30
Consultant's surety shall remain in full force and effect, and shall not be extinguished, reduced, or in any
manner waived by the termination thereof.
In said event, the Consultant shall be entitled to the reasonable value of its services performed from the
beginning date in which the breach occurs up to the day it received the City's Notice of Termination, minus
any offset from such payment representing the City's damages from such breach. "Reasonable value"
includes fees or charges for goods or services as of the last milestone or task satisfactorily delivered or
completed by the Consultant as may be set forth in the Agreement payment schedule; compensation for any
other work, services or goods performed or provided by the Consultant shall be based solely on the City's
assessment of the value of the work-in-progress in completing the overall workscope.
The City reserves the right to delay any such payment until completion or confirmed abandonment of the
project, as may be determined in the City's sole discretion, so as to permit a full and complete accounting of
costs. In no event, however, shall the Consultant be entitled to receive in excess of the compensation quoted
in its proposal.
If, at any time during the term of the contract, the City determines that the project is not feasible due to
funding shortages or unforeseen circumstances, the City reserves the right to terminate the contract.
Consultant will be paid compensation due and payable to the date of termination.
7. Ability to Perform. The Consultant warrants that it possesses, or has arranged through subcontracts, all
capital and other equipment, labor, materials, and licenses necessary to carry out and complete the work
hereunder in compliance with any and all applicable federal, state, county, city, and special district laws,
ordinances, and regulations.
8. Sub-contract Provisions. No portion of the work pertinent to this contract shall be subcontracted without
written authorization by the City, except that which is expressly identified in the Consultant’s proposal. Any
substitution of sub-consultants must be approved in writing by the City. For any sub-contract for services in
excess of $25,000, the subcontract shall contain all provisions of this agreement.
9. Contract Assignment. The Consultant shall not assign, transfer, convey or otherwise dispose of the
contract, or its right, title or interest, or its power to execute such a contract to any individual or business entity
of any kind without the previous written consent of the City.
10. Inspection. The Consultant shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to ascertain that the
services of the Consultant are being performed in accordance with the requirements and intentions of this
contract. All work done and all materials furnished, if any, shall be subject to the City's inspection and
approval. The inspection of such work shall not relieve Consultant of any of its obligations to fulfill its contract
requirements.
11. Record Retention and Audit. For the purpose of determining compliance with various laws and regulations
as well as performance of the contract, the Consultant and sub-consultants shall maintain all books,
documents, papers, accounting records and other evidence pertaining to the performance of the contract,
including but not limited to the cost of administering the contract. Materials shall be made available at their
respective offices at all reasonable times during the contract period and for four years from the date of final
payment under the contract. Authorized representatives of the City shall have the option of inspecting and/or
auditing all records. For Federally funded projects, access to records shall also include authorized
representatives of the State and Federal government. Copies shall be furnished if requested.
12. Conflict of Interest. The Consultant shall disclose any financial, business, or other relationship with the City
that may have an impact upon the outcome of this contract, or any ensuing City construction project. The
Consultant shall also list current clients who may have a financial interest in the outcome of this contract, or
any ensuing City construction project which will follow.
The Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest —direct, indirect
or otherwise—that would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the work hereunder. The
Packet Pg 107
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 19 of 30
Consultant further covenants that, in the performance of this work, no sub-consultant or person having such
an interest shall be employed. The Consultant certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest
in performing this work is an officer or employee of the City. It is hereby expressly agreed that, in the
performance of the work hereunder, the Consultant shall at all times be deemed an independent Consultant
and not an agent or employee of the City.
13. Rebates, Kickbacks or Other Unlawful Consideration. The Consultant warrants that this contract was not
obtained or secured through rebates, kickbacks or other unlawful consideration, eith er promised or paid to
any City employee. For breach or violation of the warranty, the City shall have the right in its discretion; to
terminate the contract without liability; to pay only for the value of the work actual ly performed; to deduct from
the contract price; or otherwise recover the full amount of such rebate, kickback or other unlawful
consideration.
14. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Consultant warrants by execution of this contract that no person
or selling agency has been employed, or retained, to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or
understanding, for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or
bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Consultant for the purpose of
securing business. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City has the right to annul this contract without
liability; pay only for the value of the work actually performed, or in its discretion, to deduct from the contract
price or consideration, or otherwise recover the full amount of such commission, percentage, brokerage, or
contingent fee.
15. Compliance with Laws and Wage Rates. The Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and shall
observe and comply with all applicable stat e and federal laws and county and City of San Luis Obispo
ordinances, regulations and adopted codes during its performance of the work. This includes compliance with
prevailing wage rates and their payment in accordance with California Labor Code. For purposed of this
paragraph, “construction” includes work performed during the design and preconstruction phases of
construction, including but not limited to, inspection and land surveying work.
16. Payment of Taxes. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that the Consultant is
required to pay.
17. Permits, Licenses and Filing Fees. The Consultant shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges
and fees, and file all notices as they pertain to the completion of the Consultant’s work. The City will pay all
application fees for permits required for the completion of the project including building and regulatory permit
application fees. Consultant will provide a 10 day notice for the City to issue a check.
18. Safety Provisions. The Consultant shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety established
by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety.
19. Public and Employee Safety. Whenever the Consultant's operations create a condition hazardous to the
public or City employees, it shall, at its expense and without cost to the City, furnish, erect and maintain such
fences, temporary railings, barricades, lights, signs and other devices and take such other protective
measures as are necessary to prevent accidents or damage or injury to the public and employees.
20. Preservation of City Property. The Consultant shall provide and install suitable safeguards, approved by
the City, to protect City property from injury or damage. If City property is injured or damaged resulting from
the Consultant's operations, it shall be replaced or restored at the Consultant's expense. The facilities shall be
replaced or restored to a condition as good as when the Consultant began work.
21. Immigration Act of 1986. The Consultant warrants on behalf of itself and all sub-consultants engaged for
the performance of this work that only persons authorized to work in the United States pursuant to the
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable laws shall be employed in the perfo rmance
of the work hereunder.
Packet Pg 108
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 20 of 30
22. Consultant Non-Discrimination. In the award of subcontracts or in performance of this work, the Consultant
agrees that it will not engage in, nor permit such sub-consultants as it may employ, to engage in
discrimination in employment of persons on any basis prohibited by State or Federal law.
23. Accuracy of Specifications. The specifications for this project are believed by the City to be accurate and to
contain no affirmative misrepresentation or any concealment of fact. Consultants are cautioned to undertake
an independent analysis of any test results in the specifications, as City does not guaranty the accuracy of its
interpretation of test results contained in the specifications package. In preparing its proposal, the Consu ltant
and all sub-consultants named in its proposal shall bear sole responsibility for proposal preparation errors
resulting from any misstatements or omissions in the specifications that could easily have been ascertained
by examining either the project site or accurate test data in the City's possession. Although the effect of
ambiguities or defects in the specifications will be as determined by law, any patent ambiguity or defect shall
give rise to a duty of Consultant to inquire prior to proposal submit tal. Failure to so inquire shall cause any
such ambiguity or defect to be construed against the Consultant. An ambiguity or defect shall be considered
patent if it is of such a nature that the Consultant, assuming reasonable skill, ability and diligence on its part,
knew or should have known of the existence of the ambiguity or defect. Furthermore, failure of the Consultant
or sub-consultants to notify City in writing of specification defects or ambiguities prior to proposal submittal
shall waive any right to assert said defects or ambiguities subsequent to submittal of the proposal.
To the extent that these specifications constitute performance specifications, the City shall not be liable for
costs incurred by the successful Consultant to achieve the project’s objective or standard beyond the
amounts provided therefor in the proposal.
In the event that, after awarding the contract, any dispute arises as a result of any actual or alleged ambiguity
or defect in the specifications, or any other matter whatsoever, Consultant shall immediately notify the City in
writing, and the Consultant and all sub-consultants shall continue to perform, irrespective of whether or not
the ambiguity or defect is major, material, minor or trivial, and irrespective of whether or not a change order,
time extension, or additional compensation has been granted by City. Failure to provide the hereinbefore
described written notice within one (1) working day of Consultant's becoming aware of the facts giving rise to
the dispute shall constitute a waiver of the right to assert the causative role of the defect or ambiguity in the
plans or specifications concerning the dispute.
24. Indemnification for Professional Liability. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Consultant shall
indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City and any and all of its officials, employees and
agents (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, costs and
expenses, including attorney’s fees and cost which ari se out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence,
recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant .
25. Non-Exclusive Contract. The City reserves the right to contract for the services listed in this proposal from
other consultants during the contract term.
26. Standards. Documents shall conform to City Standards and City furnished templates shall be used.
27. Consultant Endorsement. Technical reports, plans and specifications shall be stamped and signed by the
Consultant where required.
28. Required Deliverable Products and Revisions. The Consultant will be required to provide documents
addressing all elements of the EIR work scope, as mutually agreed upon under a contract to be negotiated
between the Consultant and City following consultant selection.
29. Ownership of Materials. Upon completion of all work under this contract, ownership and title to all reports,
documents, plans, specifications, and estimates produced as part of this contract will automatically be vested
in the city and no further agreement will be necessary to transfer ownership to the City. The Consultant shall
furnish the City all necessary copies of data needed to complete the review and approval process.
Packet Pg 109
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 21 of 30
The Consultant is not liable for claims, liabilities, or losses arising out of, or connected with the modification,
or misuse by the City of the machine-readable information and data provided by the Consultant under this
agreement. Further, the Consultant is not liable for claims, liabilit ies, or losses arising out of, or connected
with any use by City of the project documentation on other projects, except such use as may be authorized in
writing by the Consultant.
30. Release of Reports and Information. Any reports, information, data, or other material given to, prepared by
or assembled by the Consultant as part of the work or services under these specifications shall be the
property of City and shall not be made available to any individual or organization by the Consultant without
the prior written approval of the City.
The Consultant shall not issue any news release or public relations item of any nature, whatsoever, regarding
work performed or to be performed under this contract without prior review of the contents thereof by the City
and receipt of the City’s written permission.
31. Copies of Reports and Information. If the City requests additional copies of reports, drawings,
specifications, or any other material in addition to what the Consultant is required to furnish in limited
quantities as part of the work or services under these spec ifications, the Consultant shall provide such
additional copies as are requested, and City shall compensate the Consultant for the costs of duplicating of
such copies at the Consultant's direct expense.
32. Attendance at Meetings And Hearings. Consultant shall attend as many "working" meetings with staff as
necessary to accomplish the work scope tasks. Consultant shall attend workshops with the public, and City
commission, committee or Council meetings as identified in the approved work scope.
33. Permit and Filing Fees. The Consultant shall procure all permits, and licenses, pay all charges and fees and
file all notices necessary as they pertain to the completion of the Consultant’s work. The City will pay all
application fees for permits required for the completion of the project work. The City requires a 10-day notice
to issue a check.
34. Project Proposal Submittal. Upon City request, the Consultant shall submit a proposed work scope,
compensation and schedule within 10 working days. The cost proposal shall include all costs including
miscellaneous direct cost items.
35. Consultant Invoices. The Consultant shall deliver a monthly invoice to the City, itemized by project work
phase or, in the case of on-call contracts, by project title. Invoice must include a breakdown of hours billed
and miscellaneous charges and any sub-consultant invoices, similarly broken down, as supporting detail.
36. Payment. For providing services as specified in this Agreement, City will pay and Consultant shall receive
therefore compensation in a total sum not to exceed the agreed upon project fee. Should the Consultant’s
work products contain errors or deficiencies, the Consultant shall be required to correct them at no increase in
cost to the City.
The Consultant shall be reimbursed for hours worked at agreed-upon hourly rates. Hourly rates include direct
salary costs, employee benefits, overhead and fee. In addition, the Consultant shall be reimbursed for direct
costs other than salary and vehicle cost that have been identified and are attached to this agreement. The
Consultant’s personnel shall be reimbursed for per diem expenses at a rate not to exceed that currently
authorized for State employees under State Department of Personnel Administration rules.
37. Payment Terms. The City's payment terms are 30 days from the receipt and approval of an original invoice
and acceptance by the City of the materials, supplies, equipment or services provided by the Consultant (Net
30).
38. Resolution of Disputes. Any dispute, other than audit, concerning a question of fact arising under this
contract that is not disposed of by agreement shall be decided by a committee consisting of the City’s Project
Manager and the City Director of Public Works, who may consider w ritten or verbal information submitted by
Packet Pg 110
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 22 of 30
the Consultant. Not later than thirty days after completion of all deliverables necessary to complete the plans,
specifications and estimate, the Consultant may request review by the City Council of unresolved claims or
disputes, other than audit, in accordance with Chapter 1.20 Appeals Procedure of the Municipal Code.
Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under an audit of this contract that is not disposed of by
agreement, shall be reviewed by the City’s Chief Fiscal Officer. Not later than 30 days after issuance of the
final audit report, the Consultant may request a review by the City’s Chief Fiscal Officer of unresolved audit
issues. The request for review must be submitted in writing.
Neither the pendency of a dispute, nor its consideration by the City will excuse the consultant from full and
timely performance in accordance with the terms of this contract.
39. Agreement Parties.
City: Derek Johnson
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Consultant:
All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid by registered or
certified mail addressed as shown above.
40. Incorporation by Reference. The City Request for Proposal Specification # 91343 and Consultant's
proposal are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement.
41. Amendments. Any amendment, modification or variation from the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing
and shall be effective only upon approval by the Community Development Director.
42. Working Out of Scope. If, at any time during the project, the consultant is directed to do work by persons
other than the City Project Manager and the Consultant believes that the work is outside of the scope of the
original contract, the Consultant shall inform the Project Manager immediately. If the Project Manager and
Consultant both agree that the work is outside of the project scope and is necessary to the successful
completion of the project, then a fee will be established for such work based on Consultant's hourly billing
rates or a lump sum price agreed upon between the City and the Consultant. Any extra work performed by
Consultant without prior written approval from the City Project Manager shall be at Co nsultant's own expense.
43. Complete Agreement. This written agreement, including all writings specifically incorporated herein by
reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto. No oral agreement,
understanding or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated herein shall be of any
force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding or representation be binding upon the
parties hereto. For and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinbefore mentioned to be made
and performed by City, Consultant agrees with City to do everything required by this Agreement, the said
specification and incorporated documents.
Packet Pg 111
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 23 of 30
Authority to Execute Agreement. Both City and Consultant do covenant that each individual executing this
agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute Agreements for such
party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day a nd year first
above written.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO: CONSULTANT:
Katie Lichtig, City Manager By:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
Packet Pg 112
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 24 of 30
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg 113
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 25 of 30
Section E
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORMS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The undersigned declares that she or he:
Has carefully examined the Proposal Specification
Is thoroughly familiar with its content
Is authorized to represent the proposing firm; and
Agrees to perform the work as set forth in the specification and this proposal.
Firm Name and Address:
Contact Name:
Email:
Fax: Phone:
Signature of Authorized Representative:
Date:
INSURANCE CERTIFICATE
Insurance Company’s A.M. Best Rating
Certificate of insurance attached
Packet Pg 114
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 26 of 30
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS
The Consultant shall state whether it or any of its officers or employees who have a proprietary interest in it, has
ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a federal, state, or local
government project because of the violation of law, a safety regulation, or for any other reason, including but not
limited to financial difficulties, project delays, or disputes regarding work or produc t quality, and if so to explain the
circumstances.
Do you have any disqualification as described in the above paragraph to declare? Yes No
If yes, explain the circumstances.
Executed on ______________________at _______________________________________ under penalty of
perjury of the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.
______________________________________
Signature of Authorized Consultant Representative
Packet Pg 115
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 27 of 30
REFERENCES
Number of years engaged in providing the services included within the scope of the specifications under the
present business name: ________________________________________________.
Describe fully the last three contracts performed by your firm that demons trate your ability to provide the services
included with the scope of the specifications. Attach additional pages if required. The City reserves the right to
contact each of the references listed for additional information regarding your firm's qualificati ons.
Reference No. 1
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Project Outcome
Reference No. 2
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Packet Pg 116
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 28 of 30
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Project Outcome
Reference No. 3
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Project Outcome
Packet Pg 117
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 29 of 30
Section F
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: Consultant Services
The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to
persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work
hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or sub -consultants.
Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 20 10 Prior to 1993 or
CG 20 10 07 04 with CG 20 37 10 01 or the exact equivalent as determined by the City).
2. Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto).
3. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance.
4. Errors and Omissions Liability insurance as appropriate to the consultant's profession.
Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than:
1. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If
Commercial General Liability or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general
aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the
required occurrence limit.
2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
4. Errors and Omissions Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence.
Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and
approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or
self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant
shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense
expenses.
Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed
to contain, the following provisions:
1. The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects:
liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed
operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned,
leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of
protection afforded to the City, its officers, official, employees, agents or volunteers.
2. For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as
respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance
maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers shall be excess of the
Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3. The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is
brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.
4. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be
suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days
prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. The Consultant
agrees to notify the City in the event that the policy is suspended, voided or reduced in coverage or limits. A
minimum of 30 days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, will be provided.
Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than
A:VII.
Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with a certificate of insurance showing maintenance of
the required insurance coverage. Original endorsements effecting general liability and automobile liability
coverage required by this clause must also be provided. The endorsements are to be signed by a person
Packet Pg 118
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 30 of 30
authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements are to be received and approved by
the City before work commences.
Packet Pg 119
7
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For SPEC-0143-2017
1. Project Title:
Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Emily Creel, Contract Planner and City Project Manager
(805) 543-7095 x6814
ecreel@swca.com
Shawna Scott, Associate Planner (Staff Liaison)
(805) 781-7176
sscott@slocity.org
4. Project Location:
The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area consists of two parcels, totaling approximately 110 acres
(APNs 067-241-030 and 067-241-031) within unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, and
adjacent to City of San Luis Obispo (City) city limits. The Specific Plan Area is within the City’s
Sphere of Influence and a portion of the site is within the City’s Urban Reserve Line. The site is
located immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road between U.S. Highway 101 and the Irish Hills
Plaza.
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
John Madonna Construction, Inc.
P.O. Box 5310
San Luis Obispo, California, 93406
Packet Pg 120
7
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
2
6. General Plan Designations:
Currently unincorporated; designated in 2014 Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) of the
City’s General Plan as New Specific Plan Area 3 (SP-3, Madonna on LOVR).
7. Zoning:
Currently unincorporated; would require pre-zoning for Specific Plan. Currently proposed Specific
Plan designations include Medium-High Density Residential, Medium-High Density Residential
Life Plan Community, High Density Residential, Commercial Retail, Conservation/Open Space,
and Public Facilities. Consideration of these proposed zones are under review by the City.
8. Description of the Project:
The project includes a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and related actions that would
allow for the development of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area. Froom Ranch is identified as
Specific Plan 3 (SP-3, Madonna on LOVR) in the City’s General Plan and is subject to preparation
of a Specific Plan to accommodate development proposals and address pertinent issues within the
Specific Plan Area. The Land Use Element requires that a Specific Plan be adopted prior to
annexation. Guidance for the project is found in Chapter 8, Section 8.1.5, of the Land Use Element.
This section states the following (in added italics):
8.1.5. SP-3, Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Area
Location: This site includes just over 111 acres and is located directly west of the
intersection of Los Osos Valley Road and Calle Joaquin.
Purpose: The purpose of the specific plan is to provide design flexibility that will secure
the appropriate development of the site while protecting sensitive environmental resources
on the site. Development on the site should be a compact, mixed use project that provides
workforce housing options and neighborhood commercial uses that support pedestrian and
bicycle access. The specific plan for this area should consider and address the following
land use and design issues.
a. Develop a design that is sensitive to environmental constraints and adjusts
accordingly through design. Constraints include wetland protection, slope
protection, historic structures, and open space protection.
b. Maintain viewshed of surrounding mountains and secure steeper hillsides as
protected open space areas.
c. Variable height limits will be required to protect views of adjacent hills.
d. Provide access to trails.
e. Provide a plan for adequate and safe infrastructure, including appropriate points
of access to Los Osos Valley Road.
f. Address neighborhood commercial needs of new neighborhood.
g. Provide connectivity to adjacent development.
Packet Pg 121
7
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
3
Performance Standards: This specific plan shall meet the following performance
standards.
Type Designations
Allowed % of Site Minimum1 Maximum
Residential (Mixed Use) MDR
MHDR
HDR
200 units 350 units
Commercial NC
CR
50,000 sf 350,000 sf
Parks PARK
Open Space/Agriculture OS
AG
Minimum 50%
Public n/a
Infrastructure n/a
1 There can be a reduction in the minimum requirement based on specific physical and/or environmental
constraints.
Initiation of the Specific Plan and Advisory Body Review
As described below (Proposed Project Overview), the applicant envisions a Specific Plan that
differs somewhat from the performance standards identified in the Land Use Element. The City
Council considered this change in vision for the area, and authorized initiation of the Specific Plan
on April 5, 2016. The Council generally supported the concept to reduce the amount of commercial
development within the Specific Plan area, and the development of a Continuing Care Retirement
Community or Life Plan Community within the City. The City Council specifically identified the
need for a Project Design Alternative that complies with existing Land Use Element Policy
6.4.7.H. (Hillside Planning Areas, The Irish Hills area), which states that “The Irish Hills area
should secure permanent open space with no building sites above the 150-foot elevation, in
conjunction with any subdivision or development of the lower areas. (See also Section 8, Special
Focus Areas)”. Following initiation by the City Council, the applicant presented preliminary plans
to the Parks and Recreation Commission and Cultural Heritage Committee. Past agenda report
packages and meeting minutes are available at the following link:
www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/documents-
online/environmental-review-documents/-folder-1911
Proposed Project Overview
Froom Ranch is envisioned as a primarily residential project with some commercial development
in the northeast portion of the site closest to Los Osos Valley Road and the adjacent Irish Hills
Plaza. A major component of the planned residential uses is a Life Plan Community (LPC) known
as Villaggio. Villaggio would provide a variety of different unit types for independent senior
housing as well as access to higher levels of care such as Assisted Living, Memory Care, and
Skilled Nursing, when needed. Additional residential uses in the northern portion of the site will
be multiple-family. As required by the Land Use Element, a minimum of 50% of the project site
must be designated Open Space; the current Plan designates approximately 51% of the site as Open
Space. The Specific Plan also includes a Neighborhood Trailhead Park to connect to the Irish Hills
Natural Reserve, which may incorporate on-site historic structures. The treatment and potential
use of the historic structures is currently under evaluation by the applicant.
Packet Pg 122
7
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
4
Table 1 identifies the land uses proposed within the Specific Plan area. The proposed project
includes the following land use/zoning designations, currently under review by the City:
Residential Land Use Zones
R-3-SP – Medium-High Density Residential
R-3-LP-SP – Medium-High Density Residential Life Plan Community
R-4-SP – High-Density Residential
Non-Residential Land Use Zones
CR-SP – Commercial Retail
C/OS-SP – Conservation/Open Space
PF-SP – Public Facilities
Table 1 Proposed Froom Ranch Specific Plan Land Use and Zoning Summary
Land Use Zoning Acres Density Potential
Units
Potential
Square Feet
RESIDENTIAL
Medium-High Density Residential
- Multi-family units R-3-SP 5.3 20 du/ac 130
Medium-High Density Residential –
Life Plan Community
- Independent living
- Assisted living units
- Health Center including assisted
care, memory care, and skilled
nursing
- Ancillary facilities such as
recreation center, restaurants, and
theaters (26,000 sf)
R-3-LP-SP 31.5 20 du/ac
- 61 villas
- 108
garden
apts.
- 150 apts.
- 47 village
suites
- 38
assisted
living
units
- 51
memory
care and
skilled
nursing
beds
40,000
High-Density Residential
- Multi-family apartments R-4-SP 1.9 24 du/ac 44
Residential Subtotal 38.7 578
NON-RESIDENTIAL
Commercial Retail
- 30,000 sf commercial
- 70,000 sf hotel (120 rooms)
CR-SP 3.5 100,000
Conservation/Open Space C/OS-SP 59.01
Public Facilities
- Neighborhood Park PF-SP 2.9
Other (Roads) 5.6
Non-Residential Subtotal 71.0
TOTAL 109.7
1 Includes proposed project open space (51.3 acres) as well as existing open space easement (7.1 acres)
Packet Pg 123
7
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
5
Additional project elements include:
General Plan Amendment to modify Land Use Element Policy 6.4.7.H to allow for development
above the 150-foot elevation;
Realignment and restoration of Froom Creek;
The creation of a new drainage/stormwater basin off-site (Mountainbrook Church property); and
Internal circulation, trails, parking, utilities, and other infrastructure to support the project.
9. Project Entitlements:
The following entitlements and reviews would be required to implement the project:
1. General Plan Amendment/Pre-Zoning
2. Specific Plan
3. Development Plan/Vesting Tentative Tract Map(s)
4. Architectural Review
5. Annexation
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
Lands surrounding the Specific Plan Area generally consist of the Irish Hills Natural Reserve (open
space and recreation) and unincorporated undeveloped rural and agricultural lands to the west,
urban development to the north and east in the City of San Luis Obispo, and a mix of urban
development and undeveloped/agricultural land to the south. Development north, south and east
of the Specific Plan Area in the City of San Luis Obispo includes large shopping centers, auto
dealerships, hotels, roadways, parking lots, and other urban infrastructure. Existing uses
surrounding the site are as follows:
West: Irish Hills Natural Reserve
North: Irish Hills Plaza shopping center and associated parking
East: Los Osos Valley Road, auto dealerships, Bear Valley Commercial Center
South: Hotel/lodging facilities, Margie’s Diner, Mountainbrook Community Church,
Calle Joaquin, U.S. Highway 101.
11. 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?
The project application has not been completed and the City has not yet sent formal notices or
initiated consultation pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1. Upon
determining the application is complete, the City will provide formal notification to all tribes
traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area of the opportunity to request consultation
pursuant to this section. The City will also conduct consultation pursuant to Senate Bill 18
(Government Code Sections 65352.3 and 65562.5).
Packet Pg 124
7
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
6
12. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) – annexation
Airport Land Use Commission – Airport Land Use Plan consistency review
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Nationwide or Individual Permit
Regional Water Quality Control Board – Section 401 Water Quality Certification
California Department of Fish and Wildlife –Section 1600 Lake and Streambed Alteration
Agreement, State Endangered Species Act compliance
Air Pollution Control District – possibly construction and operational permits
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Federal Endangered Species Act compliance
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries – Federal
Endangered Species Act compliance
Packet Pg 125
7
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
7
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
X Aesthetics X Greenhouse Gas Emissions X Population / Housing
X Agriculture Resources X Hazards & Hazardous Materials X Public Services
X Air Quality X Hydrology / Water Quality X Recreation
X Biological Resources X Land Use / Planning X Transportation / Traffic
X Cultural Resources Mineral Resources X Tribal Cultural Resources
X Geology / Soils X Noise X Utilities / Service Systems
X Mandatory Findings of Significance
FISH AND WILDLIFE FEES
The Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect determination
request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife, or habitat (see
attached determination).
X
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been
circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
X
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State
agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15082).
Packet Pg 126
7
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
8
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made,
by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. X
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant” impact(s) or “potentially
significant unless mitigated” impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Tyler Corey¸ Principal Planner For: Michael Codron,
Printed Name Community Development Director
Packet Pg 127
7
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
9
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 Impact” answer should be explained where
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors
to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. 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 effect may be significant. If there
are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the 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 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.
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. 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
Packet Pg 128
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
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 2016
10
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 4, 5, 34 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, 5, 34 X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of the site and its surroundings? 4, 34 X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 2 X
a), b), c) The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area is located immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road between U.S.
Highway 101 and the Irish Hills Plaza. The project site is located within Hillside Planning Area H Irish Hills. The approximately
110-acre Froom Ranch Specific Plan area is characterized by relatively flat grassland areas that transition to steeper slopes before
approaching City open space property at the base of the Irish Hills. The topography of the project site ranges from approximately
110-120 feet near Los Osos Valley Road to 450 feet in the upper elevations. The majority of the property is undeveloped but
includes an assemblage of historic ranch and dairy structures on part of the site directly south of Home Depot in the adjacent Irish
Hills Plaza shopping center. The existing structures are currently used as an office (main ranch house) and equipment storage yard
to support the John Madonna Construction Company, Incorporated business. The property also includes unimproved roads,
staging and materials storage areas, a quarry area, and a stormwater detention facility for the neighboring Irish Hills Plaza.
Surrounding views consist of the Irish Hills Shopping Plaza and other commercial development, open space hillsides in the Irish
Hills Natural Reserve, and surrounding roadways. The site is highly visible from Los Osos Valley Road and U.S. Highway 101,
which is designated as a high value scenic resource in the City’s Circulation Element. The entire length of U.S. Highway 101 that
extends from Highway 46 in Paso Robles to the southern boundary of San Luis Obispo County is also identified by the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as an eligible California State Scenic Highway (though not officially designated).
Development of the site, as outlined in the Project Description, would result in increased urbanization of the existing viewshed
along the Los Osos Valley Road and could potentially block or obstruct existing public views of the area and surrounding hillsides.
This could represent a major change in the aesthetic character of the project site and an intensification of the urban character of
the project vicinity.
A significant component of the project is the applicant’s request for a General Plan Amendment to allow development above the
150-foot elevation. The applicant’s current land use exhibit shows a portion of the LPC extending to the 250-foot elevation and
residential uses extending to the 180-foot elevation. Approximately 44.3 percent (48.61 acres) of the project site is located above
the 150-foot elevation. Modification of the existing development limit line would allow development in the upper elevations of
the Irish Hills above the 150-foot elevation. The language specifying the 150-foot elevation development limit was carried forward
into the 2014 LUE from the City’s previously adopted Land Use Element (adopted August 23, 1994 and revised June 15, 2010).
The 1994 Land Use Element included a Hillside Planning Policies and Standards section; the purpose of this section was to
“protect and preserve scenic hillside areas and natural features, set boundaries for commercial and residential development in
sensitive hillside areas by creating a permanent open space greenbelt at the edge of the community, and to protect the health,
safety and welfare of community residents by directing development away from areas with hazards”. The Hillside Policies
identified in the 2014 LUE focus on “where and how some hillsides may be developed” (refer to LUE Chapter 6 Resource
Protection).
The Land Use and Circulation Element Update (LUCE) EIR provides an analysis of each proposed Specific Plan area, including
the project site. Potential visual impacts identified in the LUCE EIR, specific to SP-3 (the project site), include the following:
Development of the site, as outlined in the proposed LUCE Update, could result in increased urbanization of the existing
viewshed along the Los Osos Valley Road and could potentially block or obstruct existing public views. However,
implementation of the proposed LUCE Update policies, and the existing City policies identified below, would reduce
impacts to less than significant levels.
Development of the area, as outlined in the proposed LUCE Update, has the potential to result in increased urbanization
of an undeveloped area which could degrade the existing visual character and its surroundings. However, implementation
of the proposed LUCE Update policies, and the existing City policies identified below, would reduce impacts to less than
significant levels.
Packet Pg 129
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
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 2016
11
Development of the area could result in increased ambient nighttime lighting through the addition of residential and
commercial uses and associated structural development in a primarily undeveloped area. However, implementation of
the proposed LUCE Update policies, and the existing City policies identified below, would reduce impacts to less than
significant levels.
Therefore, the less than significant impact determinations in the LUCE FEIR specific to visual impacts were based on compliance
with policies included in the LUE, such as the 150-foot development limit. The certified Final EIR for the LUCE Update states
that the Specific Plan will be required to address several issues (as listed in the LUE), including environmental constraints,
resource protection, hillside and open space protection, viewsheds, and views from off-site locations. The applicant’s preliminary
project narrative states the project can be designed to minimize impacts to scenic resources by using the existing topography,
which may provide a natural visual barrier between the development and public viewing areas. Variations in topography may
provide opportunities to screen future development from view; however, certain components including lighting and grading cut
slopes may be difficult to fully “hide”, and overall the project is anticipated to create some change in the visual environment, and
may increase cumulative views of the existing structures and the proposed development in the upper elevations of the Irish Hills.
Further environmental analysis in the EIR, including a viewshed study and photo-simulations, are required to determine if
development above the 150-foot elevation would result in any significant, unavoidable, adverse impacts, and to determine
appropriate mitigation measures.
Due to the visual sensitivity of the site, implementation of the proposed project could result in potentially significant project-
specific and cumulative impacts to a scenic vista, scenic resources, and the visual character and/or quality of the site and its
surroundings. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR, in addition to
an evaluation of the project’s consistency with hillside and scenic viewshed protection policies identified in the General Plan.
d) Although the project site is primarily undeveloped, it is located in an urbanized area with existing light sources from
neighboring commercial development, parking areas and surrounding roadways, including Los Osos Valley Road and U.S.
Highway 101. Development of the proposed project could result in increased ambient nighttime lighting and glare through the
addition of residential and commercial uses and associated structural development in a primarily undeveloped area. The project
will be required to comply with the Night Sky Preservation Ordinance (Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.23), which sets operational
standards and requirements for lighting installations. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further
examination in the EIR.
Conclusion: Potentially significant project-specific, secondary, and cumulative impacts related to aesthetics will be addressed in
the Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR.
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?
8 X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract? 4 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?
4 X
a) The Froom Ranch Specific Plan area includes land designated as grazing land and farmland of local potential by the
California Natural Resources Agency, Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP).
Currently, portions of the site are used for grazing purposes. Implementation of the proposed project would not convert Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. These impacts are considered less than significant.
b) The Froom Ranch Specific Plan area does not include land currently under Williamson Act and no Williamson Act
contracted lands are located within 0.5 mile of the Specific Plan area; therefore, no conflicts with an existing Williamson Act
contract would occur as a result of the proposed project. The project site currently includes land designated for agriculture and
Packet Pg 130
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
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 2016
12
commercial retail land uses and land that is currently used for livestock grazing. A portion of the site is also subject to an existing
agricultural conservation easement. Implementation of the proposed project would include pre-zoning the site prior to annexation
into the City, with the anticipation that the proposed development would comply with the proposed underlying zoning. The EIR
will evaluate the potential effects resulting from the anticipated pre-zoning, any potential direct or indirect effects to the existing
agricultural conservation easement, and compatibility with adjacent properties.
c) The Froom Ranch Specific Plan area is surrounded by urbanized and developed land uses and public streets to the north,
east, and south, and open space to the west and southwest. The property currently supports limited grazing and implementation
of the proposed project could result in potential conflicts with grazing uses on the property. These impacts are considered
potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to adversely affect onsite and adjacent agricultural uses and
the existing agricultural conservation easement as a result of the anticipated pre-zoning and implementation of incompatible land
uses. These potentially significant project-specific, secondary, and cumulative impacts will be further examined in the EIR.
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?
10, 11,
14 X
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
10, 11,
14 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
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
10, 11,
14 X
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? 11 X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people? 11 X
a), b), c), d) The Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County was developed and adopted by the San Luis Obispo Air
Pollution Control District (APCD) and is a comprehensive planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional
industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor vehicle use. Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 2.3.2 states
that the City will help the APCD implement the CAP. The EIR shall include an assessment of the project’s consistency with the
CAP transportation, land use, and circulation policies.
Implementation of the proposed project would generate both short-term emissions associated with construction and long-term
emissions associated with operation of the project. Construction and grading equipment would emit carbon monoxide and ozone
precursors, such as nitrogen oxide and reactive organic compounds, as well as dust and suspended particulates. There is also a
potential for exposure to naturally-occurring asbestos and asbestos containing materials. Construction and operation of the project
would generate new vehicle trips and increase the combustion of natural gas and electricity in the area, thereby generating regional
air pollutants. Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to result in significant impacts associated with air quality.
Assessment of potential air quality impacts that may result from the proposed project will need to be conducted using the April
2012 CEQA Air Quality Handbook. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in
the EIR.
e) Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to generate odors during construction and operation. Odors that
have the potential to be generated during construction activities would be associated with exhaust from construction equipment
and would be short-term during the construction phase of the project. Odors that have the potential to be generated during operation
of the project could include odors associated with solid waste generation and proposed commercial facilities. These impacts are
considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
Packet Pg 131
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
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 2016
13
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to generate both short-term emissions associated with
construction and long-term emissions associated with operation of the project. Potentially significant project-specific, secondary,
and cumulative impacts will be further examined in the Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR.
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?
4, 5, 26 X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
4, 5, 26,
44, 45,
46, 47
X
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, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
4, 5, 26,
27 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 native wildlife nursery sites?
4, 5 X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
4, 5, 35 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?
28, 31,
44, 45,
46, 47
X
a) The Froom Ranch Specific Plan area is composed of a variety of plant communities including annual and native
grasslands, coast live oak/California bay woodland, and coastal scrub/chaparral habitats. Non-native annual grassland is the
dominant plant community on the property, primarily present in the flatter portions of the Specific Plan area where cattle and
horse feeding activities occurred in the past. The site is bisected by various natural drainages. Froom Creek traverses the Specific
Plan area in a mostly north-to-south direction and converges with San Luis Obispo Creek south of the Specific Plan area before
flowing toward its outlet to the Pacific Ocean in Avila Beach. Wetland habitat is present in the flat grassland areas in the eastern
portion of the site. The Los Osos Valley Road roadside channel is dominated by arroyo willow monoculture.
A Biological Resources Inventory was prepared for the proposed project in January 2016 (Kevin Merk Associates, LLC 2016),
and a supplemental report is forthcoming that will include potential off-site improvements (drainage/stormwater basin); all
biological reports submitted by the applicant shall be peer reviewed by a qualified biologist in association with the EIR. The
floristic inventory conducted in support of the Biological Resources Inventory identified the following special-status plants
occurring in the serpentinite bunchgrass grassland, wetland habitat, and on scattered serpentinite outcrops in the southwest portion
of the site:
Blochman’s dudleya (Dudleya blochmaniae; CRPR List 1B.1);
Brewer’s spineflower (Chorizanthebreweri; CRPR List 1B.3);
Cambria morning glory (Calystegia subacaulis ssp. episcopalis; CRPR List 4.2);
Chaparral ragwort (Senecio aphanactis; CRPR List 2.2);
Chorro Creek bog thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense; federal and state endangered and CRPR List 1B.2);
Club haired mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus ssp. clavatus; CRPR List 4.3);
Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii; CRPR List 1B.1);
Packet Pg 132
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
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 2016
14
Eastwood’s larkspur (Delphinium parryi ssp. eastwoodiae; CRPR List 1B.2);
Jones’ layia (Layia jonesii; CRPR List 1B.2);
Mouse-gray dudleya (Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina; CRPR List 1B.2);
Palmer’s spineflower (Chorizanthe palmeri; CRPR List 4.2);
San Luis mariposa lily (Calochortus obispoensis; CRPR List 1B.2); and,
San Luis Obispo owl’s-clover (Castilleja densiflora ssp. obispoensis; CRPR List 1B.2).
No rare animals were observed on-site during the field surveys; however, based on a habitat suitability analysis, the following
special-status animals were identified as having the potential to occur within the project area:
American badger (Taxidea taxus; species of special concern);
Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; species of special concern);
California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia; watch list);
Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi; watch list);
Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos; watch list and CDFW Fully Protected);
Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus; species of special concern);
Merlin (Falco columbarius; watch list);
Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus; species of special concern);
Purple martin (Progne subis; species of special concern);
Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus; watch list);
Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor; candidate species and species of special concern);
White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus; CDFW Fully Protected);
Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechial brewsteri; species of special concern);
Big free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis; species of special concern);
Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus; special animal);
Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus; species of special concern);
San Diego woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia; species of special concern);
Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus; federal threatened and species of special concern);
Townsend’s western big-eared bat (Corynorhynus townsendi; species of special concern);
Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus; species of special concern);
Western red bat (Lasiurus blossevilli; species of special concern); and,
Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis; special animal).
In addition, California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii; state species of special concern and federal threatened) and mountain lion
(Puma concolor; state “specially protected species”) have been observed on adjacent properties. Additional information is
provided in the Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (USFWS 2002), Chorro Creek Bog Thistle: 5-Year Review
Summary and Evaluation (USFWS 2007), South-Central California Coast Steelhead Recovery Plan (NOAA 2013), and Recovery
Plan for the Morro Shoulderband Snail and Four Plants from Western San Luis Obispo County (USFWS 1998).
A variety of birds and bats could also utilize the larger trees within the oak/bay woodland and riparian habitat for nesting and
roosting activities, and several bird species could potentially use the grassland habitat in the project area for nesting.
Implementation of the proposed project could result in direct and indirect impacts to special-status species through the conversion
of land that currently supports special-status plants and changes to proximate habitat conditions (e.g. hydrological changes that
may adversely affect Chorro Creek bog thistle or Congdon’s tarplant); and land that provides suitable habitat for special-status
animals, including direct conversion of habitat and construction and operational effects (e.g., noise, lighting) that could affect the
behavior or special-status wildlife. Potentially significant short-term and long-term impacts to aquatic species could also occur as
a result of the proposed relocation and realignment of Froom Creek. The EIR shall consider and assess feasible mitigation
measures to address potentially significant impacts, including avoidance, on and off-site mitigation, and preservation of land
above the 150-foot elevation for habitat enhancement or restoration. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will
require further examination in the EIR.
Packet Pg 133
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
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 2016
15
b) Three sensitive natural communities have been identified within the project area: arroyo willow riparian scrub (1.87
acres), wetland (7.25 acres), and serpentine bunchgrass grassland (13.46 acres). Implementation of the proposed project could
result in direct and indirect impacts to these sensitive natural communities through direct conversion or indirect impacts associated
with construction activities and operation of the project, including but not limited to grading and development, hydrological
modifications, realignment of Froom Creek, and long-term fire safety vegetative fuel reductions. These impacts are considered
potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
c) Based on the Biological Resources Inventory prepared by the applicant, the project area supports approximately 7.25
acres of wetland habitat and 2.66 acres of drainage features (also refer to the Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination submitted
by the applicant). The wetland habitat present on-site is a combination of coastal and valley freshwater marsh and vernal marsh
vegetation communities. Implementation of the proposed project could result in direct and indirect impacts to federally-protected
wetlands through construction activities, grading, modification of existing drainage patterns and detention basins, development
of new impervious surfaces, and the realignment of Froom Creek, hydrological modifications, and long-term fire safety vegetative
fuel reductions. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
d) Implementation of the proposed project would convert land that is currently undeveloped and provides suitable habitat for a
variety of native resident and migratory fish and wildlife species. The project area is identified in the Conservation and Open
Space Element of the City’s General Plan as supporting a designated wildlife zone and wildlife corridor. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project could result in direct and indirect interference with the movement of wildlife species and
their use of existing wildlife corridors and habitat resources within the area. These impacts are considered potentially significant
and will require further examination in the EIR.
e) The Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan includes policies related to species of local concern,
wildlife habitat and corridors, trees and other plants, natural communities, and creek setbacks. In addition, the City’s Tree
Ordinance (Ordinance 1544) establishes regulations related to tree protection, tree removal, and designation and protection of
heritage trees. Implementation of the proposed project would likely require tree removal, which shall be quantified and assessed
in the EIR. The EIR shall include preliminary identification of the project’s consistency with General Plan policies related to
natural and biological resources.
f) The project site is located between property covered by the Irish Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan and the Johnson
Ranch Open Space Conservation Plan. Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to result in conflicts between land
uses on the project site and the adjacent conservation plan areas if development were to impact sensitive habitat, encroach into
conserved areas, or otherwise indirectly affect conserved areas. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will
require further examination in the EIR.
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to result in direct and indirect impacts to existing
undeveloped habitat, sensitive natural communities and riparian habitat, federally-protected wetlands, special-status plants and
animals, and wildlife corridors, and could conflict with local policies, ordinances, and identified Conservation Plans. Preparation
of the EIR will include peer review of the biological reports provided by the applicant, and coordination meetings with resource
agencies including, but not limited to the City Natural Resources Manager and City Biologist, California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Fisheries
(NOAA Fisheries), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Potentially significant
project-specific, secondary, and cumulative impacts will be further examined in the EIR.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource as defined in §15064.5.
4, 12,
32, 36,
37
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5) 4, 12, 32 X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature? 4 X
Packet Pg 134
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
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 2016
16
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries? X
a), b), d) A Section 106 Prehistoric and Historic Report was prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) for the Froom Ranch
Specific Plan area (FCS 2015). This report and additional information and analysis provided by the applicant shall be peer
reviewed by a qualified architectural historian and a qualified archaeologist in association with the EIR.
The Froom Ranch Historic Complex is located in the northwest portion of the project site, and with the exception of a historic
dairy barn, the complex is located below the 150-foot elevation. This historic resource (P-40-040991) was evaluated for National
Register of Historic Properties eligibility by a qualified architectural historian and was found to meet identified criteria for an
historic resource. The applicant’s team, including an architectural historian and structural engineer, are working on a plan to
address the individual structures and the complex as a whole. Preliminary concepts include repositioning and/or reconstruction of
structures onsite, possibly in association with the proposed trailhead park, potential removal of structures, and incorporation of
interpretive and educational elements. The EIR shall include a preliminary assessment of the project’s consistency with General
Plan policies specific to cultural resources, the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines, and Secretary of Interior Standards. The EIR shall evaluate the project’s potential impacts to historic (built
environment) resources, pursuant to CEQA and City regulations and policies.
Based on the Section 106 Report prepared by the project applicant, a records search was conducted for the project area and a 0.5-
mile radius by staff at the Central California Information Center (CCIC), located at the University of California, Santa Barbara
on January 5, 2015. Results from the records search indicate that two prehistoric resources and one historic resource have been
previously recorded within the area of potential effect (APE). The two prehistoric resources are CA-SLO-783, a bedrock mortar
site, and CA-SLO-1195, a lithic/bone/shell scatter. The historic resource, P-40-040991, is the complex of buildings comprising
the Froom Ranch and Dairy (see above). Five studies have been previously conducted within the APE; three of the study/survey
reports (E-590, E2723, and E-3708) detail the findings of the two previously recorded prehistoric resources and the one historic
resource, while the other two studies conducted within the APE (E-4663 and E-4706) did not produce any findings of cultural
resources.
FCS Archaeologists conducted an intensive pedestrian survey of the project APE from January 6-8, 2015. Two previously
recorded prehistoric resources (CA-SLO-783 and CA-SLO-1195) located within the project APE were investigated to ascertain
the current condition of the resources. In addition, Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Archaeological Site Records for
each site were updated to reflect current findings for both resources. No additional prehistoric resource sites were discovered
during the course of the survey; however, isolate prehistoric lithic tools and debitage (waste flakes from the manufacture of stone
tools) were encountered and mapped during the survey. In addition, four rock walls, a stone revetment/retaining wall, and a recent
stone fire pit were mapped and photographed. It is currently unknown when these rock features were constructed; however, the
property owner, John Madonna, believes they are related to the historic era Froom Ranch and Dairy.
Due to the history of the area and known presence of previously recorded prehistoric and historic sites within the project area, the
potential for additional cultural resources to be present on-site is considered high. Implementation of the proposed project could
result in direct and/or indirect impacts to historic resources, archaeological resources, and/or human remains, if present, during
ground-disturbing construction activities and project operation. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will
require further examination in the EIR.
c) Three vertebrate localities have been identified along the coast within 9 miles of the project site. These localities occur in
Pleistocene fluvial deposits overlying marine terraces, and include assemblages of the Rancholabrean mammals Equus sp. and E.
occidentalis (horse); Camelops sp. and C. hesternus (camel); Bison antiquus and B. latifrons (bison), and Mammut americanum
(mammoth). Other, more distal localities in San Luis Obispo County have been identified as well. Due to the known presence of
previously recorded significant paleontological resources in the project vicinity, the potential project-related impacts on
paleontological resources is considered potentially significant. The paleontological sensitivity of the project site and potential
effects on paleontological resources will be further examined in the EIR.
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project could result in direct and/or indirect impacts to historic resources,
archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and/or human remains, if present, during ground-disturbing construction
Packet Pg 135
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
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 2016
17
activities and project operation. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the
EIR.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
3, 4, 6,
9, 13
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on 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.
X
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? X
III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X
IV. Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
3, 4, 6,
9, 13 X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 of
the California Building Code (2013), creating substantial risks
to life or property?
3, 4, 6,
9, 13 X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
X
a), b, c), d) The project area is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province, which extends along the coastline
from central California to Oregon. This region is characterized by extensive folding, faulting, and fracturing of variable intensity.
In general, the folds and faults of this geomorphic province comprise the pronounced northwest trending ridge-valley system of
the central and northern coast of California. According to the Geologic Map of California, San Luis Obispo Sheet published by
the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) in 1978, the site vicinity is underlain by Quaternary-aged alluvium
(unconsolidated deposits of sand, silt, clay, and gravel). The surrounding hills are comprised of the Franciscan and Monterey
Formations and Quaternary aged non-marine terrace deposits.
Recent geological analysis conducted by the project applicant indicates that potentially active fault trace(s) traverse the project
site. The project area is identified in the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan as being located in an area with moderate
landslide potential and high liquefaction potential. Implementation of the proposed project could expose people and structures to
potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving geologic hazards such as fault rupture,
ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslides. Geologic hazards of concern that are not seismically-induced events at the site
include soil hazards such as settlement, expansive soils, subsidence, and slope stability. Construction activities such as grading,
modification of existing slopes and drainage channels, and development of new impervious surfaces could contribute to non-
seismic geologic hazards in the project area. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further
examination in the EIR.
e) The project does not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems; the project proposes extension
and connection to the City’s existing wastewater facilities. No geologic impacts related to the alternative disposal of wastewater
would occur.
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to expose people and structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving seismic and non-seismic geologic hazards. These impacts are
considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
Packet Pg 136
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
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 2016
18
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?
4, 10,
11, 14 X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
4, 10,
11, 14 X
a), b) The state of California passed Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solution Act of 2006 and Executive
Order S-3-05 (June 1, 2005), both requiring reductions of greenhouse gases in the state of California and establishing goals to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and to be 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. More recently, the state of
California passed Senate Bill 32 (SB 32), which established goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990
levels by 2030. Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to generate greenhouse gas emissions during construction
and operation, including through short-term construction and long-term operational vehicle emissions and point-source emissions.
These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR, consistent with the
methodologies identified in the SLO APCD CEQA Handbook. In addition, the EIR shall assess the project’s consistency with the
City’s Climate Action Plan.
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to generate greenhouse gas emissions during construction
and operation. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
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?
1, 4 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?
1, 4, 15,
16 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?
1, 4 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, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
1, 4, 15,
16 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 result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area?
4, 17, 18 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?
4, 17, 18 X
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
1, 4, 6 X
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 residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
4, 6 X
Packet Pg 137
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
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 2016
19
a), b), c), d) The proposed project includes the development of new residential and commercial uses, which are not
anticipated to involve the routine use, transportation, disposal or emission of hazardous materials. Hazardous materials such as
fuel, oil, and other materials may be stored and used for maintenance and operation of equipment used during construction and
operation of the proposed project; therefore, implementation of the proposed project could 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.
The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area is primarily undeveloped with the exception of some agricultural support development and
offices associated with John Madonna Construction, Inc. Pacific Beach High School, located at 11950 Los Osos Valley Road, is
located within 0.25 mile of the project site. There are no records of previous or existing sources of contamination in this area and,
based on a preliminary review, the project site is not on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5. However, historic agricultural use on-site may have resulted in undocumented residual quantities of
presently‐banned agricultural chemicals, which could pose a health hazard to construction workers or future residents or visitors.
It is also possible that existing hazardous materials releases from off-site properties could potentially affect the project site.
Although there are no documented hazardous materials sites located on the project site, based on the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) Geotracker database, there are several documented closed cases of leaking underground storage tank
(LUST) sites, and one permitted underground storage tank (UST), located on the east side of Los Osos Valley Road, opposite the
project site. The potential exposure of construction workers, and future residents and visitors to the site could result in potential
impacts.
These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
e) The project area is primarily located within Safety Zone 2 of the County’s current Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), with
a small portion close to Los Osos Valley Road located within ALUP Zones S-1b (3 acres) and S-1c (4 acres). Safety Zone 2,
where the residential development is envisioned to occur within the Specific Plan Area, allows 6 to 12 dwelling units per acre.
The applicant requested a pre-application review by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and the ALUC considered the
project on April 19, 2017. Although portions of the project are within Safety Zones S-1b and S-1c per the current ALUP, a
corrected version of the analog map used in Figure 3 of the ALUP has been more recently utilized by the ALUC to review the
consistency of other recent specific plans (San Luis Ranch and Avila Ranch) with the ALUP. The new map has adjusted the
locations of safety zones to the true GIS bearings of Runways 7-25 and 11-29. When the project site is overlain on the revised
safety zones map, it is located outside of both Safety Zones S-1b and S-1c.
Although no formal direction was provided, the ALUC indicated that consistency with the requirements of Safety Zone 2
throughout the entire site would be appropriate. Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to conflict with the
County’s ALUP. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
f) The Specific Plan Area is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, potential impacts would be less than
significant.
g), h) The project site is designated as moderate and high wildland fire hazard areas due primarily to its location along the
outskirts of the city where the wildland and urban areas interface. Future development and human occupation could therefore be
exposed to potential wildland fire hazards, and in turn, increased human presence may increase the potential for wildfire.
Development of the proposed project could interfere with emergency evacuation routes if potential traffic impacts are not
adequately mitigated. In addition, the LPC component of the project may require additional provisions for safe evacuation of
residents, staff, patients, and guests. The EIR shall assess whether compliance with applicable Uniform Fire Code (UFC),
California Building Code (CBC) and General Plan policies would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels, or if
additional mitigation is necessary. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the
EIR.
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to result in significant impacts related to upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, inconsistencies with the County’s ALUP, wildland
fire hazards, and interference with emergency evacuation routes. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will
require further examination in the EIR.
Packet Pg 138
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
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 2016
20
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
1, 4, 5,
21, 26,
27
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 or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on or off site?
1, 38 X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off
site?
1, 38 X
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
38 X
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 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?
X
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows? X
i) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
X
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
a), f) The proposed project is subject to the current stormwater regulations as set forth by the RWQCB. The proposed project
is also subject to the requirements for Interim Low Impact Development. Implementation of the proposed project could result in
an increase of point and non‐point sources of contamination during construction and operation of the project, including
realignment of Froom Creek, that could affect water quality onsite and in the vicinity of the project area. These impacts are
considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
b) The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area is located within and drains to the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin.
The project is anticipated to be served by the City’s sewer and water systems and is not expected to deplete groundwater resources.
However, increase demand on City water supplies and development of the project would increase the amount of impervious
surfaces within the Specific Plan Area, which could result in impacts related to groundwater supply, percolation, recharge, and
the alteration of existing drainage patterns. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further
examination in the EIR. Preparation of a Water Supply Assessment that meets the requirements of SB 610 will be required; this
assessment will be provided by the applicant and peer reviewed by the EIR consultant in coordination with the City Utilities
Department.
c), d), e) Implementation of the proposed project would result in physical modifications to the existing project area
including construction activities such as grading, modification of existing slopes and drainage channels, realignment and
relocation of the existing creek and detention basin, the potential creation of a new drainage/stormwater basin offsite (on the
Mountainbrook Church property), and development of new impervious surfaces. The applicant has submitted a preliminary
Packet Pg 139
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
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 2016
21
Stormwater Memorandum (RRM 2015), and will provide additional analysis in compliance with the City’s Waterways
Management Plan Drainage Design Manual; these documents shall be peer reviewed by the EIR consultant in coordination with
the City Public Works Department. Physical modification of the project site would be required to comply with the drainage
requirements of the City’s Waterways Management Plan (City of San Luis Obispo 2003). This plan was adopted for the purpose
of insuring water quality and proper drainage within the City’s watershed. The Waterways Management Plan requires that site
development be designed so that post-development site drainage does not significantly exceed pre-development runoff.
Implementation of the proposed project could substantially alter the existing drainage pattern on-site through the realignment and
relocation of the existing creek and detention basin in the eastern portion of the site, which could result in substantial erosion and
siltation on- and off-site. Modification of existing drainage patterns and development of new impervious surfaces on-site has the
potential to substantially increase the rate and amount of surface runoff in a manner that could result in flooding on- and off-site.
Additionally, modification of existing drainage patterns and development of new impervious surfaces on-site has the potential to
contribute runoff water, which could exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or create substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in
the EIR.
g), h), i) A portion of the low-lying areas within the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area are within the 100‐year flood zone, as
identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The low-lying portions of the site near Los Osos Valley Road
include wetland areas that are subject to flooding during heavy storm events. Implementation of the proposed project could place
housing or other structures within a 100-year flood hazard area and expose people and structure to significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving flooding. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
j) The project area is located outside the zone of impacts from seiche or tsunami, and the existing site conditions do not
create a potential for inundation from mudflow.
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to violate water quality standards and waste discharge
requirements; interfere with groundwater percolation and recharge; alter existing drainage patterns in a manner which could result
in erosion, siltation, increased runoff, and flooding; degrade water quality; place housing within a 100-year floodplain; and, expose
people and structures to flooding hazards. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further
examination in the EIR.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 1, 4 X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
1, 4, 5,
6, 7 X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
4, 5, 28,
31 X
a) Lands surrounding the Specific Plan Area generally consist of the Irish Hills Natural Reserve (open space and recreation)
and unincorporated undeveloped rural and agricultural lands to the west, and urban development to the north and east in the City
of San Luis Obispo, and a mix of urban development and undeveloped/agricultural land to the south. Development north, south
and east of the Specific Plan Area in the City of San Luis Obispo includes large shopping centers, auto dealerships, hotels, and
roadways, parking lots, and other urban infrastructure. The project site is located adjacent to City limits, is located within the
City’s Sphere of Influence, and was anticipated to be considered for annexation as identified in the City’s General Plan. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project would not physically divide an established community, and potential impacts would be
less than significant.
b) As noted above, the City’s General Plan Land Use Map designates the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area as a Special
Focus Area in the City’s Sphere of Influence and anticipates annexation of this area into the City. The Land Use and Circulation
Element (LUCE) Update and certified Final EIR assumed a certain level and type of development when assessing potential
impacts and mitigation measures associated with build-out of the City and Specific Plan Area 3 (project site). The EIR shall
Packet Pg 140
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
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 2016
22
consider the scale and intensity of the applicant’s project scope relative to the General Plan, and shall work with the City to
determine how policies should be applied to the LPC, and whether the LPC should be considered residential, commercial, or a
combination of both. Preparation of the EIR shall include a preliminary assessment of the project’s consistency with applicable
land use plans, policies, and regulations.
c) The project site is located between property covered by the Irish Hills Conservation Plan and the Johnson Ranch Conservation
Plan. Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to result in conflicts between land uses on the project site and the
adjacent conservation plan areas if development were to impact sensitive habitat, encroach into conserved areas, or otherwise
indirectly affect conserved areas. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the
EIR.
Conclusion: Preparation of the EIR shall include a preliminary assessment of the project’s consistency with applicable land use
plans, policies, and regulations. The Land Use section of the EIR shall identify any potentially significant land use impacts that
would occur as a result of potential inconsistencies with policies and/or regulations specifically in place to avoid or mitigate
environmental impacts.
11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
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?
5 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?
5 X
a), b) There are no known mineral resources that are of known value to the region and residents of the state within the project
area and the project site is not identified as a locally-important mineral resource recovery site. However, the site currently contains
a small quarry to support the operations of John Madonna Construction, Inc.
Conclusion: Potentially significant impacts related to mineral resources are not anticipated; however, these impacts will be
evaluated further in the EIR, as warranted.
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?
7 X
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 7 X
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 7 X
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
7 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?
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?
17, 18 X
X
a), b), c), d) The Noise Element of the City’s General Plan includes noise exposure standards for noise-sensitive land uses,
and performance standards for new commercial and industrial uses. Noise-sensitive uses generally include residences, hotels,
Packet Pg 141
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
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 2016
23
motels, hospitals, nursing homes, theaters, auditoriums, music halls, churches, meeting halls, office buildings, mortuaries, schools,
libraries, museums, neighborhood parks, and playgrounds. The nearest noise-sensitive receptors to the project site include
Mountainbrook Community Church, Courtyard by Marriot San Luis Obispo, Hampton Inn & Suites San Luis Obispo, and Motel
6 located immediately south of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area. The Noise Element indicates that acceptable noise exposure
levels in the vicinity of motels, hotels and churches is 50 to 60 dB and conditionally acceptable noise levels are 60 to 75 dB. The
ambient noise environment within the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area ranges from 60 to 70 dB with primary sources of noise
being traffic along U.S. Highway 101 and Los Osos Valley Road. Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to
generate short-term construction noise as well as long-term operational noise and result in temporary and permanent increased
ambient noise levels that could exceed the City’s noise exposure standards for noise-sensitive land uses. Additionally, construction
activities have the potential to generate excessive groundborne vibration and groundborne noise levels. These impacts are
considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
e) The project site is located within the projected 50-55 dB contour from the County Airport, based on the ALUP. Table 1
of the General Plan Noise Element indicates that the maximum noise exposure for outside residential activities is 60 dB. Therefore,
implementation of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan is not anticipated to expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels associated with the County Airport. Although significant impacts are not expected, this issue will require
further examination in the EIR.
f) The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to generate short-term construction noise and groundborne
vibration as well as long-term operational noise and result in temporary and permanent increased ambient noise levels that could
exceed the City’s noise exposure standards for noise-sensitive land uses. These impacts are considered potentially significant and
will require further examination in the EIR.
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
4, 29 X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
X
X
a) Implementation of the proposed project would directly induce population growth within the Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Area through the development of new residential uses and commercial businesses and annexation of the property into the City.
The Froom Ranch Specific Plan is currently envisioned as a primarily residential project with some commercial development in
the northeast portion of the site closest to Los Osos Valley Road and the adjacent Irish Hills Plaza. A major component of the
planned residential uses is a Life Plan Community (LPC) known as Il Villaggio. Il Villaggio would provide a variety of different
unit types for independent senior housing, recreation and dining facilities, as well as access to higher levels of care such as Assisted
Living, Memory Care, and Skilled Nursing, when needed. Additional residential uses in the northern portion of the site will be
multiple-family. Impacts related to inducing population growth are considered potentially significant and will require further
examination in the EIR.
b), c) Implementation of the project would not displace existing houses or residents.
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project would directly induce population growth within the Froom Ranch Specific
Plan Area through the development of new residences and commercial businesses. These impacts are considered potentially
significant and will require further examination in the Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR.
Packet Pg 142
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
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 2016
24
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of
the public services:
a) Fire protection? 4, 6 X
b) Police protection? 4, 6 X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X
a), b) The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area is located approximately 3 miles southwest of the City’s Police Department, 0.5
mile south of City Fire Station No. 4, and is within the four‐minute response area of the fire station. Development of the Froom
Ranch Specific Plan would increase the population and sources of fire ignition within the Specific Plan Area and could place an
increased demand on the City’s fire protection and police services, which could require the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities. In addition, the creation of a LPC may require new or modified facilities to serve residents and patients.
These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
c) Implementation of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan would induce population growth within the Specific Plan Area through
the development of new residential units, including multi-family residential units. Therefore, development of the project could
place an increased demand on local schools, which could require the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities.
These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
d), e) Implementation of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan would induce population growth within the Specific Plan Area through
the development of new residential units, including multi-family residential units and independent housing associated with the
LPC. The Froom Ranch Specific Plan is anticipated to include approximately 58.4 acres of conservation/open space and a new
neighborhood trailhead park encompassing approximately 2.9 acres. However, implementation of the proposed project could
place an increased demand on off-site local park facilities, including the adjacent Irish Hills Natural Reserve and Open Space
area, which could require the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities. These impacts are considered
potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
Conclusion: Implementation of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan would induce population growth within the Specific Plan Area
through the development of new residential units, which could place an increased demand on the City’s fire and police protection
services, as well as local schools, parks, and other public facilities. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will
require further examination in the EIR.
15. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
4, 5 X
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
X
a), b) Implementation of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan would induce population growth within the Specific Plan Area through
the development of new residential units, including multi-family residential units and independent housing associated with the
LPC. The Froom Ranch Specific Plan is anticipated to include 58.4 acres of conservation/open space and a new public
neighborhood/trailhead park encompassing approximately 2.9 acres, which would connect to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve and
potentially incorporate on-site historic structures. However, implementation of the proposed project could place an increased
demand on existing local and regional recreation facilities, including the adjacent Irish Hills Natural Reserve and Open Space
area, which could require the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities. These impacts are considered
potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
Packet Pg 143
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
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 2016
25
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project could place an increased demand on existing local and regional recreation
facilities, which could require the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, and includes the construction of
new private and public recreational facilities which could have an adverse physical effect on the environment. These impacts are
considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of
the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation system, including
but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
4, 23,
24, 25,
30
X
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other standards established by the
county congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
4, 23,
24, 25,
30
X
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
17 X
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?
30 X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
4, 23,
24, 25,
30
X
a), b) Implementation of the proposed project would generate short-term construction trips as well as long-term operational
trips to and from the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area. Project trips have the potential to result in impacts to local roadways and
intersections. The LUCE EIR identified the following areas near the proposed project as being potentially adversely impacted by
future development within the City, including development within the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area:
Los Osos Valley Road (just west of the City Limits). Due to land use changes in the vicinity of the interchange and
changes in traffic patterns, these segments will experience significant increases in volume.
Prado (US 101 – Higuera and Higuera – Broad). Due to the construction of the interchange at US 101/Prado Road, these
segments will experience significant increases in volume.
Higuera & Tank Farm (#85). Due to increases in traffic along Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road, the SB left‐turn
movement experiences significant delay.
A Preliminary Transportation Analysis was prepared for the proposed project by Central Coast Transportation Consulting in April
2015 (Central Coast Transportation Consulting 2015), which did not assess the currently-proposed project and associated mix and
intensity of land uses, and notes that the proposed project includes more residential units and less retail square footage than the
City’s LUCE provided for. Based on the analysis included in the Preliminary Transportation Analysis, the proposed project has
the potential to generate trip levels that could exceed the levels evaluated as part of the Circulation Element’s technical analysis,
but would be below the daily and PM peak hour trips that would be generated at the maximum intensity in the Land Use Element.
This suggests that the project may result in additional multi-modal transportation impacts beyond those identified in the LUCE
EIR. Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to generate increased short-term and long-term trips, contribute to
local congestion and operational deficiencies, and increase traffic volumes and vehicle speeds in the vicinity of the Specific Plan
Area. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR. The City Public Works
Department will issue a separate Request for Proposals for preparation of multi-modal transportation study, which shall be
reviewed and approved by City Public Works and incorporated in the EIR.
Packet Pg 144
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
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 2016
26
c) The majority of the project site is within Safety Zone 2 of the ALUP with a smaller portion close to Los Osos Valley
Road located within the 1B (3 acres) and 1C (4 acres) Zones. Development of the project site is not anticipated to result in
increased risks associated with air traffic, and it is the applicant’s intention to demonstrate consistency with the ALUP (as
determined by the Airport Land Use Commission). These impacts are anticipated to be less than significant; however, this issue
will require further examination in the EIR.
d) Final project design has the potential to increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. The proposed
project will be required to meet City Engineering Standards to avoid safety risks; however, project-specific impacts related to site
design and potential safety hazards will require additional analysis. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will
require further examination in the EIR.
e) Access to the site is constrained by surrounding development/alternative ownership, topography, and natural site
conditions (i.e., the presence of drainages, floodplains, wetlands) and final project design has the potential to result in inadequate
emergency access to all developed portions of the site. The project design will be reviewed by the City Fire Marshal to ensure
adequate emergency access has been provided; however, project-specific impacts related to site design and potential safety hazards
will require additional analysis. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the
EIR.
f) The project will be required to be consistent with policies supporting alternative transportation, as described in the City’s
Circulation Element. Consistent with the goal of promoting alternative modes of transportation, the proposed project includes
bicycle circulation routes, sidewalks, public trails, private trails, and public transit service connection. Potential impacts related
to conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities will require
additional analysis. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project could result in changes in traffic volumes or traffic patterns; increase hazards
due to a design feature or incompatible use; and result in conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination
in the EIR. The City Public Works Department will issue a separate Request for Proposals for preparation of multi-modal
transportation study, which shall be reviewed and approved by City Public Works and incorporated in the EIR.
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 as defined in Public
Resources Section 5020.1(k)?
4, 12, 32 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.
4, 12, 32 X
Packet Pg 145
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
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 2016
27
a), b) Previously conducted studies within the project area have identified prehistoric and historic sites within the Specific Plan
Area; therefore, the project site is considered sensitive for tribal cultural resources. Upon determining the application is complete,
the City will provide formal notification to all tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area of the opportunity
to request consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 and the requirements of Assembly Bill 52. In
addition, the City will conduct consultation under Senate Bill 18 (SB 18), as required for Specific Plans and General Plan
Amendments. Potential impacts to tribal cultural resources and associated avoidance and mitigation measures and pre-zoning to
protect significant resources identified through the AB 52 and SB 18 consultation processes will be identified, examined, and
respectfully disclosed in the EIR.
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project could result in direct and/or indirect impacts to a tribal cultural resource, if
present, during ground-disturbing construction activities and project operation and maintenance. These impacts are considered
potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
18. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
3, 39,
40, 41,
42, 43
X
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
39, 40,
41, 42,
43
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?
X
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and
expanded entitlements needed?
39, 40,
41, 42,
43
X
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
39, 40,
41, 42,
43
X
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? X
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste? 33 X
a), b), c), e) The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area would be required to be served by City water, recycled water, and
wastewater services. This would require development of private facilities within the Il Villaggio Life Plan Community that connect
to nearby public infrastructure, as well as construction of new public facilities to serve the additional proposed residential,
commercial, and public facility uses. Implementation of the proposed project would place an increased demand on existing City
infrastructure, including potable water treatment and distribution, recycled water, wastewater collection and treatment, and
stormwater facilities. The new on-site water, recycled water, wastewater, and stormwater facilities would be required to comply
with the Uniform Plumbing Code and the City standards. The City Utilities Department will review the applicant-prepared Water
Supply Assessment and water demand and sewer flow analyses and provide feedback to the applicant. These impacts are
considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
d) Implementation of the proposed project would result in a substantial increase in water demand to support proposed
development. Project-specific impacts related to water supply, based on final project design, are considered potentially significant
and will require further examination in the EIR. Preparation of a Water Supply Assessment that meets the requirements of SB 610
will be required; the assessment will be peer reviewed by the EIR consultant in coordination with the City Utilities Department.
Packet Pg 146
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
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 2016
28
f), g) The proposed project would be served by San Luis Garbage Company, which maintains standards for access to ensure
that collection is feasible, which will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission. San Luis Garbage is supported by
Cold Canyon Landfill and assisted by South County Sanitary, Mission County Garbage, Morro Bay Garbage, and Coastal Roll-
off. Solid waste is disposed of at the Cold Canyon Landfill located approximately 7 miles south of the City of San Luis Obispo
on State Route 227. The Landfill site is comprised of a total of 209 acres, with waste disposal limited to a 121-acre permitted
waste disposal footprint. Cold Canyon Landfill currently has an estimated closure date of 2064 (SWRCB 2015). Implementation
of the proposed project would generate solid waste during construction and operation. To help reduce waste generated by the
project, consistent with the City’s Source Reduction and Recycling Element, recycling facilities must be accommodated on the
project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials must be submitted with the building
permit application. Impacts associated with solid waste are considered potentially significant and will require further examination
in the Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR.
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project would place an increased demand on utilities and service systems. Impacts
to utilities and service systems are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the Froom Ranch
Specific Plan EIR.
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
As discussed above, impacts related to biological resources are considered potentially significant and will require further
examination in the EIR.
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
Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to result in cumulative considerable impacts when viewed in connection
with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. Cumulative
impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
If potentially significant impacts cannot be mitigation to less-than-significant levels, the project could result in substantial direct
and/or indirect adverse impacts on human beings. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further
examination in the Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR.
Packet Pg 147
7
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 29
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.
The Draft and Final Program EIRs prepared for the 2035 Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) Update (certified
September 2014) and existing technical studies (refer to Source References below) were used as the basis for identifying
potential project impacts. Project files are available for review at the City of San Luis Obispo’s Community Development
Department.
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.
These are noted above in the analysis of specific impacts for each issue.
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.
These are noted above in the analysis of specific impacts for each issue.
21. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. Draft Project Plans [2/2/2017]
2. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations, March 2015
3. California Building Code, 2016
4. City of San Luis Obispo Land Use and Circulation Element and Final EIR, last revised December 2014.
5. City of San Luis Obispo Conservation & Open Space Element, 2006.
6. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Safety Element, July 2000.
7. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element, 1996
8. California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, San Luis Obispo County
Important Farmland Map 2014, published October 2016
9. Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey, Accessed March 21, 2017
10. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County, Air Pollution Control District, 2001.
11. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Air Pollution Control District, 2012.
12. City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines, October 2009
13. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990
14. City of SLO 2012 Climate Action Plan, August 2012
15. California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Envirostor Accessed March 21, 2017
16. State Water Resources Control Board, Geotracker Accessed March 21, 2017
17. County of San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan dated May 18, 2005.
18. City of SLO Airport Compatible Open Space Plan, April 2005
19. City of SLO Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
20. City of SLO 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2016
21. Waterway Management Plan, City and County of San Luis Obispo, 2003
22. Federal Emergency Management Agency, FIRM, November 16, 2012
23. City of San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan, November 5, 2013
24. City of San Luis Obispo Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines, March 2015
25. 2014 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Connecting Communities, April 2015
26. Froom Ranch Project, San Luis Obispo County, California, Biological Resources Inventory. Kevin Merk
Associates, LLC (KMA). 2016.
27. Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination. US Army Corps of Engineers dated September 24, 2015
28. Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo. October 2002
Packet Pg 148
7
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
30
29. Report E-5: City/County Population and Housing Estimates. California Department of Finance 2016.
30. Froom/El Villaggio Specific Plan Preliminary Transportation Analysis. Central Coast Transportation Consulting.
2015.
31. Irish Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan. City of San Luis Obispo 2011.
32. Froom Ranch/El Villaggio Specific Plan Section 106 Prehistoric Report, San Luis Obispo. FirstCarbon Solutions.
February 20, 2015.
33. Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. r3-2015-0021 for Cold Canyon Class III Landfill. State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Central Coast Region. 2015.
34. Applicant-prepared photo-simulations
35. City of San Luis Municipal Code
36. City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance
37. City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Program Guidelines
38. Stormwater Memorandum, RRM Design Group, February 26, 2015
39. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Water and Wastewater Element, June 2016
40. City of San Luis Obispo 2016 Water Resources Status Report
41. City of San Luis Obispo Final Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan, December 2015
42. 2017 Recycled Water Master Plan
43. Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy, December 2015
44. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog, 2002
45. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Chorro Creek Bog Thistle: 5-Year Review Summary and Evaluation, 2007
46. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) South-Central California Coast Steelhead Recovery
Plan, 2013
47. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recovery Plan for the Morro Shoulderband Snail and Four Plants from Western
San Luis Obispo County, 1998 (Note: includes Chorro Creek bog thistle)
Additional Information: www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-
development/documents-online/environmental-review-documents/-folder-1911
Packet Pg 149
7
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 150
7
Meeting Date: 7/5/2017
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Steven Orozco, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF 2017-18 HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION
(HRC) GRANTS-IN-AID (GIA) FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATION
1. As recommended by the Human Relations Commission, approve the 2017-18 Grants-in-
Aid funding allocations in the amount of $139,885 (Attachment A); and
2. Authorize the Community Development Director to execute agreements with each grant
recipient.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City’s Grants-in-Aid (GIA) program, overseen by the Human Relations Commission (HRC),
provides financial support to non-profit organizations that promote the economic and social well-
being of the citizens of San Luis Obispo. Grants are made to local organizations or agencies
based in neighboring communities who serve a significant number of City residents. The HRC
advises the City Council on community needs and funding recommendations.
Community Needs Workshop
On September 7, 2016, the HRC hosted a Community Needs Workshop to inform the public
about upcoming grant programs and funding amounts, as well as to solicit public comments on
community development and human service needs. An audience of approximately 20 people
attended the hearing and 10 speakers addressed a wide variety of community needs.
Representatives from non-profits pointed to an increase in demand for services including
emergency shelter, transitional housing, hunger prevention, access for the disabled, affordable
housing and social programs. Due to the decrease in funding at the federal and state level over
the past several years, the increase in demand and decrease in grant funding has strained
providers’ ability to deliver core services. The service providers stressed the importance of the
GIA program and encouraged the HRC to continue its support.
Council Priority Setting
On October 18, 2016, Council adopted the following non-ranked priorities for allocating GIA
funds during the 2017-18 Program Year:
• Homeless prevention including affordable and alternative housing, supportive services
and transitional housing.
• Hunger and malnutrition prevention.
• Supportive physical and mental health services for those in need.
• Services for seniors and/or people with disabilities in need.
• Supportive and development services for children and youth in need.
Packet Pg 151
8
GIA Application Process
In November 2016, the HRC formally launched its annual GIA process by advertising the
availability of grant funds and information regarding the upcoming GIA timeline. GIA
applications were due to the City on January 18th, 2017. The City received grant funding requests
from 31 agencies requesting funding for 37 different programs totaling $376,948, which amounts
to approximately 170% more than available funding. Attachment A includes a list of the
applications submitted to the City for GIA funding and the HRC’s recommended funding
amounts. Attachment D further describes each program and recommendation reasoning.
HRC Subcommittee Review Process
On February 1, 2017, the HRC convened the GIA subcommittee of Commissioners Sexton,
Clayton, and Welts to review grant applications and make preliminary funding
recommendations. Total grant requests exceeded the 2017-18 GIA budget of $139,885 by
approximately $240,000. While this challenged the subcommittee members, they carefully used
the endorsed GIA funding priorities set by Council to guide their recommendations. As a part of
the application review and recommendation process, the subcommittee considered whether grant
funds would be used to provide direct services to clients and/or collaboration with other
agencies, and considered the prioritization of multiple funding requests from the same agency.
The Subcommittee also paid close attention to how GIA funds would be leveraged and how the
program’s funding has changed over the past few years.
Funding Recommendations
On April 5, 2017, the subcommittee presented preliminary grant recommendations to the full
HRC. The HRC reviewed each grant recommendation in full detail and revised several grant
recommendations (Attachment B).
On May 3, 2017, the HRC held a public hearing to review the recommended funding for the
2017-18 GIA applications in consideration of Council’s adopted funding priorities, to finalize its
recommendations to the City Council. Prior to the May 3rd meeting, GIA applicants were
informed of the HRC’s preliminary funding recommendations. Approximately 20 members of the
public attended the hearing and 13 speakers from various non-profit organizations provided
testimony in support of the GIA program and preliminary funding recommendations
(Attachment C). While many thanked the HRC for its support, several speakers requested
reconsideration of the preliminary funding recommendations for their programs.
After hearing public testimony, the HRC recommended Council approve the GIA funding
allocations with minor modifications to the previously recommended grant awards.
The HRC’s 2017-18 GIA funding recommendations are as follows:
1. Provide for the disbursement of $139,885 as budgeted in the 2017-19 Financial Plan.
2. Provide funding to 23 programs with grants ranging from $1,000 to $15,000.
Complete funding recommendations and discussion of programs not recommended for funding
can be found in Attachment D.
Packet Pg 152
8
Grant Contracts
Upon Council approval of GIA funding allocations, the City will enter into a contract with each
organization that has been awarded grant funding. The HRC and City staff will monitor the
contracts throughout the year.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City designates a portion of General Fund monies to the GIA program and the Council has
the final authority over how those grants are awarded. The total amount budgeted to the GIA
program in the 2017-19 Financial Plan for the 2017-18 fiscal year is $139,885. The HRC
recommends allocating the full amount (Attachment A).
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council may modify the proposed grant funding amounts.
2. The Council may choose to fund an eligible GIA application not recommended by the
HRC.
3. The Council may continue consideration of funding for the 2017-18 GIA Program Year.
Direction should be given to staff regarding additional information necessary to make a
final funding decision.
Attachments:
a - 2017-18 Grants in Aid Funding Recommendations
b - Human Relations Commission April Minutes
c - Human Relations Commissions Draft May Minutes
d - 2016-17 Grants in Aid Program Summaries
Packet Pg 153
8
App.Non-profit Organization Program/Project Description Grant Request HRC Grant
Reccomendation
1
Access Support Network
(Formerly SLO County Aids
Support Network)
AIDS/HIV Homeless Prevention and
Supportive Housing Program $ 6,000 $ 4,000
2
Access Support Network
(Formerly SLO County Aids
Support Network)
Hepatitis C Project $ 5,000 $ 5,000
3 Achievement House Inc.Computer Lab for Achievement
Housing Day Activity Program $ 5,600 $ -
4 Alliance for Pharmaceutical
Access, Inc.
Community Network of Care: Access
to Life Saving Medications $ 15,000 $ 5,500
5 ALPHA Pregnancy and Parenting
Support Essential Infant Nutrition $ 5,000 $ 5,000
6 ALPHA Pregnancy and Parenting
Support Promoting Maternal Wellness $ 3,900 $ 1,000
7 Assistance League of San Luis
Obispo County Operation School Bell 5,000$ -$
8 Big Brothers Big Sisters of San
Luis Obispo County Community Based Youth Mentoring 7,500$ 5,000$
9 Big Brothers Big Sisters of San
Luis Obispo County School Based Youth Mentoring 6,128$ -$
10 CAPSLO Adult Wellness and Prevention
Screening 8,000$ 4,000$
11 CAPSLO Homeless Prevention and Stable
Housing Program 7,500$ 7,500$
12 CAPSLO Teen Clinics 6,000$ -$
13 Court Appointed Special
Advocates of SLO County CASA Advocacy 8,500$ 8,500$
14 Creative Mediation at Wilshire
Community Services
School Based Youth Conflict
Prevention 1,800$ -$
15 Cuesta College Foundation Mental Health First Aid 5,600$ -$
16 Family Care Network, Inc.
Promoting Independence through
Emancipation Support for Transitional
Aged Youth
50,000$ -$
17 Food Bank Coalition of SLO
County
Fresh Produce Program - Field to
Family 15,000$ 15,000$
2017-18 Grants in Aid Applications
Total Budget = $139,885
Packet Pg 154
8
App.Non-profit Organization Program/Project Description Grant Request HRC Grant
Reccomedation
18 HomeShare SLO HomeShareSLO 25,000$ 6,385$
19 Jacks Helping Hand Jacks Helping Hand Assistance
Program 10,000$ 7,000$
20 Learn.Connect.Play Foundation Coaching in the Home to Increase
Learning and Development (CHILD)15,000$ -$
21 Learn.Connect.Play Foundation Preschool for All (PFA)27,500$ -$
22 Literacy for Life The Literacy Program 5,000$ 3,500$
23 Partnership for the Children of
SLO County Tolosa Children's Dental Center SLO 11,000$ 5,500$
24 People’s Self-Help Housing Homelessness Prevention and Housing
Special Needs Groups in SLO 10,000$ 10,000$
25 Professional Resource Center of
California
Self Sufficiency and Sustainability
Program 14,400$ -$
26 Restorative Partners Inc Recovery Home for Women and
Children 11,520$ -$
27 RISE San Luis Obispo County Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence
Programs 6,000$ 2,000$
28 San Luis Obispo Legal Assistance
Foundation Senior Legal Services Project 5,000$ 2,000$
29 Senior Nutrition Program of San
Luis Obispo County Hot Lunches to Seniors Countywide 10,000$ 10,000$
30 SLO Noor Foundation SLO Noor Clinic - Healthcare for the
Uninsured 15,000$ 10,000$
31 SLO Syringe Exchange and Drug
Overdose Prevention Program Opioid Overdose Prevention Program 4,000$ 4,000$
32 Special Olympics of San Luis
Obispo County
Special Olympics Programs in City of
San Luis Obispo 10,000$ -$
33 The San Luis Obispo Child
Development Center Therapeutic Early Childhood Education 10,000$ -$
34 Transitional Food and Shelter Transitional Food and Shelter Program 15,000$ 15,000$
35 Transitions Mental Health
Association Growing Grounds Farm 5,000$ 1,000$
36 United Cerebral Palsy of SLO
County Chicken Coop for the Ranch 3,000$ -$
37 United Way of SLO County 211 SLO County 3,000$ 3,000$
Total 376,948$ 139,885$
Packet Pg 155
8
Human Relations Commission Minutes
Wednesday, April 5, 2017
Regular Meeting of the Human Relations Commission
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Human Relations Commission was called to order
on Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Tasseff.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Nancy Welts, Barrie Dubois, Brett Raffish, Vice Chair Robert
Clayton, and Chair Michelle Tasseff.
Absent: Commissioner Carol Sexton
Staff
Present: Acting Housing Programs Manager Jenny Wiseman, Planning Technician
Steven Orozco, Police Captain Jeff Smith
OATH OF OFFICE
City Clerk Gallagher administered the Oath of Office to Commissioners Barrie Dubois and
Brett Raffish.
ELECTION
The Commission voted to elect: Chairperson Clayton and Vice-Chairperson Welts
PRESENTATIONS
1. Captain Smith gave a presentation to the Commission on Police Department updates for
2015/2016. Captain Smith gave updates on crime, traffic, noise, homeless, top offenders,
total calls for service, homeless calls for service, downtown calls for service, downtown
calls involving homeless, mental health related calls for service, strategies being used,
crime reduction, challenges, and projects.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
2. Minutes of the Human Relations Commission Meeting of February 1, 2017
Motion by Vice Chair Nancy Welts, second by Chair Robert Clayton, carried 5-0 to amend
the Minutes of the Human Relations Commission meeting of February 1, 2017.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Packet Pg 156
8
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Human Relations Commission Minutes of April 5, 2017 Page 2
Chair Clayton opened the public comment for the public hearing.
Scott Smith-Cooke, is advocating for affordable housing through home sharing. Mr.
Smith-Cooke provides insight to the Homeshare SLO program and what it can offer for
the City of San Luis Obispo.
Marria Alter, is advocating for Homeshare SLO. Ms. Alter mentions that Homeshare
SLO is not in competition with students. The program was designed from 60 other
programs throughout the Country. Ms. Alter thanks the Commission for the funding
recommendation.
Anne Wyatt, is an advocate for Homeshare SLO. Ms. Wyatt thanks the Commission for
the funding recommendation, but would like the funding recommendation to be raised
to $10,000 instead of $5,000. Ms. Wyatt states that the additional funding would be for
outreach, advertising, events and training. Ms. Wyatt also suggested moving funding
from another organizations award to Homeshare SLO.
BUSINESS ITEMS
3. Preliminary 2017-18 Grants in Aid Subcommittee Recommendations
Vice Chair Welts described the process that went into the recommendations for the 2017-
18 Grants in Aid Applications. Following the description of the process, the Commission
went over each organizations grant application request and provided the recommended
funding they were planning on awarding. Acting Housing Programs Manager Wiseman
stated there is $1,385 in additional grant funding. Vice Chair Welts suggested awarding
the $1,385 to Homeshare SLO.
Motion by Vice Chair Nancy Welts, second by Commissioner Raffish, carried 5-0 to
award the additional $1,385 in grant funding received by the City to go to Homeshare
SLO and go based on the other funding recommendations from the Sub Committee.
COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Acting Housing Programs Manager Wiseman informed the Commission on the federal
budget update. Ms. Wiseman described the proposed budget cut of 13% to the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, which would eliminate the CDBG
program and most of the HOME program. Cuts to the ESG program and the Public
Housing Authority would also be made.
Chair Clayton stated concern about the condition of the jails and the interactions with
probation and mental health patients. Chair Clayton explained the problem of the system
and how it may affect the City of San Luis Obispo.
Commissioner Welts mentioned to the Commission that the workshop the City of San
Luis Obispo Police Department will be holding in May will be a question and answer
session.
Packet Pg 157
8
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Human Relations Commission Minutes of April 5, 2017 Page 3
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Clayton adjourned the meeting at 7:07 pm. to the
next regular meeting scheduled for Wednesday May 3, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council
Hearing Room at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo.
Respectfully Submitted,
Steven Orozco
Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY THE HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION: 05/03/17
Packet Pg 158
8
Minutes
Human Relations Commission
Wednesday, May 3, 2017
Regular Meeting of the Human Relations Commission
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Human Relations Commission was called to order on
Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room located at 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Clayton
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Michelle Tasseff, Brett Raffish, Barrie DuBois, Vice-
Chair Nancy Welts, and Chair Robert Clayton
Absent: Commissioners Carol Sexton
Staff: Jenny Wiseman, Acting Housing Programs Manager; Steven Orozco,
Planning Technician
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
ACTION: By consensus, the Minutes of the Human Relation Commission meeting of
April 5, 2017 were approved as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. 2017-18 Grants-In-Aid Funding Recommendations
Acting Housing Programs Manager Wiseman provided an introduction of the 2017-
18 GIA program and the upcoming timelines.
Chair Clayton opened the public hearing.
The following provided comments regarding the recommendations for Grants-In -aid
(GIA) funding:
Consuelo Meux, SLO Noor Foundation
Theresa Anselmo, Partnership for the Children of SLO County
Packet Pg 159
8
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Draft Minutes
Human Relations Commission Meeting of May 3, 2017
Page 2
Rachel Cementina, United Way
Donna Fioravanti, CAPSLO
Brittany Venia, PSHH
Bridget Ready, Jacks Helping Hand
Sarah Reinhart, Alliance for the Pharmaceutical Access
Juliane McAdam, Senior Nutrition Program “Meals that Connect”
Susan Graves, Court Appointed Special Advocates of San Luis Obispo County
Jane Pomeroy, RISE SLO County
Candace Winstead, San Luis Obispo Syringe Exchange Program
Bernadette Bernardi, Literacy for Life
Anna Boyd-Bucy, Big Brothers Big Sisters of San Luis Obispo County
There being no others desiring to speak on this item, the public hearing was closed.
Following discussion, MOTION BY COMMISSION RAFFISH, SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER TASSEFF, CARRIED 5:0:1, to recommend that the City Council
approve the Grants-In-Aid funding recommendations.
BUSINESS ITEMS
3. Consider Cancellation of June 2017 Meeting
MOTION BY VICE CHAIR WELTS, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER DUBOIS,
CARRIED 5:0:1, to cancel the June 2017 Meeting.
COMMENTS & DISCUSSION
Vice-Chair Welts presented on the Mayor’s Quarterly Luncheon, upcoming events for the
Area Agency on Aging, and the next ‘PEACE’ Police Department outreach events.
Commissioner Tasseff discussed the Community Based Transition Housing Grant for
City staff to follow up to consider the possibility for application.
Commissioner Raffish discussed the recent increase to tuition at Cal Poly and the effects
that may have on a student’s ability to pass for housing and other services.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Tasseff adjourned the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jenny Wiseman
Acting Housing Programs Manager
Packet Pg 160
8
1
2017-18 HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION GRANTS IN AID
APPLICANT’S PROGRAM OVERVIEW AND GIA FUNDING HISTORY
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING
1. ACCESS SUPPORT NETWORK: AIDS HOMELESS PREVENTION AND SUPPORTIVE
HOUSING PROGRAM
2015 Grant Award $ 5,500
2016 Grant Award $ 5,000
2017 Grant Request $ 6,000
2017 HRC Recommendation $ 4,000
Formerly SLO County Aids Support Network. ASN is requesting funds for the AIDS Homeless
Prevention and Supportive Housing Program. ASN is dedicated to improving the quality of life
for individuals living with HIV disease and AIDS, while also providing support for their families,
friends and loved ones. ASN provides unique and innovative education and prevention
interventions to reduce HIV transmission. The primary goal of ASN’s Supportive Housing
Program is to provide affordable, supportive housing specifically designed to allow persons
living with AIDS to remain as independent as possible during the course of their illness while
continuing to reside in SLO.
2. ACCESS SUPPORT NETWORK: HEPATITIS C PROJECT
2015 Grant Award $ 5,000
2016 Grant Award $ 4,000
2017 Grant Request $ 5,000
2017 HRC Recommendation $ 5,000
Formerly SLO County Aids Support Network. ASN is requesting funds to support the San Luis
Obispo Hep C Project (SLOHPC). The SLOHPC Task Force was formed as a community based
grassroots effort to initiate the fight against Hepatitis C. The SLOHPC Project has been delivering
essential services that provide persons living with Hepatitis C increased access to medical care and
improvements in quality of life by providing outreach, education, health and benefits counseling,
and linkages to resources in the community. Grant funds will ensure that the SLOHCP Benefits
Counselor will continue to be able to provide assistance in accessing appropriate medical care and
supportive services.
3. ALLIANCE FOR PHARMACEUTICAL ACCESS INC. (APA): COMMUNITY NETWORK OF
CARE-ACCESS TO LIFE SAVING MEDICATIONS
2017 HRC Request $ 15,000
2017 HRC Recommendation $ 5,500
APA is requesting funds to continue the "Community Network of Care" program. This program
consists of partnerships with local free clinics. Together, with APA the patients can have a primary
care provider, and access to medications all under the same roof. APA's program provides
medication access to San Luis Obispo residents at our primary SLO office co-located with the SLO
Noor Clinic. Through APA's enhanced patient-centered system of health navigation, and
Packet Pg 161
8
2
collaboration with the Noor Clinic, French Hospital, the Hearst Cancer Center and other referral
partners, individuals obtain life-saving medications at no cost.
4. ALPHA PREGNANCY AND PARENTING SUPPORT: ESSENTIAL INFANT NUTRITION
2017 Grant Request $ 5,000
2017 HRC Recommendation $ 5,000
ALPHA is requesting grant funds to support the on-going need for infant formula and expand
our existing program to include nutrition education for pregnant and breastfeeding mothers with
vitamin supplements and information on healthy food choices for their infants.
5. ALPHA PREGNANCY AND PARENTING SUPPORT: PROMOTION MATERNAL
WELLNESS
2017 Grant Request $ 3,900
2017 HRC Recommendation $ 1,000
ALPHA is requesting grant funds to provide support to women experiencing perinatal mood and
anxiety disorders (PMAD) by offering monthly information sessions and support groups for
pregnant and parenting mothers.
6. BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF SLO COUNTY: COMMUNITY BASED YOUTH
MENTORING
2015 Grant Award $ 5,000
2016 Grant Award $ 6,500
2017 Grant Request $ 7,500
2017 HRC Recommendation $ 5,000
Big Brothers Big Sisters is requesting funds to provide targeted and careful volunteer recruiting,
screening and matching, as well as ongoing support for volunteers, children and families to
insure child safety and successful long term relationships. The grant will help Big Brothers Big
Sisters finance the overall mission of the organization: To help children of SLO County reach
their full potential through professionally supported one-to-one mentor relationships.
7. COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP OF SLO COUNTY (CAPSLO): ADULT WELLNESS
AND PREVENTION SCREENING
2015 Grant Award $ 5,000
2016 Grant Award $ 5,000
2017 Grant Request $ 8,000
2017 HRC Recommendation $ 4,000
CAPSLO’s Senior Health Screening Program is requesting funds to provide low-income adults,
40 years and over, residing in the City of SLO with free, professional, mobile health education
and screening services in a familiar environment. By bringing services directly to this
population, the program ensures that their health is checked regularly and new conditions are
detected early. The program is uniquely able to reach those who have limited access to
Packet Pg 162
8
3
transportation or who have other difficulties accessing medical care due to language barriers;
disability; lack of primary care physician; inability to afford such services’ or reluctance to talk to
a doctor about health concerns or issues.
8. COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP OF SLO COUNTY (CAPSLO): HOMELESS
PREVENTION AND STABLE HOUSING PROGRAM
2015 HRC Recommendation $ 5,500
2016 Grant Award $ 6,500
2017 Grant Request $ 7,500
2017 HRC Recommendation $ 7,500
CAPSLO’s Case Management Homeless Prevention/Stable Housing Project is requesting
funds to provide short-term rental assistance, mortgage payment, or other financial assistance
to families threatened with eviction. It also assists households in securing housing by providing
them with financial assistance for rent and/or security deposit. In addition to financial
assistance, households meet with a case manager to receive financial education and
counseling.
9. COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES OF SLO COUNTY: CASA ADVOCACY
2015 Grant Award $ 7,500
2016 Grant Award $ 7,000
2017 Grant Request $ 8,500
2017 HRC Recommendation $ 8,500
CASA is requesting funds to help the program with the operating cost of rent. This will allow
other funds to be used for recruiting, screening, training, and supervision of community
volunteers to advocate for children under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court due to child abuse
and neglect. CASA advocates for the best interests of abused and neglected children within the
court system.
10. FOOD BANK COALITION OF SLO COUNTY: FRESH PRODUCE PROGRAM
2015 Grant Award $ 12,500
2016 Grant Award $ 12,000
2017 Grant Request $ 15,000
2017 HRC Recommendation $ 15,000
The Food Bank Coalition is requesting funds to secure fresh fruits and vegetables to distribute
to San Luis Obispo residents through the Food Bank's Senior Farmers Markets, public food
distributions, nonprofit agency partners, and other venues county-wide. Produce purchases and
donations together provide approximately 330,000 pounds of fresh, high-quality produce
distributed to residents of the City of San Luis Obispo each year to reduce food insecurity and
improve nutrition. Previous GIA funds have focused on two of the programs they provide in
SLO, while this application encompasses using the common denominator of the provision of
fresh produce that is so important to the health and well-being of the City’s food insecure
population.
11. HOMESHARE SLO
2017 Grant Request $ 25,000
Packet Pg 163
8
4
2017 HRC Recommendation $ 6,385
HomeShare SLO creates affordable housing and improved economic and social well-being by
facilitating shared housing. HomeShare SLO is seeking funding for general funding to start
making facilitated matches in the City of San Luis Obispo.
12. JACKS HELPING HAND
2017 Grant Request $ 10,000
2017 HRC Recommendation $ 7,000
Jacks Helping Hand is seeking funding to improve the emotional and economic wellbeing of
families by helping with housing, gas, and food during trips for surgery or chemotherapy, and
easing their stress resulting from medical crisis and cancer.
13. LITERACY FOR LIFE: THE LITERACY PROGRAM
2015 Grant Award $ 0
2016 Grant Award $ 1,000
2017 Grant Request $ 5,000
2017 HRC Recommendation $ 3,500
Literacy for Life is requesting funds for The Literacy Program which teaches adults to read,
write, and speak English free of charge. The program serves individual adults who are either
speak English either as a first or second language. The program also serves English language
learners who, for a varied number of reasons, did not receive formal schooling. The Literacy
Program also provides services to homeless individuals who bring distinctive challenges to their
ability to learn and improve their lives.
14. PARTNERSHIP FOR THE CHILDREN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO: TOLOSA CHILDREN’S
DENTAL CENTER SLO
2015 Grant Award $ 5,000
2016 Grant Award $ 5,500
2017 Grant Request $ 11,000
2017 HRC Recommendation $ 5,500
TCDC provides access to dental services for children from low-income families in the central
region of the county. Many dental providers will not accept subsidized insurance due to low
reimbursement rates. TCDC is one of only two providers in the county to accept Denti-Cal and
offer a sliding-fee scale for uninsured patients. Funding will help cover the un-reimbursed costs
of providing pediatric dental care to underserved children in the community.
15. PEOPLE’S SELF-HELP HOUSING: HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION AND HOUSING
SPECIAL NEEDS GROUPS IN SAN LUISS OBISPO
2015 Grant Award $ 8,500
2016 Grant Award $ 8,000
2017 Grant Request $ 10,000
2017 HRC Recommendation $ 10,000
Packet Pg 164
8
5
People’s Self-Help Housing is requesting funding to move low-income San Luis Obispo
individuals and families (including homeless placements) into permanent affordable housing,
stabilizing these households, and preventing homelessness for those at risk. Funding will also
support a portion of salary and benefit social workers that serve PSHHC rental properties in
San Luis Obispo.
16. RISE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY: SEXUAL ASSAULT AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
PROGRAMS
2015 Grant Award $ 5,500
2016 Grant Award $ 2,000
2017 Grant Request $ 6,000
2017 HRC Recommendation $ 2,000
RISE is requesting funds to serve victims of intimate partner violence and sexual abuse, as
well as their loved ones, with crisis intervention, case management, education, counseling
and advocacy. RISE was formed in 2013 because of a merger between the North County
Women’s Shelter and the Sexual Assault Recovery and Prevention center.
17. SAN LUIS OBISPO LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION: SENIOR LEGAL SERVICES
PROJECT
2017 Grant Request $ 5,000
2017 HRC Recommendation $ 2,000
The Senior Legal Services Project is requesting funds to help provide free legal assistance to
the senior population. Senior Legal Services Project provides services countywide, as well as,
an office in SLO. The project focuses on the needs of low-income and/or isolated seniors,
including housing, income, and the prevention of elder abuse. It aims to help protect senior
citizen’s legal rights to reach and maintain their maximum independence and dignity.
18. SENIOR NUTRITION PROGRAM OF SLO COUNTY: HOT LUNCHES TO SENIORS
COUNTY-WIDE
2015 Grant Award $ 7,000
2016 Grant Award $ 10,000
2017 Grant Request $ 10,000
2017 HRC Recommendation $ 10,000
The Senior Nutrition Program of SLO County is requesting funds to serve hot noon-time meals
to persons 60 years and older free of charge. A small donation is requested, but no one is
denied a meal based on their ability to donate. The GIA funding will help defray the high cost of
food.
19. SLO NOOR FOUNDATION: SLO NOOR CLINIC – HEALTHCARE FOR THE
UNINSURED
2015 Grant Award $ 10,000
2016 Grant Award $ 10,500
Packet Pg 165
8
6
2017 Grant Request $ 15,000
2017 HRC Recommendation $ 10,000
The Noor Foundation is requesting funds to provide the underserved and disadvantaged of
SLO County with free access to quality acute, non-emergent care they deserve regardless of
race, ethnicity, religion, immigration or socioeconomic status. The clinic provides basic primary
care, physical exams for disease prevention and screening, and on-going medical supervision
of adults with acute and chronic illnesses.
20. SLO SYRINGE EXCHANGE AND DRUG OVERDOSE PREVENTION PROGRAM: OPIOID
OVERDOSE PREVENTION PROGRAM
2017 Grant Request $ 4,000
2017 HRC Recommendation $ 4,000
SLO Syringe Exchange is requesting funding to help support current functions of the SLO-
Syringe Exchange Program (SEP) and Overdose Prevention Program (OPP), the only program
of its kind in the county. This program provides sterile injection supplies to prevent the spread of
HIV and Hepatitis C, and collects used syringes to keep them out of public spaces. Overdose
prevention education and kits containing Naloxone (overdose reversal drug) are also provided.
21. TRANSITIONAL FOOD AND SHELTER, INC: TRANSITIONAL FOOD AND SHELTER
PROGRAM
2017 Grant Request $ 15,000
2017 HRC Recommendation $ 15,000
Transitional Food and Shelter, Inc. is requesting funds to provide temporary emergency shelter
for medically fragile homeless clients from San Luis Obispo who are properly referred and whose
doctor prescribes around-the-clock shelter. Clients are discharged from the program either when
they have recovered enough to be served by an overnight-only shelter or when they find more
permanent housing.
22. TRANSITIONS MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION: GROWING GROUNDS FARM
2015 Grant Award $ 2,500
2016 Grant Award $ 1,500
2017 Grant Request $ 5,000
2017 HRC Recommendation $ 1,000
Transitions-Mental Health Association is requesting funds to pay the wages of disabled adults
who are interested in returning to or joining the work force. This program aids the reintegration
process for these adults by providing multi-level vocational training.
23. UNITED WAY OF SLO COUNTY: 211 SLO COUNTY
2015 Grant Award $ 3,000
2016 Grant Award $ 3,000
2017 Grant Request $ 3,000
2017 HRC Recommendation $ 3,000
Packet Pg 166
8
7
United Way of SLO County is requesting funds for 211 SLO County, which is a free, confidential 24-
hour call center that provides information and referrals to health and human service programs.
Services include medical and mental health referrals, counseling, legal or financial assistance can
call 211 SLO County for information and referrals in their time of need.
ORGANIZATIONS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR GIA FUNDING:
1. ACHIEVEMENT HOUSE INC: COMPUTER LAB FOR ACHIEVEMENT HOUSING DAY
ACTIVITY PROGRAM
2017 Grant Request $ 5,600
2017 HRC Recommendation $ 0
Achievement House Inc. is requesting funding for a computer lab to serve day activity adults by
providing computer equipment, software, and training to increase communication opportunities
while teaching healthy, safe internet navigation. This program has an indirect relationship to
criteria. Therefore, no funding for this program was given this year.
2. ASSISTANCE LEAGUE OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY: OPERATION SCHOOL BELL
2017 Grant Request $ 5,000
2017 HRC Recommendation $ 0
Assistance League of San Luis Obispo County is requesting funds for its Operation School
Bell program. Operation School Bell was established in 1995 to provide new, school-
appropriate clothing to disadvantaged children living in poverty in San Luis Obispo County.
This program has an indirect relationship to criteria. Therefore, this program was not funded.
3. BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF SLO COUNTY: SCHOOL BASED YOUTH
MENTORING
2017 Grant Request $ 6,128
2017 HRC Recommendation $ 0
Big Brothers Big Sisters is requesting funding toward support of the School Based program at
Sinsheimer Elementary which pairs high school and college students with elementary students for
weekly supervised group and individual activities taking place at the elementary campus. This
program has an indirect relationship to criteria. Therefore, this program was not funded.
4. COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP OF SLO COUNTY (CAPSLO): TEEN CLINICS
2016 Grant Award $ 2,000
2017 Grant Request $ 6,000
2017 HRC Recommendation $ 0
Packet Pg 167
8
8
CAPSLO’s Teen Clinic is seeking funding to support teen staff to provide reproductive health
services for youth, including education on a variety of issues ranging from postponing sexual
involvement, to proper condom use, to intimate partner violence; birth control (including
emergency contraception); STI (sexually transmitted infections) screening and treatment;
pregnancy testing and counseling on all options; HIV testing and counseling; case management
of all abnormal lab results; and referrals. This program has an indirect relationship to criteria.
Therefore, this program was not funded.
5. CREATIVE MEDIATION AT WILSHIRE COMMUNITY SERVICES: SCHOOL BASED
YOUTH CONFLICT PREVENTION
2015 Grant Award $ 2,000
2016 Grant Award $ 1,000
2017 Grant Request $ 1,800
2017 HRC Recommendation $ 0
Creative Mediation is requesting funds to continue to provide Peer Mediation Programs which
reduce school-wide conflict and provide students with interpersonal skills enabling them to solve
their problems in health and constructive ways. The program is currently established in Sinsheimer
Elementary with hope to expand to C.L. Smith Elementary. This program has an indirect
relationship to criteria. Therefore, this program was not funded.
6. CUESTA COLLEGE FOUND ATION: MENTAL HEALTH FIRST AID
2017 Grant Request $ 5,600
2017 HRC Recommendation $ 0
The Cuesta College Foundation is seeking funding for Mental Health First Aid Instructor Training.
The funds would pay for the registration fee, travel expenses and training materials. This program
has an indirect relationship to criteria. Therefore, this program was not funded.
7. FAMILY CARE NETWORK, INC: PROMOTING INDEPENDENCE THROUGH
EMANCIPATION SUPPORT FOR TRANSITIONAL AGED YOUTH
2017 Grant Request $ 50,000
2017 HRC Recommendation $ 0
Family Care Network is seeking funding to help youth secure housing, meet their academic or
work needs post programs, secure reliable transportation and have their child care needs met
(if needed). This program has an indirect relationship to criteria. Therefore, this program was
not funded.
8. LEARN.CONNECT. PLAY.FOUNDATION: COACHING IN THE HOME TO INCREASE
LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT (CHILD)
2017 Grant Request $ 15,000
2017 HRC Recommendation $ 0
Packet Pg 168
8
9
Learn. Connect. Play. Foundation is seeking funding for the Interventionist’s salary including
preparation, travel, two-hour in-home visit and follow up time including consultation and
collaboration with other professionals; mileage in the city of San Luis Obispo; materials including
parent handbooks and parent training videos. Preschool enrolled families will receive three visits
a school year. This program has an indirect relationship to criteria. Therefore, this program was not
funded.
9. LEARN.CONNECT. PLAY.FOUNDATION: PRESCHOOL FOR ALL (PFA)
2017 Grant Request $ 27,500
2017 HRC Recommendation $ 0
Learn. Connect. Play. Foundation is seeking funding to subsidize five families at a rate of $550.00
per month for the 10-month school year. Funding for this program will enable hiring an additional
Assistant Teacher and provide educational materials, supplies, and nutritional support for families
that don’t meet income requirements set by State preschool guidelines. Parents will receive
additional free early education services including monthly parent education sessions (open to the
entire community); home coaching; and scheduled and ongoing parent teacher communication
and support. This program has an indirect relationship to criteria. Therefore, this program was not
funded.
10. PROFESSIONAL RESOURCE CENTER OF CALIFORNIA: SELF SUFFICIENCY AND
SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM
2017 Grant Request $ 14,400
2017 HRC Recommendation $ 0
The Professional Resource Center of California is seeking funding for programs and services
available to Brazil Heights and Brazil Terrace property residents. The number of residents that
will be served is up to 175, and live below federal poverty line. The programs offered will include
supportive services, life skills, public safety, disaster preparedness, and educational classes and
case management. Classes, such as life skills, will be offered in a group setting to allow for
increased communication, diverse perspectives, and relationship building. This program has an
indirect relationship to criteria. Therefore, this program was not funded.
11. RESTORATIVE PARTNERS INC: RECOVERY HOME FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN
2017 Grant Request $ 11,520
2017 HRC Recommendation $ 0
Restorative Partners is requesting funding to hire a residential House Manager (HM) who will
provide guidance and oversight for women and their children. This program has an indirect
relationship to criteria. Therefore, this program was not funded.
12. SPECIAL OLYMPICS OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY: SPECIAL OLYMPICS
PROGRAMS IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
2017 Grant Request $ 10,000
2017 HRC Recommendation $ 0
Packet Pg 169
8
10
Special Olympics of San Luis Obispo County is requesting funding for nearly 100 athletes within
San Luis Obispo’s City limits. Funding will be used for teams and competitions in the City of San
Luis Obispo. The grant will specifically offset costs such as transportation to competitions, Floor
Hockey equipment in 2017 and Regional Games expenses for Spring 2018. This program has an
indirect relationship to criteria. Therefore, this program was not funded.
13. THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER: THERAPEUTIC EARLY
CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
2017 Grant Request $ 10,000
2017 HRC Recommendation $ 0
The San Luis Obispo Child Development Center is seeking funding therapy program support.
This includes risk factors for children who have been traumatized, abused and/ or neglected
include difficulties such as attachment and post-traumatic stress disorder, attention deficit,
depression, abuse reactive anxiety, compulsive behavior, oppositional and conduct disorders,
prenatal substance abuse effects, and development learning disabilities. This program has an
indirect relationship to criteria. Therefore, this program was not funded.
14. UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY OF SLO: CHICKEN COOP FOR THE RANCH
2017 Grant Request $ 3,000
2017 HRC Recommendation $ 0
United Cerebral Palsy of SLO is seeking funding to purchase a pre-constructed chicken coop
that includes a shelter for the chickens to stay in during the night and rainy weather. The coop
will have ample area for the chickens to get exercise. The coop is enclosed in chicken wire to
protect the chickens from coyotes and foxes. This program has an indirect relationship to
criteria. Therefore, this program was not funded.
Packet Pg 170
8
Meeting Date: 7/5/2017
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Jennifer Rice, Transportation Planner/Engineer
SUBJECT: GRANT FUNDED CALLE JOAQUIN PARK & RIDE, SPECIFICATION NO.
91288 REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE
RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve the revised plans and specifications for the Calle Joaquin Park & Ride Lot,
Specification No. 91288; and
2. Authorize staff to advertise for bids, and authorize the City Manager to award the
contract if the lowest responsible bid is within the Engineer’s Estimate of $530,868.
DISCUSSION
On October 18, 2016, the City Council approved plans and specifications for the Calle Joaquin
Park and Ride Lot, Spec. 91288. Bids were solicited and the project was subsequently awarded
by Council on January 17, 2017 to RDZ Contractors for a construction contract total of
$500,000. On April 25, 2017, the contract with RDZ Contractors was terminated (Attachment
A). Since all other bidders were above the contract cost estimate, staff has reassessed the project
and adjusted the scope.
Even with the revised project plans and specifications current estimates are above the previous
approved amount of $500,000. The increase is primarily due to the active construction market
and limited contractor availability. The engineers estimate has been updated to reflect the
current economic climate; including cost increases for materials and labor costs consistent with
the current market. The updated engineers estimate is $530,868 (Attachment B).
This location on Calle Joaquin has been identified by SLOCOG in their adopted 2015 Park &
Ride Lot study and SLOCOG subsequently allocated a combination of State Highway Account
(SHA) and Congestion Management & Air Quality (CMAQ) grant funding to the City for design
and construction of the facility. The City is the lead on the construction of the facility and will be
responsible for maintenance when completed. Construction is estimated to be complete by
December of 2017.
The project received authorization for construction from Caltrans on September 20, 2016 and i s
expected to begin reimbursable work.
CONCURRENCES
Caltrans & SLOCOG are a part of the project team and concur with this recommendation.
Packet Pg 171
9
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Caltrans has issued this project a Categorical Exclusion pursuant to Federal Regulations Title 23
part 771.117(c) (13) Ridesharing activities.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Council accepted and appropriated $365,000 for this project at its February 18th, 2014
meeting and the money became available in September 2016, per Caltrans authorization. As the
economic climate has changed since the start of this project, costs have increased for materials
and labor. In response to this, the Council approved $550,000 for this project at its January 7,
2017 meeting (in the 2015-17 budget). With the most recent increase to the engineer’s estimate
and a 10% construction contingency amount for unforeseen conditions, the project requires an
additional $33,955. Claims from RDZ Contractors have resulted in a $40,481.89 expense to the
project. These claims have gone through the process and final payments are in process. These
two amounts require an additional $74,436.89 for the project
Staff proposes to fund the project shortfall from the Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 project. This
project is nearing completion and there are funds remaining in the debt fund account for the
project that can be used for public improvements being constructed by the Park and Ride project.
These improvements include the completion of the road terminus along old Calle Joaquin, storm
drain tie ins, and work reconstructing the Park and Ride/Hampton Inn driveway to the realigned
new Calle Joaquin. Because the work on Calle Joaquin is an overlapping component of both this
project and the LOVR Interchange a proportion of the LOVR Interchange funding is eli gible for
use on this project. Staff is recommending that an additional $74,436.89 of these funds be
transferred from the LOVR Interchange budget for use in completing the park and ride project.
There is sufficient funding remaining in Los Osos Valley Road Interchange to fund the project.
Overall Project Fiscal Summary
Project Budget from 15-16 CIP Carry Forward $318,778
LOVR Sub Area $75,000
LOVR Interchange Project $158,251.41
Tree Removal ($1,750)
Advertising ($134.56)
Printing ($144.85)
Cost Associated with RDZ Claim ($40,481.89)
Available $509,518.11
Construction $530,868
Contingency $53,087
Total for Construction $583,955
Additional Funding Needed $74,436.89
Packet Pg 172
9
ALTERNATIVES
Deny authorization to advertise. The City Council could choose to deny or defer the
advertisement of this project. Staff does not recommend this option. Caltrans has authorized this
project for construction, thus the project must be completed by July 30, 2018 or federal funding
will be jeopardized.
Attachments:
a - 91288 Calle Joaquin Park & Ride Lot CM Report-RDZ Contract Termination
b - 91288 Calle Joaquin Park & Ride Lot Engineer's Estimate
c - Council Reading File-91288 Calle Joaquin Park & Ride Plan Set
d - Council Reading File-91288 Calle Joaquin Park & Ride Lot Specifications
Packet Pg 173
9
City of San Luis Obispo, City Manager Report
Final City Manager Approval Approver Name Date Approved
City Administration GH for DJ 4/25/17
Reviewer Routing List Reviewer Name Date Reviewed
Finance XB 4/21/17
City Attorney JMA 4/14/17
City Engineer Matt Horn 4/6/17
April 4, 2017
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works Drg 4/11/17
PREPARED BY: Kyle Rowland - Engineer, Jennifer Rice - Transportation Planner/Engineer
SUBJECT: CALLE JOAQUIN PARK & RIDE, SPECIFICATION NO. 91288
RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve the termination of the contract with RDZ Contractors for the Calle Joaquin Park
& Ride Lot, Specification No. 91288
DISCUSSION
On January 17, 2017, City Council approved a construction contract with RDZ Contractors
(RDZ) of Nipomo for the Calle Joaquin Park & Ride Lot, Specification No. 91288, in the
amount of $500,000. A pre-construction meeting was held on February 15, 2017 with
construction slated to begin when site soil conditions were no longer impacted by the inclement
weather. A consultant geotechnical firm monitoring soil conditions has recently determined the
site is still too unfavorable for construction to start due to the saturated soil. At this time, a
construction start date is still undetermined and no contract work has been completed by RDZ.
Formal review of work identified to be performed by the prime and subcontractors is necessary
for all City projects and occurs prior to construction. The bid forms included in the bid submittal
typically provide enough information to determine what percentage of the contract work is to be
performed by subcontractors. However, since this project includes federal grant funding, more
detailed information is required regarding what percentage of each bid item is to be
subcontracted. This information must be verified and certified by the City, and is subject to
Caltrans audit.
50% Prime Contactor Requirement
When reviewing and comparing all submitted documents, several discrepancies were discovered
indicated the possibility that RDZ was failing to complete 50% of the contract work. This a
requirement per Section 5.13 – Subcontracting of the Standard Specifications. In an attempt to
Packet Pg 174
9
Calle Joaquin Park & Ride Termination, Spec. 91288 Page 2
decipher the reasoning for the conflicting subcontracting documents, the City requested RDZ
furnish the executed subcontracts.
After four requests to furnish the executed subcontracts, RDZ intentionally provided
subcontracts with redacted pricing. The City then again requested the subcontracts without
redacted pricing and indicated the need for subcontractor bid item pricing to verify the
information previously submitted. RDZ responded by submitting all subcontracts, but with one
lump sum amount for each. Without a bid item breakdown for each subcontract, it was still
impossible for the City to accurately determine the breakdown of the bid items. The furnished
documentation appears to indicate a subcontractor is performing the majority of the project,
which invalidates RDZ’s claim of performing 50% of the work. Attachment 1 explains the
discrepancies that exist between all documents submitted.
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Participation
Due to the Federal grant funding on this project, the City identified a Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise (DBE) utilization goal of 11% in the special provisions. RDZ is the only DBE
involved with the project, so the amount of work they are performing can be used as credit
towards the DBE utilization. RDZ submitted form Exhibit 15-G indicating that 50% of the
project work would be performed with their own forces. Therefore, RDZ identified a total
claimed DBE participation of 50%. However, after reviewing the Exhibit 15-G, the City noticed
multiple inflated prices and an error on the total summation. After correcting the inflated prices,
RDZ’s DBE participation is reduced to 42.4%. To further complicate the DBE participation,
several items RDZ is claiming credit for are identified in other bid documents as being
performed by subcontractors. Federal projects such as this are actively audited for compliance
with DBE and failure to comply could jeopardize future funding.
Termination
Considering the number and magnitude of the discrepancies and contradictory information in the
aforementioned documents, staff is recommending contract termination to the City Manager for
the following reasons:
1. There are several items in the bid documents and supplemental information indicating
that RDZ is failing to perform 50% of the work as a prime contractor, as required by
Section 5.13 – Subcontracting.
2. The specified total DBE participation was inflated and miscalculated to increase total
participation.
3. The City is unable to certify the subcontracting information provided by RDZ due to the
discrepancies, contradictory information, and furnished subcontracts. Certification is a
requirement of Caltrans and FHWA.
4. The Federal grant funding for this project is at risk and subject to repayment if the City
proceeds with construction in light of the identified issues.
5. RDZ’s misinterpretations of the Standard Specifications and contract requirements up to
this point is likely an indication of what can be expected throughout the construction
phase.
CONCURRENCES
Packet Pg 175
9
Calle Joaquin Park & Ride Termination, Spec. 91288 Page 3
Caltrans District 5 Division of Local Assistance, who administers the grand funding on this
project, concurs with contract termination if staff believes it’s for the best interest of the City.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact at this time. The Contractor may be eligible for reimbursement of
justifiable costs to date such as material handling costs for material returned to vendors. Since
RDZ never mobilized at the site, there appears to be a minimal amount of materials that could
have been ordered. After contract termination is determined, any potential payment
adjustment(s) will be evaluated and resolved at that time in accordance with the Standard
Specifications. Considering the situation that has led to this termination, and the significant
amount of time spent by City administration to manage this project, the City will potentially
utilize the Contractor’s performance bond to recuperate these incurred costs. Furthermore, the
City will determine the appropriate way to move forward with the project once any payment
adjustments are made.
ALTERNATIVE
The City Manager may determine to not terminate the contract. This alternative is not
recommended due to the amount of subcontracting discrepancies at this point and potential for
losing grant funding.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Subcontracting Letter to RDZ
2. Subcontracting Bid Documents
3. Agreement with RDZ
4. CAR Award
T:\City Manager Reports\Public Works\2017\CIP\91288 Calle Joaquin Park & Ride\CMR 91288 Contract Termination.docx
Packet Pg 176
9
Preliminary Opinion of Construction Cost
Calle Joaquin Park and Ride
City of San Luis Obispo 5/24/2017
65-6457-09/ 1955
Construction Costs:
No. Item Description Units Quantity Unit Cost Total
1 Mobilization LS 1 $32,000.00 $32,000.00
2 Clearing & Grubbing LS 1 $16,000.00 $16,000.00
3 Remove Concrete (Curb & Gutter)LF 66 $20.00 $1,320.00
4 Remove Concrete Sidewalk SQFT 1730 $2.50 $4,325.00
5 Remove Concrete (Mow Strip)LF 204 $10.00 $2,040.00
6 Remove Irrigation LS 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
7 Excavation CY 1000 $55.00 $55,000.00
8 Class 2 Aggregate Base CY 560 $75.00 $42,000.00
9 Class 3 Aggregate Base CY 69 $75.00 $5,175.00
10 Class 4 Aggregate Base CY 461 $75.00 $34,575.00
11 Geotextile Fabric SF 4680 $1.00 $4,680.00
12 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A)TON 309 $120.00 $37,080.00
13 Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavers SQFT 4680 $9.00 $42,120.00
14 Observation Well EA 2 $750.00 $1,500.00
15 Minor Concrete (Curb)LF 950 $30.00 $28,500.00
16 Minor Concrete (Retaining Curb)LF 17 $35.00 $595.00
17 Minor Concrete (Barrier Curb)LF 295 $30.00 $8,850.00
18 HDPE Plastic Edging LF 330 $10.00 $3,300.00
19 Minor Concrete (Curb and Gutter)LF 162 $28.00 $4,536.00
20 Minor Concrete (Sidewalk)SQFT 3200 $8.00 $25,600.00
21 Minor Concrete (Driveway)SQFT 400 $11.00 $4,400.00
22 Mi C t (B P d)SQFT 1030 $11 00 $11 330 0022Minor Concrete (Bus Pad)SQFT 1030 $11.00 $11,330.00
23 Minor Concrete (Motorcycle Parking)SQFT 62 $9.00 $558.00
24 Wheel Stop EA 2 $200.00 $400.00
25 Area Drain Inlet EA 6 $1,000.00 $6,000.00
26 Curb Drain Inlet EA 1 $8,000.00 $8,000.00
27 Storm Drain Pipe (12" HDPE)LF 362 $50.00 $18,100.00
28 Storm Drain Pipe (18" RCP)LF 98 $85.00 $8,330.00
29 City Std 3520 Storm Drain Manhole EA 1 $9,000.00 $9,000.00
30 Pavement Markings SQFT 610 $5.50 $3,355.00
31 Signs EA 9 $375.00 $3,375.00
32 Lighting LS 1 $35,000.00 $35,000.00
33 Landscaping LS 1 $28,000.00 $28,000.00
34 Irrigation SF 5478 $8.00 $43,824.00
Subtotal (Construction Costs)$530,868.00
Construction Contingency 10%$53,087.00
Total Estimated Construction Costs $583,955.00
R1955C008.xlsx
Packet Pg 177
9
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 178
9
Meeting Date: 7/5/2017
FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Lee Johnson, Economic Development Manager
SUBJECT: SAN LUIS OBISPO DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION PROPERTY-BASED
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT
RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve a grant of up to $75,000 from the City to San Luis Obispo Downtown
Association for a feasibility study regarding the formation of a Property-Based Business
Improvement District; and
2. Authorize the City Attorney to make modifications to the terms and conditions of the
Grant Agreement (Attachment A); and
3. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Grant Agreement.
DISCUSSION
Background
During the 2017-19 Financial Planning process, the City Council identified “Downtown Vitality”
as an “Other Important Objective” for the City. One of the items in the work program for the
other important objective is for the City to provide a grant of up to $70,000 to San Luis Obispo
Downtown Association (DA) to hire a consultant so do a feasibility study for a Property-Based
Business Improvement District (PBID).
Specific objectives of the feasibility study include:
1. Assess the dynamics of downtown San Luis Obispo’s economic, political and planning
environment. Identify significant market changes that have occurred over the past five
years and anticipate those that can be reasonably expected through the next five to ten
years.
2. Determine how Downtown San Luis Obispo and a new PBID should best be positioned
and organized to respond to current challenges and opportunities.
3. Determine program priorities for the PBID (i.e. enhanced maintenance, marketing,
economic development, etc.) and develop a holistic downtown management blueprint to
ensure that new initiatives strengthen and unify overall downtown development,
marketing and management efforts.
4. Engage a variety of downtown stakeholders (i.e. property owners, businesses, residents,
civic leaders, etc.) in a participatory process to evaluate the PBID.
Based on the outcome of the study a phase two may be initiated to create the district. Any unused
grant funding will be returned to the City.
Packet Pg 179
10
CONCURRENCE
The Finance Department concurs with the recommended actions.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This requested action categorically exempt under Section 15306 of the California Environmental
Quality Act as it consists of information gathering which may lead to potential actions which the
City has not yet approved, adopted, or funded.
FISCAL IMPACT
The $75,000 was approved in the 2017-19 Financial Plan and there is no additional fiscal impact.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council can choose to not fund the grant. This option is not recommended as determining
the feasibility of a PBID is an important step in determining what is required for the long-term
vitality of the downtown area.
Attachments:
a - GRANT AGREEMENT
Packet Pg 180
10
1
GRANT AGREEMENT
This Grant Agreement (“Agreement”) is made this ________ 2017 (the Effective Date”), by and
between the City of San Luis Obispo, a municipal corporation and charter city (“City”) and San
Luis Obispo Downtown Association, a 501(c)(6) nonprofit corporation (“DA”).
WHEREAS, DA is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to foster an economically vibrant
downtown area for the City of San Luis Obispo. One of DA’s primary functions is the economic
viability of the downtown and taking an active part in important issues such as business retention
and attraction, clustering, retail space availability, economic forecasting, construction and
development projects. In this regard, the DA and its Economic Activities Committee and staff
closely work with the City and its Economic Development Manager on these important issues; and
WHEREAS, during the 2017-19 Financial Planning process, the City Council identified
“Downtown Vitality” as an “Other Important Objective” for the City and included in its work
program a grant of up to $75,000 to the DA to hire a consultant to prepare a feasibility study for a
Property Based Improvement District (the “Grant”); and
WHEREAS, by this Agreement, City and DA desire to establish the terms and conditions for the
Grant.
NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the parties hereby agree as follows:
1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this
reference.
2. Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions herein, City will provide DA with a sum not to
exceed seventy thousand dollars ($75,000) to be used exclusively for preparation of a
feasibility study as described in Section 3 below.
3. Feasibility Study. DA agrees to retain a qualified consultant to prepare a feasibility study
(the “Study”) for a Property Based Business Improvement District (“PBID”) for the City’s
downtown area. The Study shall do all of the following (the “Objectives”):
a. Assess the dynamics of downtown San Luis Obispo’s economic, political and
planning environment. Identify significant market changes that have occurred over
the past five years and anticipate those that can be reasonably expected through the
next five to ten years;
b. Determine how downtown San Luis Obispo and a new PBID should best be
positioned and organized to respond to current challenges and opportunities; and
c. Determine program priorities for the PBID (i.e. enhanced maintenance, marketing,
economic development, etc.) and develop a holistic downtown management
blueprint to ensure that new initiatives strengthen and unify overall downtown
development, marketing and management efforts.
Packet Pg 181
10
2
In preparing the study, the consultant shall engage a variety of downtown stakeholders (i.e.
property owners, businesses, residents, civic leaders, etc.) in a participatory process to
evaluate the PBID.
4. Procurement of Consultant. DA agrees to solicit proposals from qualified consultants to
prepare the Study. DA shall carefully review any proposals received and shall rank such
proposals based on a combination of factors such as, but not limited to: organizational
narrative documenting the proposer’s understanding of the Objectives and the proposer’s
capacity of the proposer’s ability to perform the required work, the proposer’s
understanding of the City’s downtown and economic issues, firm experience, references,
examples of work, and budget/pricing. Prior to awarding any contract, DA shall provide
the City’s Economic Development Manager with its top proposal and the DA’s evaluation
sheets for any proposals received. Within ten days of receipt, City’s Economic
Development Manager shall either consent or reject DA’s top proposer. If the City’s
Economic Development Manager rejects the proposal, the parties shall meet and review
proposals received and shall either agree to: solicit more proposals, select one of the
proposals received or terminate this Agreement.
5. Participation by City. At all times during the term of this Agreement, DA shall keep City
actively engaged and informed of the procurement of a consultant, the development of the
Study, including the ability to participate in any meetings and stakeholder outreach events.
6. Payments. DA shall submit regular invoices to City which shall include a detailing of the
number of hours the Consultant spent on each task. City shall make reimburse DA up to
the amount set forth in Section 1 above, in accordance with City’s normal payment
procedures.
7. Ownership of Documents. All documents, plans, renderings, charts, designs, drafts,
surveys and other documents which is originally developed by the consultant ultimately
retained by the DA shall become the joint property of City and DA.
8. Term and Termination. This Agreement shall become effective on the Effective Date and
shall remain in effect until completion of the Plan or unless earlier terminated as provided
herein. City and DA shall have the right to terminate this Agreement without cause upon
thirty days written notice. City and DA shall also have the right to immediately terminate
this Agreement upon breach provided the non-breaching party provides the breaching party
with notice of the breach and a reasonable opportunity to cure. In the event of termination,
DA shall deliver copies of all programs, drawings, surveys, drafts, plans, work in progress
and other documents related to the Plan to the City within five (5) days of the notice of
termination. In the event of such termination, DA shall be reimbursed for any outstanding
invoices it received up to the point of termination.
9. Indemnity. DA shall, to the extent permitted by law, investigate, defend, indemnify and
hold harmless the City, its officers, employees and agents from and against any and all loss,
damage, liability, claims, demands, detriments, costs, charges and expenses (including
Packet Pg 182
10
3
reasonable attorney fees) and causes of action of whatsoever character which the City may
incur, sustain or be subjected to on account of loss or damage to property or loss of use
thereof, or for bodily injury to or death of any persons (including but not limited to
property, employees, subcontractors, agents and invitees of each party hereto) arising out
of or in any way connected with DA’s performance of the work to be performed under this
Agreement.
10. Independent Contractor. It is mutually understood and agreed that DA, including any and
all of DA's officers, agents, and employees, will at all times be acting and performing as
an independent contractor and shall act in an independent capacity and not as an officer,
agent, servant, employee, joint venture, partner, or associate of City. Furthermore, except
for requirements specifically stated in this Agreement, City shall not have the right to
control, supervise or direct the manner or method by which DA shall perform its work
under to this Agreement.
11. Non-assignment. No party shall assign, transfer, or subcontract this Agreement, nor their
rights or duties under this Agreement, without the prior express, written consent of the
other parties.
12. Notice. The persons and their addresses having authority to give and receive notices under
this Agreement are as follows:
If to City:
City of San Luis Obispo
Attn: Economic Development Manager
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
If to DA:
San Luis Obispo Downtown Association
Attn: Dominc Tartaglia, Executive Director
1108 Garden Street, Ste. 210
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Any and all notices between City and DA provided for or permitted under this Agreement
or by law shall be in writing and shall be deemed duly served when personally delivered
to the parties, or in lieu of such personal service, when deposited in the United States mail,
postage prepaid, addressed to such parties.
13. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between City and DA
with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all previous negotiations,
proposals, commitments, writings, advertisements, publications, and understandings of any
nature whatsoever unless expressly included in this Agreement.
Packet Pg 183
10
4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of
the day and year first hereinabove written.
City of San Luis Obispo
______________________________
Katie Lichtig, City Manager
San Luis Obispo Downtown Association
________________________________
Dominic Tartaglia, Executive Director
Packet Pg 184
10
Meeting Date: 7/5/2017
FROM: Daryl R. Grigsby, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Dan Van Beveren, Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD/US 101 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT, SPECIFICATION NO. 99821 – PG&E EASEMENT
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute an Easement Deed with Pacific Gas and
Electric (PG&E) to complete the PG&E utility relocation in support of the Los Osos Valley
Road/US 101 Interchange Improvement Project.
DISCUSSION
As part of the overall construction of the Los Osos Valley Road and U.S. 101 Interchange
Improvement Project (LOVR, Specification No. 99821) it was necessary to relocate several
utilities. These relocations are typical for large capital improvement projects and require
cooperation between local agencies and utility companies. This project required adjustments to
natural gas, water, and electrical utilities; and the results were successful throughout the
construction phase of the project. One relocation involved an existing overhead PG&E power
line which had previously crossed U.S. 101 north of Los Osos Valley Road, and was removed
and rerouted through the existing LOVR overcrossing. To connect the new section within the
bridge to the existing point of service, approximately 150’ of line was installed underground,
crossing the Bob Jones Trail, and adjacent to westbound Los Osos Valley Road.
As anticipated, PG&E is requesting that an Easement Deed be granted for the new location of the
underground line. The new location extends from the eastern edge of the overpass abutment
slope to the Bob Jones Trail bridge crossing Prefumo Creek. The Easement Deed will grant
formal authorization for PG&E to own and operate the electrical lines within the City property
through an easement. The location of the proposed easement is shown on the attached Vicinity
Map (Attachment A) and Site Map (Attachment B).
Resolution No. 5370 (1984 Series) authorizes the Mayor or Vice-Mayor to accept easement
dedications on behalf of the City, but there is no corresponding blanket resolution that authorizes
the Mayor or Vice-Mayor to dedicate easements from the City to others. The attached draft
resolution (Attachment C) authorizes the Mayor to grant an easement to PG&E for their
underground utility relocation.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Utility relocations were included in the scope of work described in the approved environmental
documents (Mitigated Negative Declaration) for the overall LOVR Project as a necessary part of
the construction phase.
Packet Pg 185
11
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City for the dedication of an easement. The cost of the physical
utility relocation was borne entirely by PG&E per Section 680 of the Streets and Highways
Code.
ALTERNATIVES
Deny approval of the PG&E Utility Relocation Easement. Council may choose to deny
approval of the Real Property Permanent Easement with PG&E; however, another relocation
alignment will need to be explored, approved, and reconstructed.
Attachments:
a - Vicinity Map
b - Easement Location
c - Easement Resolution
d - Easement Deed (Exhibit A to Resolution)
Packet Pg 186
11
VICINITY MAP
REAL PROPERTY PERMANENT EASEMENT WITH PG&E
LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD / US 101 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT, SPEC. NO 99821
EASEMENT
LOCATION
SAN LUIS
OBISPO
Packet Pg 187
11
Packet Pg 188
11
R _____
RESOLUTION NO. (2017 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE REAL PROPERTY
EASEMENT AGREEMENT WITH PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC FOR
UTILITY LINES
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) constructed a new overpass at the Los
Osos Valley Interchange (“LOVR Project”);
WHEREAS, as part of the LOVR Project, the alignment of existing utility lines changed
to accommodate the new design; the City and State of California required the relocation of an
existing overhead Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) utility line crossing U.S. 101 north of the
existing Los Osos Valley Road overcrossing;
WHEREAS, to complete the relocation, PG&E needs to install an underground section
of the new underground utility on City property between westbound Los Osos Valley Road and
the Bob Jones Trail bridge.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by this
reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby approves and authorizes the Mayor to execute the
Easement Deed with Pacific Gas & Electric attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by ________________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this ______ day of _______________ 2017.
________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
______________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg 189
11
Resolution No. (2017 Series) Page 2
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the
City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg 190
11
Distribution Easement (Rev. 05/15)
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND RETURN TO:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
Land Services Office
4325 South Higuera Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Location: City/Uninc ____________________________
Recording Fee $_______________________________
Document Transfer Tax $ _________________________
[ ] This is a conveyance where the consideration and
value is less than $100.00 (R&T 11911)
[ ] Computed on Full Value of Property Conveyed, or
[ ] Computed on Full Value Less Liens & Encumbrances
Remaining at Time of Sale.
___________________________________________________
Signature of declarant or agent determining tax (SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY)
LD# 2231-12- EASEMENT DEED
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a chartered California municipal corporation,
hereinafter called Grantor, hereby grants to PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, a
California corporation, hereinafter called Grantee, the right from time to time to construct, reconstruct,
install, inspect, maintain, replace, remove, and use facilities of the type hereinafter specified, together
with a right of way therefor, within the easement area as hereinafter set forth, and also ingress thereto
and egress therefrom, over and across the lands of Grantor situate in the City of San Luis Obispo ,
County of San Luis Obispo , State of California, described as follows:
APN 053-141-014
Those portions of Lot O and Lot 6 of Harford & Chapman’s Subdivision as said lot
and block are shown upon the map filed for record September 28, 1876 in Book B of
Maps at page 30, San Luis Obispo County Records described in the Relinquishment of
Highway Right of Way dated August 20, 2014 and recorded as Document Number 2014-
035804, San Luis Obispo County Records.
Said facilities and easement area are described as follows:
Such underground conduits, pipes, manholes, service boxes, wires, cables, and
electrical conductors; aboveground marker posts, risers, and service pedestals;
underground and aboveground switches, fuses, terminals, and transformers with
associated concrete pads; and fixtures and appurtenances necessary to any and all
thereof, as Grantee deems necessary for the distribution of electric energy and
communication purposes located within the strip of land of the uniform width of 10
feet, lying 5 feet on each side of the alignment of the facilities as initially
installed hereunder. The approximate location of said facilities are shown upon
Grantee’s map Exhibit “B”, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Grantor hereby confirms in Grantee all necessary rights for Grantee's existing
poles, wires and other appurtenances located on said lands.
Packet Pg 191
11
Distribution Easement (Rev. 05/15)
Grantor further grants to Grantee the right, from time to time, to trim or to cut down any and all trees
and brush now or hereafter within said easement area, and shall have the further right, from time to
time, to trim and cut down trees and brush along each side of said easement area which now or
hereafter in the opinion of Grantee may interfere with or be a hazard to the facilities installed
hereunder, or as Grantee deems necessary to comply with applicable state or federal regulations.
Grantor shall not erect or construct any building or other structure or drill or operate any well within
said easement area.
Grantor further grants to Grantee the right to assign to another public utility as defined in Section 216
of the California Public Utilities Code the right to install, inspect, maintain, replace, remove and use
communications facilities within said easement area (including ingress thereto and egress therefrom).
Grantor acknowledges that they have read the “Grant of Easement Disclosure Statement”, Exhibit
“A”, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
The legal description herein, or the map attached hereto, defining the location of this utility
distribution easement, was prepared by Grantee pursuant to Section 8730 (c) of the Business and
Professions Code.
The provisions hereof shall inure to the benefit of and bind the successors and assigns of the
respective parties hereto.
Dated ______________________, 20____.
06/01/17 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a chartered
Los Padres Division; Area 4 California municipal corporation
San Luis Obispo Land Services Office
Electric Distribution
MDM, T31S, R12E
Sec. 10, SW¼ of NW¼
FERC: N/A
PG&E Dwg. #: S-3112158 ______________________________________________
Plat #: AY138-H07 By:
Affected LD: N/A Print Name: ____________________________
Cross Ref LD: N/A
Interest: 03, 04, 06, 43 Title: ____________________________
SBE: N/A
PM: 31055285
JCN: N/A
County: San Luis Obispo
Utility Notice #: N/A ______________________________________________
851 Approval Application # __________ By:
851 Approval Decision # _____________ Print Name: ____________________________
Prepared: trp; Checked:cjm
L# 51891a.doc
Packet Pg 192
11
Distribution Easement (Rev. 05/15)
State of California
County of )
On __________________________, before me, , Notary Public,
Here insert name and title of the officer
personally appeared
,
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in
his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the
person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
(Seal)
Signature of Notary Public
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
[ ] Individual(s) signing for oneself/themselves
[ ] Corporate Officer(s) of the above named corporation(s)
[ ] Trustee(s) of the above named Trust(s)
[ ] Partner(s) of the above named Partnership(s)
[ ] Attorney(s)-in-Fact of the above named Principal(s)
[ ] Other
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of
the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the
truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
Packet Pg 193
11
Distribution Easement (Rev. 05/15)
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
EXHIBIT “A”
GRANT OF EASEMENT DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
This Disclosure Statement will assist you in evaluating the request for granting an easement to Pacific Gas
and Electric Company (PG&E) to accommodate a utility service extension to PG&E’s applicant. Please
read this disclosure carefully before signing the Grant of Easement.
You are under no obligation or threat of condemnation by PG&E to grant this easement.
The granting of this easement is an accommodation to PG&E’s applicant requesting the
extension of PG&E utility facilities to the applicant’s property or project. Because this easement
is an accommodation for a service extension to a single customer or group of customers, PG&E
is not authorized to purchase any such easement.
By granting this easement to PG&E, the easement area may be used to serve additional
customers in the area. Installation of any proposed facilities outside of this easement area will
require an additional easement.
Removal and/or pruning of trees or other vegetation on your property may be necessary for the
installation of PG&E facilities. You have the option of having PG&E’s contractors perform this
work on your property, if available, or granting permission to PG&E’s applicant or the
applicant’s contractor to perform this work. Additionally, in order to comply with California
fire laws and safety orders, PG&E or its contractors will periodically perform vegetation
maintenance activities on your property as provided for in this grant of easement in order to
maintain proper clearances from energized electric lines or other facilities.
The description of the easement location where PG&E utility facilities are to be installed across
your property must be satisfactory to you.
The California Public Utilities Commission has authorized PG&E’s applicant to perform the
installation of certain utility facilities for utility service. In addition to granting this easement to
PG&E, your consent may be requested by the applicant, or applicant’s contractor, to work on
your property. Upon completion of the applicant’s installation, the utility facilities will be
inspected by PG&E. When the facility installation is determined to be acceptable the facilities
will be conveyed to PG&E by its applicant.
By signing the Grant of Easement, you are acknowledging that you have read this disclosure and
understand that you are voluntarily granting the easement to PG&E. Please return the signed and
notarized Grant of Easement with this Disclosure Statement attached to PG&E. The duplicate copy of the
Grant of Easement and this Disclosure Statement is for your records.
Packet Pg 194
11
07/29/15
trp
Los Padres
cjm 10
along boundaries or lines
all courses extend to or
Unless otherwise shown
MDM
12E31S
City-SLOSan Luis Obispo
EXHIBIT "B"
City, Rancho, Subdivision, Etc.
SECTION TOWNSHIP RANGE
REFERENCES:
MERIDIAN
DATESCALE
APPLICANT:
DRAWING NO.AUTHORIZDIVISIONPG&E
COUNTY:
F.B.: DR.BY: CH.BY:
Existing Pole
Property Line
New Pole
Legend
1"= 100’
Easement DelineationB Ma
p
s
3
0Ha
r
f
o
r
d & Ch
a
p
ma
n
’s Su
b
d
i
visi
o
nPt
n
s Lot O
a
n
d
Lot
6
U.S. Highway 10105-SLO-10135 PM 98
SL 82-88
Ptn Parcel A
17 PM 57
SLO 74-115
Parcel C
Los Osos Valley Rd
Existing OH Line
Plat No. AY138-H07
Section 10, SW… of NW…
San Luis Obispo
51891a.dgn
31055285 S-3112158
APN: 053-141-014
Doc# 2014-035804
City of San Luis Obispo
Tie-in
Box for Bob
J
ones
Tr
ail
cL 10’ UG Strip
Approximate location
Packet Pg 195
11
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 196
11
Meeting Date: 7/5/2017
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Department
Prepared By: John Rickenbach, Contract Planner
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE SAN LUIS RANCH PROJECT,
INCLUDING 1) RELATED ENTITLEMENTS AND 2) THE CERTIFICATION
OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR). PROJECT
ENTITLEMENTS INCLUDE: 1) SPECIFIC PLAN, 2) GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT, 3) VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, AND 4)
INITIATION OF ANNEXATION FOR THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING
AND REVIEW OF A TERM SHEET AS THE BASIS FOR A FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE SITE
INCLUDE UP TO 580 RESIDENTIAL UNITS; 200,000 SQUARE FEET OF
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT; 150,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE
DEVELOPMENT; A 200-ROOM HOTEL; AND APPROXIMATELY 60.4
ACRES OF THE SITE TO REMAIN FOR AGRICULTURE AND OPEN-
SPACE.
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A),
taking the following actions to approve the San Luis Ranch Project:
1. Certify the Final EIR, adopt appropriate California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations to allow for potential project
approval, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan; and
2. Find the proposed San Luis Ranch Specific Plan project consistent with General Plan
policies; and
3. Approve the proposed Specific Plan and related project entitlements, including a General
Plan Amendment and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 3096; and
4. Initiate annexation of the project site by authorizing staff to submit an application for
annexation of the project site to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo); and
5. Provide comments and conceptually approve the Term Sheet for the project and authorize
negotiation of a Development Agreement consistent with the terms of the Term Sheet.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The San Luis Ranch Specific Plan is proposed by Coastal Community Builders to enable the
development and agricultural and open space preservation of portions of the 131.3-acre site.
A Final EIR has been prepared for the project, and is avai lable on the City’s website:
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/documents-
online/environmental-review-documents/-folder-1907
The project has been presented before various City advisory bodies. On June 5, 2017, the
Architectural Review Commission unanimously recommended approval of the project Design
Packet Pg 197
12
Guidelines (Chapter 3 of the Specific Plan) to the City Council. In addition, the Cultural
Heritage Commission found the project consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance
and historic preservation policies of the General Plan on May 15, 2017.
On June 7, 2017, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council
certify the Final EIR and approve all project entitlements, including the Vesting Tentative Tract
Map and Term Sheet that provides the basis for a future development agreement. As part of its
Resolution, the Planning Commission recommended additional modifications to the Specific
Plan, which are included in the City Council Resolution (Attachment A).
Planned San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Area Development
Type Specific Plan Zone % of Site Units Acreage
Planned Development 1
Low-Medium Density Residential NG-10 16.4% 200 units 21.5 acres
Medium Density Residential NG-23 5.5% 100 units 7.3 acres
High Density Residential NG-30 8.4% 246 units 11.0 acres
Potential Additional Units2 34 units n/a
Commercial NC 9.0% 150,000 SF 11.9 acres
Office NC 3.2% 100,000 SF 4.2 acres
Hotel and Conference Center NC 2.7% 200 rooms 3.5 acres
Public Parks 2.1% 2.8 acres
Roads 6.8% 9.0 acres
Agricultural and Open Space
Agriculture AG 39.8% 52.3 acres
Internal Open Spaces OS 5.9% 7.8 acres
1. Planned Development area is based on net site area of approximately 122.5 acres. The gross site area is approximately 131.4 acres, less
approximately 8.9 acres of right-of-way associated with regional roadway improvements.
2. The project receives a density bonus of 80 market-rate units because over 5% of the units proposed will be deed restricted as affordable
to Very Low Income residents. 46 of those density bonus units are provided in the High Density Residential area, and 34 units are
unassigned, but may be located in the commercial area as part of a mixed -use component to the project.
There are five major project components, the key elements of which are summarized in the
Planning Commission staff report of May 24, 2017:
• San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
• General Plan Amendment/Pre-Zoning
• Development Plan/Vesting Tentative Tract Map
• Annexation
• Term Sheet/Development Agreement
The City Council’s role is to review and consider approval of the San Luis Ranch project and
related entitlements, based on project-related input received from the Planning Commission,
other City advisory bodies, and the Airport Land Use Commission. As a necessary step related
to possible project approval, the City Council must certify the Final EIR for the project, adopt the
CEQA Findings, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations for impacts determined to
be Significant and Unavoidable (“Class 1 impacts”). If the Council certifies the Final EIR and
Packet Pg 198
12
approves the project, staff will prepare an application to the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) to initiate the annexation process. Lastly, as part of this review the
Council should provide input and direction about pursuing a development agreement based on
the term sheet that is contained herein.
DISCUSSION
Background
1. Project Description Summary
The project is the development of a major new City neighborhood. The project includes a mix of
residential, commercial, and office uses while preserving nearly half of the site as open space and
agriculture on a 131.3-acre property, as described in the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan. The intent is
for the project to be consistent with the development parameters described in the City’s 2014
Land Use Element.
If the project is approved, the Specific Plan area would require annexation to the City of San
Luis Obispo. The project is within the City’s Sphere of Influence and Urban Reserve Line, and is
designed to be consistent with both City and Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo)
policies, including the requirement that the annexation be compatible with the City’s General
Plan and supportable by the City’s infrastructure.
The project would be constructed in six phases. Phases 1, 2, and 3 would consist of residential
development. Construction is planned to begin in 2018. Phases 4, 5, and 6 would consist of non-
residential construction (retail, office, hotel). The above figure shows the location of proposed
Packet Pg 199
12
phasing in the context of the Specific Plan. This figure illustrates the relative timing of proposed
development and infrastructure that will be built under the Specific Plan.
Pages 7-23 through 7-28 within Chapter 7 of the draft Specific Plan describe the conceptual
financing strategy for needed major improvements within the Specific Plan area, based on a
Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP), described in Section 7.8.1 of the Specific Plan. At this
point, the cost and timing are still preliminary, and will depend on market and other factors. But
in general, the following funding mechanisms are proposed in the Specific Plan:
• Primary Funding Mechanisms
▪ Development Impact Fees
▪ Community Facilities District (CFD)
• Ancillary Funding Mechanisms
▪ City and County Tax Exchange
▪ Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD)
▪ Developer Financing
▪ Landscape and Lighting District
▪ Homeowner Association Fees
In general, San Luis Ranch development will pay for needed infrastructure upfront and be
reimbursed for portions beyond its fair share, or it will pay its fair share upfront to contribute to
the eventual construction of a needed improvement. The final infrastructure financing strategy
will be based on fiscal and economic studies that examine the proposed improvements and
timing, and refine the financing and fair share mechanisms needed to deliver a given
infrastructure project. This funding analysis will be provided in detail during the negotiation and
the City Council’s consideration of the Development Agreement.
2. Planning Commission Review and Recommendation
The Planning Commission has previously considered the project on eight occasions, once during
the pre-application process, twice to review a preliminary version of the Specific Plan, twice
during the Draft EIR public review period, and three times to consider the project now before the
City Council. On June 7, 2017, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the
City Council certify the Final EIR and approve all project entitlements, included the Vesting
Tentative Tract Map as conditioned. As part of its Resolution, the Planning Commission
recommended additional modifications to the Specific Plan, which are discussed in Section 6.0
of this staff report, and included in the City Council Resolution (Attachment A).
3. Previous Advisory Body Review
The project has been considered before various City advisory bodies that have carefully
reviewed and commented on specific aspects of the proposed project that relate to their purview.
On June 5, 2017, the Architectural Review Commission unanimously recommended approval of
the project Design Guidelines (Chapter 3 of the Specific Plan) to the City Council. In addition,
the Cultural Heritage Committee found the project consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation
Packet Pg 200
12
Ordinance and historic preservation policies of the General Plan on May 15, 2017.
Finally, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has reviewed the project on several
occasions. On April 19, 2017, the ALUC determined that the project was consistent with the
Airport Land Use Plan. Changes to the plan were required, including relocation of 27 dwelling
units that would have otherwise been in a more restrictive airport safety zone. In addition, the
ALUC required that a portion of the commercial area be restricted from including buildings
(though parking lot improvements, landscaping, and other site improvements are allowed). (See
Council Reading file for final ALUC findings and conditions.) The applicant subsequently
updated the Specific Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract map to address these changes, which is the
version of the project recommended by the Planning Commission, and currently being
considered by the City Council.
Attachment C provides a summary of the different advisory bodies that have considered the
project, when these reviews occurred, as well as the purpose and outcome of these meetings.
4. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Conclusions
Consistent with City Council direction, a Draft EIR was prepared for the project, and distributed
for public review from December 9, 2016, to January 30, 2017. The Planning Commission held
two public hearings to solicit input on the Draft EIR, on January 11 and January 25, 2017.
Portions of the Draft EIR related to the project’s energy impacts were recirculated for 45 days,
from March 3 through April 17, 2017. Several mitigation measures in the Draft EIR were revised
as a result of these responses to comments, in order to clarify or improve their effectiveness.
The Final EIR concludes that the project will result in significant and unavoidable impacts to:
• Air Quality – consistency with the Clean Air Plan; cumulative impacts related to air
quality
• Cultural Resources – impacts to the existing historic onsite agricultural structures,
known as the San Luis Ranch Complex, as well as cumulative impacts related to
cultural resources
• Land Use – policies to protect historic resources and provisions related to parkland,
as well as policies to achieve of multimodal objectives
• Noise – short-term construction noise
• Transportation – Level of Service impacts to intersection capacities are identified at
Madonna Road/Dalidio Drive and Los Osos Valley Road/Froom Ranch Way; bicycle
facility impacts for the Higuera Street segment between Prado and Madonna Road;
and cumulative impacts to the U.S. 101 segment between Los Osos Valley Road and
Madonna Road
The EIR also finds that there will be significant impacts that can be mitigated to less than
significant in the categories of agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural
resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise,
recreation, and transportation. Impacts related to aesthetics, greenhouse gas emissions, water
resources, as well as certain issues related to agricultural resources, air quality, hazards,
Packet Pg 201
12
hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, population and housing were found to be less than
significant. Tables ES-1 through ES-3 in the Final EIR Executive Summary (Attachment D) and
at the beginning of the Final EIR summarize the project’s impacts and mitigation measures.
The Final EIR is available at the following website:
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/documents-
online/environmental-review-documents/-folder-1907
CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
The Final EIR must be certified before or concurrent with an action to approve the proposed
project entitlements.
The Planning Commission determined that the Final EIR adequately described and analyzed the
proposed project, and that the document included appropriate mitigation measures to reduce
potential impacts to the extent feasible. These mitigation measures are included in a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program within the Final EIR.
Based on this, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the Final
EIR, and to consider the attached CEQA Findings that support the proposed project, including a
Statement of Overriding Considerations to address the identified significant and unavoidable
impacts described in the Final EIR. These are included in Attachment B - Exhibit A (CEQA
Findings).
5. General Plan Guidance and Policy Consistency
The project is based on policy direction included in the General Plan, specifically Land Use
Element Policy 8.1.4, which identifies the San Luis Ranch area as a Special Focus Area (SP -2),
subject to policies for the development of a specific plan and certain broad development
parameters and principles. For clarity, the entire policy is included within the summary of
relevant General Plan policies as a Council Reading File (EIR Policy Consistency Analysis). In
its Resolution of June 7, 2017, the Planning Commission found that the San Luis Ranch project
was consistent with the City’s General Plan and related policies and standards.
6. Term Sheet, Development Agreement and Infrastructure Financing
Background and Overview
In April 2014, the City Council authorized City staff to begin a process for the City to enter into
a Development Agreement with the project applicant. A Development Agreement is a land use
and planning mechanism that allows public agencies to gain public benefits beyond what would
either be required through a typical planning process or the CEQA process to address identified
impacts related to a project. A Development Agreement typically includes a commitment by the
developer to provide extraordinary benefits. In exchange, a project applicant is provided
assurances related to future development, often with respect to timing. In this particular case, a
Development Agreement cannot be approved unless other necessary underlying planning
entitlements are approved – a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment/Pre-Zoning, and Vesting
Packet Pg 202
12
Tentative Tract Map. The project site must also be annexed to the City before its provisions
become effective. Importantly, the tentative tract map is specifically conditioned on the City and
the Developer executing a Development Agreement. This means that a final map cannot be
recorded for any phase of the development until this document is approved or the condition is
otherwise modified by the City Council.
Relationship Between Term Sheet and Development Agreement
For this project, a Term Sheet (“Term Sheet”) has been prepared to form the basis of the
Development Agreement. The City Council is requested to provide feedback and approve the
attached Term Sheet. This Term Sheet represents the tentative non-binding understanding
between the applicant and the City on important areas related to the phased and orderly
development of the property such as vesting rights, infrastructure financing, and growth
management. Following review of the Term Sheet by the City Council and once negotiations are
completed, a full Development Agreement will be presented to the Planning Commission before
being presented to the City Council. Staff anticipates returning to the City Council in Fall 2017.
The Development Agreement works in parallel to other entitlements, and in the case of San Luis
Ranch, the proposed conditions of approval require its approval with a detailed infrastructure
financing plan before certain portions of the entitlement can take effect. The Development
Agreement would not change the development parameters included in the Specific Plan, but
would fine-tune their implementation, building on the Conditions of Approval associated with
the Vesting Tentative Tract Map.
Term Sheet Review
The City Council is asked to approve the Term Sheet as the basis for a Development Agreement.
The attached Term Sheet (Attachment C) covers 26 areas, ranging from required terms such as
length of term and permitted uses, to subject areas that are unique to the San Luis Ranch Project
such as water rights, dedication of public lands, growth management ordinance, infrastructure
requirements, new taxes, fees and exactions.
Staff will provide an overview of the key points of the term sheet at the City Council meeting.
The Term Sheet is intentionally broad because its terms are based on the totality of the project as
embodied in the Specific Plan, Conditions of Approval, Development Plan, Property Tax
Exchange Agreement1, EIR, and various statutes and municipal code requirements. Once it is
clear what the entitlements include in their totality, a full fiscal analysis will be prepared as basis
for discussing extraordinary public benefits and the project’s carrying capacity in terms of
infrastructure beyond its fair share.
If the Term Sheet is approved, staff anticipates returning to the Planning Commission in Fall
2017 with a draft Development Agreement. At that hearing, the Planning Commission will be
required to make the following findings (17.94.100) when making a recommendation to the City
Council, who would then consider the Development Agreement for possible approval:
1 A property tax exchange agreement is required to be negotiated between the City and the County as part of the
annexation process. The agreement details the distribution of taxes, including property and sales taxes, in the newly
annexed area. The agreement is based on a master agreement that the County and all of the cities in the County have
agreed to follow.
Packet Pg 203
12
17.94.100 Planning commission hearing and recommendation.
The commission shall consider the proposed development agreement and shall make its
recommendation to the council. The recommendation shall include whether or not the
proposed development agreement meets the following findings:
A. The proposed development agreement is consistent with the general plan and any
applicable specific plan;
B. The proposed development agreement complies with zoning, subdivision and other
applicable ordinances and regulations;
C. The proposed development agreement promotes the general welfare, allows more
comprehensive land use planning, and provides substantial public benefits or
necessary public improvements, making it in the city’s interest to enter into the
development agreement with the applicant; and
D. The proposed project and development agreement:
1. Will not adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of persons living or working
in the surrounding area;
2. Will be appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with adjacent
land uses; or
3. Will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. (Ord. 1134 § 1
(part), 1989)
The City Council will then be in a position to review and consider the Develop Agreement. This
too is anticipated to occur in the Fall 2017.
7. Development Plan/Vesting Tentative Tract Map
The project includes a Development Plan/Vesting Tentative Tract Map (See Council Reading
File), which addresses future residential development within the Specific Plan area. The map
includes details that go well beyond those included in the Specific Plan, including information on
lot locations, roadways, drainage, grading, and other information typically associated with
Tentative Maps. The Tentative Map would facilitate development within the areas it covers. It is
consistent with the Specific Plan - implementing its policies, zoning standards, and Design
Guidelines. The Map also includes details regarding proposed roadways and circulation
improvements.
Conditions of Approval for the Tentative Map are included in the attached Resolution
(Attachment A). These conditions cover issues ranging from fire safety; transportation
infrastructure requirements; dedications and easements; utilities; grading, drainage, storm water,
and other infrastructure requirements; air quality; relocation of historic structures; avigation
easements; affordable housing; and natural resource protection. These are separate from, and in
addition to, the mitigation measures and monitoring program that are included in the Final EIR.
Staff’s review of the Tentative Map is that, as conditioned, it is consistent with the Specific Plan,
both in terms of development potential and design. The basic development parameters allowed
under the Map are described above, and previously in more detail in the May 24 P lanning
Packet Pg 204
12
Commission staff report for the project.
A future Tract Map (or Maps) would be required for the multi-family and commercial phases
(Phases 3-6) of the project prior to approval of development within those portions of the Specific
Plan.
8. Parks
As required by Land Use Element Policy 8.1.4, the San Luis Ranch project is required to provide
5.8 acres of developed parkland. The project is providing 2.8 acres of developed parkland on
site. Therefore, funding for 3.0 acres of developed parkland is required for the project to offset
its requirement. The following table identifies the total amount of in-lieu fees necessary for the
project to meet its full park requirements. The final fee amounts are subject to change based on
the final acreage of developed parkland constructed across all phases of the project.
Unit Type Parkland Cost Per
Unit1
Park Improvement
Cost Per Unit2
In-Lieu Fee Requirement
(Total * 52%3)
Single Family (200 units) $5,839 $6,585 $1,292,096
Multi-Family (380 units) $4,630 $4,899 $1,882,930
Total = $3,175,026
1. Current City of San Luis Obispo Parkland In-Lieu Fee Amount.
2. Most recent cost estimate for park improvement costs (Orcutt Area Neighborhood Park).
3. The in-lieu fee requirement calculated as the difference between the 2.8-acre neighborhood park and the
5.8-acre policy minimum requirement for improved parkland.
Prado Road Interchange
The Prado Rd. Interchange is a key piece of infrastructure associated with the development of
this site. Both the Land use and Circulation Element of the General Plan contain key
performance measures for the development project regarding the interchange project. The San
Luis Ranch EIR performed substantial technical review of the proposed project and area
transportation infrastructure. The EIR concluded that existing infrastructure along with proposed
improvements of the project (with required mitigation measures) would allow the first phase of
development to commence without the need for the overpass or interchange. The EIR concluded
that phase two of the development project would require construction of the Prado Rd. Overpass
and NB ramps to offset project traffic on area roadways.
The EIR further concluded that the full interchange (addition of SB Ramps) are necessary to
mitigate full City buildout of development along with growth from regional traffic. The initial
phase of the interchange project can be designed and built in a multi-phase format such that the
additional SB Ramps can be constructed when necessary with little impact to the initial
interchange project. All right of way for the full interchange will be required to be dedicated
prior to recordation of the subdivision map.
The interchange project will be a City lead project. Advance development work – funded by the
applicant – has been underway for the last year with a Project Study Report (PSR) being
processed with Caltrans. The City and CalTrans have developed a cooperative agreement for
project processing that identifies a planned opening year of 2021-22 which coincides with the
Packet Pg 205
12
tentative timing of phase 2 of the development project. The recently adopted 2017-19 Financial
Plan includes funding for continuation of development of the interchange with design and
environmental work in the next 2-3 year period. The San Luis Ranch project will play a critical
role in establishing the funding mechanism to deliver this infrastructure. A condition of the map
has been constructed that prohibits Phase 2 of the development from moving forward unless
funding is in hand that allows the City to begin construction. The mechanism to deliver that
funding will be memorialized in the Development Agreement.
The planned interchange (Overpass & NB Ramps) opening year of 2021-22 coincides with the
San Luis Ranch development schedule, as San Luis Ranch proceeds with phase 1 the City will be
concurrently proceeding through the interchange design and permitting process. Barring any
unforeseen issues with permitting the construction plans and permits should be completed and, as
required, the funding will be in hand allowing the City to begin construction of the interchange
(Overpass & NB Ramps) concurrently with Phase 2 of the development.
Community Facilities District
As part of the 2017-2019 Financial Plan, the City Council included new financial policies which
establish a framework for land based financing. For the San Luis Ranch project, it is anticipated
that a Communities Facilities District (CFD) will be need for both services and infrastructure. A
key requirement of the conditions of approval is that the applicant forego any protest rights
regarding the formation of a CFD.
One of the pillar policies2 of the City’s General Plan is that development should pay its own way
unless the City chooses to pay the costs to obtain community wide benefits. City Staff worked
with the applicant to prepare a detailed fiscal impact analysis of the proposed project. In
summary, the analysis shows that the project will have a positive fiscal impact only if the
commercial portions of the project are built. Phases 4, 5, and 6 are the later phases and are
commercial. In summary, the analysis shows that at the end of Phase 3, revenues will be
approximately $195,000 less than expenditures. By Phase 6, revenues will exceed expenditures
by nearly $1 million dollars. Given the uncertainty and timing of the commercial phases, a CFD
for services will be formed to fund this interim shortfall.
CFD’s can also be used to fund any gap in infrastructure financing and can be used as either a
source of reimbursement or to fund costs in excess of any fair share requirements. General Plan
and Specific Plan Policies, development standards, mitigation measures and conditions of
approval in combination require a significant amount of both in tract and offsite infrastructure to
facilitate the orderly development of this area. A preliminary analysis concludes that the
development project has the capacity to generate approximately $15 million of CFD revenue for
both services and infrastructure over a 30-year timeframe. The exact amount is still be analyzed
and will be part of a separate report brought to the City Council during the formation of the
CFD.
Next Steps
2 1.13.9. Costs of Growth: The City shall require the costs of public facilities and services needed for new development be borne by the new
development, unless the community chooses to help pay the costs for a certain development to obtain community-wide benefits. The City shall
consider a range of options for financing measures so that new development pays its fair share of costs of new services and facilities which are
required to serve the project and which are reasonably related to the new growth attributable to the development.
Packet Pg 206
12
If the City Council certifies the EIR, approves the Specific Plan and related entitlements, as well
as taking the other necessary actions, these are the next steps in the process:
• Prepare Development Agreement. City staff would work with the applicant to prepare a
Development Agreement based on the approved Term Sheet and technical fiscal analysis.
• City Council Formally Initiates Annexation Request. The City Council will forward a
request for annexation to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). City staff
will prepare the annexation application and initiate negotiations with the County on taxes
• Planning Commission Consideration of Development Agreement. The Planning
Commission would consider the Development Agreement, and forward its
recommendations to the City Council.
• City Council Consideration of Development Agreement. The City Council would
consider approval of the Development Agreement, based on Planning Commission
recommendations.
• LAFCo Consideration of Annexation. LAFCo will consider the City’s application for
annexing the project area into the City.
• AB 1600 Update and Establish CFD. After a joint Planning Commission/City Council
study session, the City Council will consider an update of the AB 1600 fee program, and
the establishment of a Community Facilities District (CFD), both of which will be
necessary in order to implement development under the Specific Plan.
• Project Development. Once the Development Agreement is approved, annexation has
occurred, and fee structures are in place, the City’s approved project entitlements will
become effective, including Development Agreement provisions. Project development
could then commence, pursuant to required regulatory resource agency permitting.
CONCURRENCES
The City’s review of the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan has involved all City departments
involved in the development review process. Conditions of approval or mitigation measures will
be implemented to ensure that the project is carried out in a manner that is consistent with City
standards. In addition, the Airport Land Use Commission has determined that the project is
consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT
When the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan were updated in 2014, they
were accompanied by a fiscal analysis that identified the overall fiscal impact that build-out of
the General Plan would have on the city’s ability to continue to provide the high level of service
expected by our community. This look at the fiscal impact of the City’s land use plan is an
essential aspect of land use planning in California, where property tax growth is statutorily
limited. As a result, communities have to be careful to balance land uses between commercial
activities that produce net revenues to support City operations, and residential uses that cost
more to support than they produce in direct revenues.
Normally, individual projects are not accompanied by project-specific fiscal analyses. In the case
of San Luis Ranch, a detailed fiscal analysis has been prepared for a few key reasons:
Packet Pg 207
12
1. The size of the project warrants a project-specific look.
2. The phasing of the project could result in short term fiscal impacts that would limit the
ability of the City to maintain or deliver public facilities in the earlier phases of the
project. This may result in the need for a Community Facilities District to support project
maintenance or infrastructure costs.
3. Negotiations with the developer regarding the development agreement relies on a detailed
understanding of the specific fiscal effects of the project.
4. Discussions with the County regarding the tax exchange agreement are also informed by
a more detailed understanding of the tax revenue and costs that will be generated by the
project.
The fiscal impact analysis for the San Luis Ranch project was prepared by Applied Development
Economics. This is the same firm that prepared the fiscal and economic analysi s for the General
Plan update. A few of the key findings from the report include:
1. At full build out, the project is estimated to generate about $2.5 million per year in
General Fund revenues and $1.5 million per year in municipal service costs ($2017). As
noted in this report, projections show that there will be periods that expenditures exceed
revenues for the first phases.
2. It should be noted that the City has made investments and anticipates additional future
investments in circulation infrastructure and other public facilities that benefit the
proposed project site.
3. To the extent this project generates positive net revenue for the City General Fund, those
revenues may be needed to service debt for these public investments that are not funded
through direct development impact fees.
4. The residential units would be built in the first three phases and all show a negative fiscal
impact. The City contemplates establishing a Community Facilities District (CFD) to
help mitigate this adverse fiscal impact.
5. The hotel would be built in Phase 4 and represents the single highest fiscal net revenue of
any of the land uses in the project.
6. The office development would be built in Phase 5 and produces a negative fiscal impact,
mainly because the property tax from the non-residential development would go to the
County rather than the City and office space does not generate much sales tax to help
defray the costs of services.
7. The retail commercial development in Phase 6 would generate substantial sales tax and
also produce a significant fiscal benefit similar to the hotel.
In conclusion, the San Luis Ranch Project is expected to have a net positive fiscal impact on the
City, however, a portion of those revenues will be needed for infrastructure that is expected to
benefit the City as a whole. In addition, the phasing of the project presents some fiscal impacts in
the first phases that may be addressed by the establishment of a Community Facilities District to
ensure that the City has sufficient resources to provide urban services and maintain public
facilities prior to project build-out.
Packet Pg 208
12
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue consideration of the project entitlements. The City Council may continue its
review of the San Luis Ranch project to a date certain (July 18, 2017) if additional time
or information is needed to make a decision. If additional information is needed, direction
should be provided to staff so that it can be presented on July 18.
2. Direct changes to the project proposal. The City Council may direct staff and the
applicant to make specific changes to the project. Direction on changes should be specific
and within the scope of the environmental document prepared for the project. For
example, the Council could direct the applicant to reduce the number of units proposed
for the project because a smaller project is evaluated in the Final EIR. However, direction
to increase the number of residential units would require additional environmental review
causing substantial delay to the entitlement process.
3. Deny the project. The City Council may deny the project, based on findings that the
project is not consistent with the General Plan, or that the project benefits do not
outweigh its negative effects. This action is not recommended because the project
appears to be consistent with the General Plan, and the Final EIR for the project has
identified mitigation measures that will reduce most project-related impacts to less than
significant levels. Proposed Findings of Overriding Consideration recommended by the
Planning Commission illustrate how the benefits of the project outweigh its negative
effects.
The San Luis Ranch Specific Plan, FEIR, and Tentative Tract Map can be found online at the
following location: http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-
development/planning-zoning/specific-area-plans/san-luis-ranch
Attachments:
a - Resolution
b - Exhibit A - San Luis Ranch CEQA Findings
c - Advisory Body Review Summary and Project Responses
d - San Luis Ranch Final EIR Exec Summary
e - Development Agreement Term Sheet
f - Council Reading File - ALUC Findings and Conditions
g - Council Reading File - Policy Consistency Analysis
h - Council Reading File - Vesting Tentative Tract Map
Packet Pg 209
12
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2017 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL EIR FOR AND
APPROVING THE SAN LUIS RANCH PROJECT, INCLUDING A
SPECIFIC PLAN, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, PREZONING,
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 3096,
INITIATION OF ANNEXATION FOR THE PROJECT, AND TERM SHEET
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1035 MADONNA ROAD (SPEC/ANNX/ER-
1502-2015)
WHEREAS, on June 7, 2017, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
recommended the City Council 1) certify the Final EIR for the San Luis Ranch project; and 2)
approve the San Luis Ranch project, including all related entitlements, consisting of the San Luis
Ranch Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, prezoning the site in anticipation of annexation,
Development Plan/Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 3096, and Term Sheet; and 3) initiate an
annexation application to the San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo); and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing on
July 5, 2017 in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for
the purpose of considering SPEC/ANNX/ER-1502-2015, which includes entitlements consistent
with the Planning Commission recommendation of June 7, 2017, including a Specific Plan that would
allow up to 580 residential units, 250,000 square feet of commercial development, and other uses on
a 131-acre site, with a and Vesting Tentative Tract Map that would accommodate the residential
portion of the Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required
by law; 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
hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Final EIR, CEQA Findings, Mitigation Measures and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council hereby
certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, and adopts the following CEQA Findings in support of the San Luis Ranch
Project:
1. The San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was prepared
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA
Guidelines, adequately addressing impacts associated with the proposed project; and
Packet Pg 210
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 1
R ______
2. The proposed project is consistent with the requirements of the San Luis Ranch Specific
Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) as proposed based on the attached Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations prepared consistent with CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15091 and 15093, and this approval incorporates those FEIR mitigation measures as
applicable to VTM #3096, as detailed below, and described more fully in the attached “Findings
of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations” document.
3. All potentially significant effects were analyzed adequately in the referenced FEIR, and
reduced to the extent feasible, provided the following mitigation measures are incorporated
into the project and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
SAN LUIS RANCH FEIR MITIGATION MEASURES
Agricultural Resources Mitigation
AG-1. Agricultural Conservation. Prior to issuance of any grading permits the project
proponent shall provide that for every one (1) acre of Important Farmland (Prime Farmland,
Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland) on the site that is permanently
converted to non-agricultural use as a result of project development, one (1) acre of land of
comparable agricultural productivity shall be preserved in perpetuity. The land dedicated to
agriculture pursuant to this measure shall be of size, location and configuration appropriate to
maintain a viable, working agricultural operation. The acreage required to meet the 1:1 ratio may
be met by the off-site agricultural conservation easement/deed restriction proposed by the project
applicant, as long as this land meets the conditions outlined in this measure. Said mitigation shall
be satisfied by the applicant through:
1) Granting a perpetual conservation easement(s), deed restriction(s), or other farmland
conservation mechanism(s) to the City or qualifying entity which has been approved by the
City, such as the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo, for the purpose of permanently
preserving agricultural land. The required easement(s) area or deed restriction(s) shall
therefore total a minimum of 56 acres of Prime Farmland. The land covered by said on-
and/or off-site easement(s) or deed restriction(s) shall be located within or contiguous to
the City’s Urban Reserve Line or Greenbelt subject to review and approval of the City’s
Natural Resources Manager; or
2) Making an in-lieu payment to a qualifying entity which has been approved by the City,
such as the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo, to be applied toward the future
purchase of a minimum of 56 acres of Prime Farmland in San Luis Obispo County,
together with an endowment amount as may be required. The payment amount shall be
determined by the qualifying entity or a licensed appraiser; or
3) Making an in-lieu payment to a qualifying entity which has been approved by the City and
that is organized for conservation purposes, to be applied toward a future perpetual
conservation easement, deed restriction, or other farmland conservation mechanism to
preserve a minimum of 56 acres of Prime Farmland in San Luis Obispo County. The
amount of the payment shall be determined by the qualifying entity or a licensed appraiser;
or
Any combination of the above.
Packet Pg 211
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2
R ______
AG-3(a). Agricultural Conflict Avoidance Measures. The following language shall be added
to Section 4.2.1, Agricultural Buffer, of the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan:
“Agricultural buffers will include City-approved measures to reduce availability of public
access to agricultural cultivation areas adjacent to the project site (e.g., fencing, signs,
etc.). Future residents will be notified of agricultural buffers as part of purchase or lease
agreements.”
AG-3(b). Agricultural Fencing. The project applicant shall coordinate with the City to fund
installation of fencing and signs along Froom Ranch Way and Dalidio Drive/Prado Road to
minimize potential for increases in trespass and vandalism of adjacent agricultural areas.
AG-3(c). Buffer Landscaping. To reduce the potential for noise, dust, and pesticide drift to affect
future residents on the project site, the project applicant shall ensure that project landscape plans
include planting of a windrow of trees and shrubs within the agricultural buffer along Froom
Ranch Way at a sufficient density to buffer the site from surrounding agricultural operations.
Air Quality Mitigation
AQ-1. Encourage Telecommuting. The project applicant or developers of individual projects
within the Specific Plan Area shall include provisions to encourage employers within the
proposed commercial, office, and hotel components of the project to implement telecommuting
programs and include teleconferencing capabilities, such as web cams or satellite linkage, which
will allow employees to attend meetings remotely without requiring them to travel out of the area.
AQ-2(a). Fugitive Dust Control Measures. Construction projects shall implement the following
dust control measures so as to reduce PM10 emissions in accordance with SLOAPCD
requirements.
• Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible;
• Water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used during construction in sufficient quantities to
prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency shall be required
whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water or a SLOAPCD-
approved dust suppressant shall be used whenever possible, to reduce the amount of potable
water used for dust control;
• All dirt stock pile areas shall be sprayed daily as needed;
• Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape
plans shall be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing
activities;
• Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after
initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive grass seed and watered until
vegetation is established;
• All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical
soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the SLOAPCD;
• All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible
after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used;
Packet Pg 212
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3
R ______
• Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at
the construction site;
• All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or shall maintain
at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer)
in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114;
• Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off
trucks and equipment leaving the site;
• Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads.
Water sweepers with reclaimed water shall be used where feasible;
• All of these fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans;
and
• The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust
emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust
complaints, reduce visible emissions below 20 percent opacity, and to prevent transport of dust
offsite. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in
progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the SLOAPCD
Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition.
AQ-2(b). Standard Control Measures for Construction Equipment. The following standard
air quality mitigation measures shall be implemented during construction activities at the project
site:
• Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer’s specifications;
• Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment with ARB certified motor vehicle
diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for sue off-road);
• Use diesel construction equipment meeting ARB’s Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner off-road
heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State Off-Road Regulation;
• Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the ARB’s 2007 or cleaner certification standard for
on-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State On-Road Regulation;
• Construction or trucking companies with fleets that do not have engines in their fleet that meet
the engine standards identified in the above two measures (e.g. captive or NOX exempt area
fleets) may be eligible by proving alternative compliance;
• On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of
Regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with
gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on
highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general, the regulation
specifies that drivers of said vehicles:
1. Shall not idle the vehicle's primary diesel engine for greater than 5-minutes at any location,
except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and,
2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air
conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a
sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of a
restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation.
• Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5-minute idling restriction identified in
Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board's In-Use Off-Road Diesel regulation.
Packet Pg 213
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 4
R ______
• Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and or job sites to remind drivers and
operators of the 5-minute idling limit;
• In addition to the state required diesel idling requirements, the project applicant shall comply
with these more restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive receptors:
1. Signs that specify the no idling areas shall be posted and enforced at the site.
2. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted;
3. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors;
4. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended;
• Electrify equipment when feasible;
• Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where feasible; and
• Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible, such as compressed
natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane or biodiesel.
AQ-2(c). Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for Construction Equipment. The
following BACT for diesel-fueled construction equipment shall be implemented during
construction activities at the project site, where feasible:
• Further reducing emissions by expanding use of Tier 3 and Tier 4 off-road and 2010 on-road
compliant engines where feasible;
• Repowering equipment with the cleanest engines available; and
• Installing California Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies, such as level 2 diesel
particulate filters. These strategies are listed at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm
AQ-2(d). Architectural Coating. To reduce ROG and NOX levels during the architectural
coating phase, low or no VOC-emission paint shall be used with levels of 50 g/L or less.
AQ-2(e). Construction Activity Management Plan. Emissions reduction measures and
construction practices required to comply with Mitigation Measures AQ-2(a) through AQ-2(d)
shall be documented in a Construction Activity Management Plan (CAMP) and submitted to
SLOAPCD for review and approval at least three months before the start of construction. The
CAMP shall include a Dust Control Management Plan, tabulation of on and off-road construction
equipment (age, horse-power and miles and/or hours of operation), construction truck trip
schedule, construction work-day period, and construction phasing. If implementation of the
Standard Mitigation and Best Available Control Technology measures cannot bring the project
below the Tier 1 threshold (2.5 tons of NOX+ROG per quarter), off-site mitigation shall be
implemented in coordination with SLOAPCD to reduce NOX and ROG emissions to below the
Tier 1 threshold.
AQ-3(a). Standard Operational Mitigation Measures. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the
applicant shall define and incorporate into the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan standard emission
reduction measures from the SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook to reduce emissions to
below daily threshold levels. Emission reduction measures shall include, but would not be limited
to:
Packet Pg 214
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 5
R ______
• Increase the building energy rating by 20 percent above 2013 Title 24 requirements (used in
the California Emissions Estimator Model) or consistent with 2016 Title 24 requirements,
whichever is stricter. Measures used to reach the 20 percent rating cannot be double counted;
• Utilize onsite renewable energy systems (e.g., solar, wind, geothermal, low-impact hydro,
biomass and bio-gas); and
• In addition, the proposed hotel component of the Specific Plan shall participate in the SLO Car
Free Program, provide incentives to car-free travelers, and promote the program in their
communication tools.
AQ-3(b). Off-Site Mitigation. If implementation of standard emission reduction measures from
the SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook described in Mitigation Measure AQ-3(a) is
insufficient to reduce emissions to below daily threshold levels, then the applicant shall coordinate
with SLOAPCD to provide funding for off-site emission reduction measures to reduce emissions
to below daily threshold levels. In accordance with SLOAPCD methodology, the excess
emissions shall be multiplied by the cost effectiveness of mitigation as defined in the State’s
current Carl Moyer Incentive Program Guidelines to determine the annual off-site mitigation
amount. This amount shall then be extrapolated over the life of the project to determine total off-
site mitigation. Off-site emission reduction measures may include, but would not be limited to:
• Developing or improving park-and-ride lots;
• Retrofitting existing homes in the project area with SLOAPCD-approved wood combustion
devices;
• Retrofitting existing homes in the project area with energy-efficient devices;
• Constructing satellite worksites;
• Funding a program to buy and scrap older, higher emission passenger and heavy-duty vehicles;
• Replacing/re-powering transit buses;
• Replacing/re-powering heavy-duty diesel school vehicles (i.e. bus, passenger or maintenance
vehicles);
• Funding an electric lawn and garden equipment exchange program;
• Retrofitting or re-powering heavy-duty construction equipment, or on-road vehicles;
• Re-powering marine vessels;
• Re-powering or contributing to funding clean diesel locomotive main or auxiliary engines;
• Installing bicycle racks on transit buses;
• Purchasing particulate filters or oxidation catalysts for local school buses, transit buses or
construction fleets;
• Installing or contributing to funding alternative fueling infrastructure (i.e. fueling stations for
CNG, LPG, conductive and inductive electric vehicle charging, etc.);
• Funding expansion of existing transit services;
• Funding public transit bus shelters;
• Subsidizing vanpool programs;
• Subsidizing transportation alternative incentive programs;
• Contributing to funding of new bike lanes;
• Installing bicycle storage facilities; and
• Providing assistance in the implementation of projects that are identified in City or County
Bicycle Master Plans.
Packet Pg 215
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 6
R ______
Biological Resources Mitigation
BIO-1(a). Best Management Practices. The applicant shall ensure the following general wildlife
Best Management Practices (BMPs) are required for construction activity within the San Luis
Ranch Specific Plan Area:
• No pets or firearms shall be allowed at the project site during construction activities.
• All trash that may attract predators must be properly contained and removed from the work
site. All such debris and waste shall be picked up daily and properly disposed of at an
appropriate site.
• All refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles shall occur at least 100 feet
from Prefumo Creek and in a location where a spill would not drain toward aquatic habitat. A
plan must be in place for prompt and effective response to any accidental spills prior to the
onset of work activities. All workers shall be informed of the appropriate measures to take
should an accidental spill occur.
• Pallets or secondary containment areas for chemicals, drums, or bagged materials shall be
provided. Should material spills occur, materials and/or contaminants shall be cleaned from
the project site and recycled or disposed of to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB).
• Prior to construction activities in areas adjacent to Prefumo Creek and Cerro San Luis Channel,
the drainage features shall be fenced with orange construction fencing and signed to prohibit
entry of construction equipment and personnel unless authorized by the City. Fencing should
be located a minimum of 20 feet from the edge of the riparian canopy or top of bank and shall
be maintained throughout the construction period for each phase of development. Once all
phases of construction in this area are complete, the fencing may be removed.
• To control sedimentation during and after project implementation, appropriate erosion control
BMPs (e.g., use of coir rolls, jute netting, etc.) shall be implemented to minimize adverse
effects on Prefumo Creek. No plastic monofilament netting shall be utilized on site.
• Construction equipment shall be inspected at the beginning of each day to ensure that wildlife
species have not climbed into wheel wells or under tracks since the equipment was last parked.
Any sensitive wildlife species found during inspections shall be gently encouraged to leave the
area by a qualified biological monitor or otherwise trained personnel.
• All vehicles and equipment shall be in good working condition and free of leaks.
• Environmentally Sensitive Areas shall be delineated by a qualified biologist prior to
construction to confine access routes and construction areas.
• Construction work shall be restricted to daylight hours (7:00 AM to 7:00 PM) to avoid impacts
to nocturnal and crepuscular (dawn and dusk activity period) species. No construction night
lighting shall be permitted within 100 yards of the top of the Prefumo Creek bank.
• Concrete truck and tool washout shall be limited to locations designated by a qualified biologist
such that no runoff will reach Prefumo Creek or Cerro San Luis Channel.
• All open trenches shall be constructed with appropriate exit ramps to allow species that
accidentally fall into a trench to escape. Trenches will remain open for the shortest period
necessary to complete required work.
Packet Pg 216
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 7
R ______
• Existing facilities and disturbed areas shall be used to the extent possible to minimize the
amount of disturbance and all new access roads other than the Froom Ranch Way Bridge shall
be cited to avoid high quality habitat and minimize habitat fragmentation.
• In the event that construction must occur within the creek or creek setback, a biological monitor
shall be present during all such activities with the authority to stop or redirect work as needed
to protect biological resources.
BIO-1(b). Worker Environmental Awareness Program Training. Prior to the initiation of
construction activities (including staging and mobilization), the applicant shall ensure all
personnel associated with project construction attend a Worker Environmental Awareness
Program (WEAP) training.
• The training shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, to aid workers in recognizing special
status resources that may occur in the project area. The specifics of this program shall include
identification of the sensitive species and habitats, a description of the regulatory status and
general ecological characteristics of sensitive resources, and review of the limits of
construction and avoidance measures required to reduce impacts to biological resources within
the work area. A fact sheet conveying this information shall also be prepared for distribution
to all contractors, their employers, and other personnel involved with construction of the
project. All employees shall sign a form provided by the trainer documenting they have
attended the WEAP and understand the information presented to them.
BIO-1(c). Western Pond Turtle and Two-Striped Garter Snake Impact Avoidance and
Minimization. The applicant shall ensure the following actions are implemented to avoid and
minimize potential impacts to western pond turtle and two-striped garter snake (these reptiles
utilize similar habitats; therefore, implementation of the proposed measures for western pond
turtle are also suitable and appropriate for two-striped garter snake):
• A qualified biologist(s) shall conduct a pre-construction survey within 24 hours prior to the
onset of work activities within and around areas that may serve as potential western pond turtle
habitat. If this species is found and the individuals are likely to be injured or killed by work
activities, the approved biologist shall be allowed sufficient time to move them from the project
site before work activities begin. The biologist(s) must relocate the any western pond turtle the
shortest distance possible to a location that contains suitable habitat that is not likely to be
affected by activities associated with the project.
• Access routes, staging, and construction areas shall be limited to the minimum area necessary
to achieve the project goal and minimize potential impacts to western pond turtle habitat
including locating access routes and construction staging areas outside of wetlands and riparian
areas to the maximum extent practicable.
BIO-1(d). California Red-legged Frog, Western spadefoot, and Coast Range Newt Impact
Avoidance and Minimization. The applicant shall implement the following to avoid and minimize
potential impacts to CRLF. Because coast range newt and western spadefoot are amphibians that
utilize similar habitats to CRLF, implementation of the following measures provided for CRLF
shall be implemented for these species as well.
• Only USFWS-approved biologists shall participate in activities associated with the capture,
handling, and monitoring of CRLF.
Packet Pg 217
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 8
R ______
• Ground disturbance shall not begin until written approval is received from the USFWS that the
biologist is qualified to conduct the work. If the USFWS does not authorize the relocation of
CRLF occurring within the project site, CRLF found within the project site shall be avoided
with a 100-foot buffer and no activities shall occur within that buffer until the CRLF has left
the project site on its own.
• Areas of the project site that lie within 100 feet upland from riparian or jurisdictional areas
shall be surrounded by a solid temporary exclusion fence (such as silt fencing) that shall extend
at least three feet above the ground and be buried into the ground at least 6 inches to exclude
CRLF from the project site. Plastic monofilament netting or other similar material will not be
used. The location of the fencing shall be determined by a qualified biologist. The fence shall
remain in place throughout construction activities. Installation of the exclusion fencing shall
be monitored by a qualified biologist to ensure that it is installed correctly.
• During new grading activities in habitats within 100 feet upland from riparian or jurisdictional
areas, a qualified biologist shall be on-site to recover any spadefoot toads that may be
excavated/unearthed with native material or found under vegetation. If the animals are in good
health, they shall be immediately relocated to a designated release area. If they are injured, the
animals shall be turned over to an approved wildlife rehabilitator until they are in a condition
to be released into the designated release area.
• To ensure that diseases are not conveyed between work sites by the approved biologist, the
fieldwork code of practice developed by the Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force
shall be followed at all times.
BIO-1(e). Steelhead Impact Avoidance and Minimization. The applicant shall ensure the
following actions are undertaken to avoid and minimize potential impacts to steelhead:
• Before any activities begin on the project, a qualified biologist will conduct a training session
for all construction personnel. At a minimum, the training will include a description of the
steelhead and its habitat, the specific measures that are being implemented to conserve this
species for the project, and the boundaries within which the project may be accomplished.
Brochures, books, and briefings may be used in the training session, provided that a qualified
person is on hand to answer any questions.
• During the duration of project activities, all trash that may attract predators will be properly
contained and secured, promptly removed from the work site, and disposed of regularly.
Following construction, all trash and construction debris will be removed from the work areas.
• All refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles will occur at least 100 feet
from riparian habitat or bodies of water and in a location where a potential spill would not
drain directly toward aquatic habitat (e.g., on a slope that drains away from the water source).
The monitor shall ensure that contamination of suitable habitat does not occur during such
operations. Prior to the onset of work activities, a plan must be in place for prompt and effective
response to any accidental spills. All workers shall be informed of the importance of preventing
spills and of the appropriate measures to take should an accidental spill occur.
• The number of access routes, size of staging areas, and the total area used for constructio n
activities shall be limited to the minimum area necessary to achieve the project goals.
• The City will only permit work within the immediate vicinity of Prefumo Creek for times of
the year when potential impacts to steelhead would be minimal. Work shall be restricted during
the wet season (October 15 through April 30) and should ideally occur during the late summer
and early fall during the driest portion of the year; however, water may still be present during
Packet Pg 218
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 9
R ______
construction. If work is proposed in the streambed and water is present during construction, a
diversion will be required to dewater the work area and the following avoidance and
minimization measures will apply:
(1) Upstream and downstream passage for fish, including juvenile steelhead, shall be
provided through or around the construction site at all times construction is occurring
within the Prefumo Creek streambed.
(2) A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey and be present onsite during
the diversion installation and dewatering process to capture and relocate any trapped
steelhead and/or other fish. Upon approval from the NMFS, the biologist(s) must relocate
these individuals the shortest distance possible to a location that contains suitable habitat
that is not likely to be affected b y activities associated with the project.
(3) Dewatering operations shall employ a five millimeter mesh screen fastened to the intake
hose to exclude fish and other wildlife species from the pump.
(4) Steelhead shall be excluded from the construction zone with block nets installed
upstream and downstream the of the bridge construction zone. The distance upstream
and downstream for block net installation will depend on the type of construction
activities occurring in the streambed.
• To control sedimentation during and after project implementation, the following BMPs shall
be implemented. If the BMPs are somehow ineffective, consultation with the City and
appropriate resource agencies will be undertaken, and all attempts to remedy the situation will
commence immediately.
(1) It shall be the owner’s/contractor’s responsibility to maintain control of the entire
construction operations and to keep the entire site in compliance.
(2) The owner/contractor shall be responsible for monitoring erosion and sediment control
measures (including but not limited to fiber rolls, inlet protections, silt fences, and gravel
bags) prior, during and after storm events, monitoring includes maintaining a file
documenting onsite inspections, problems encountered, corrective actions, and notes and
a map of remedial implementation measures.
(3) Erosion shall be controlled by covering stockpiled construction materials (i.e. soil, spoils,
aggregate, fly-ash, stucco, hydrated lime, etc.) over 2.0 cubic yards that are not actively
being used, consistent with the applicable construction general permit, or through other
means of erosion control approved by the City (e.g., surrounding with straw bales or silt
fencing). The site shall be maintained to minimize sediment-laden runoff to any storm
drainage system including existing drainage swales and/or sand watercourses.
(a) Construction operations shall be carried out in such a manner that erosion and water
pollution will be minimized.
(b) State and local laws concerning pollution abatement shall be complied with.
(c) If grading operations are expected to denude slopes, the slopes shall be protected
with erosion control measures immediately following grading on the slopes.
(4) Specifically, in order to prevent sedimentation and debris from entering Prefumo Creek
during construction, silt fencing shall be installed along the top of the banks on the west
side of the channel prior to the onset of construction activities.
• The project biologist will monitor construction activities, in stream habitat, and overall
performance of BMPs and sediment controls for the purpose of identifying and reconciling any
condition that could adversely affect steelhead or their habitat. The biologist will halt work if
Packet Pg 219
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 10
R ______
necessary and will recommend site-specific measures to avoid adverse effects to steelhead and
their habitat.
• Equipment will be checked daily for leaks prior to the initiation of construction activities. A
spill kit will be placed near the creek and will remain readily available during construction in
the event that any contaminant is accidentally released.
• In addition to these avoidance and minimization measures, Mitigation Measure BIO-2(a)
would also ensure that potential temporary and permanent indirect impacts to steelhead from
the project are reduced as much as practicable.
BIO-1(f). Great Blue Heron and Monarch Butterfly Impact Avoidance and Minimization.
The applicant shall ensure the following actions are undertaken to avoid and minimize potential
impacts to overwintering monarch butterflies and nesting great blue herons.
• Tree trimming/removal and construction activities that affect eucalyptus trees near or
within the monarch overwintering grove or active great blue heron nests identified in the
San Luis Ranch Monarch Trees Inspection Memo, Results of 2015 and 2016 San Luis
Ranch Heron Rookery Surveys Memo, and San Luis Ranch – Prefumo Creek Widening
Biological Constraints Memo prepared by Althouse and Meade (Appendix F), shall not be
conducted during the monarch butterfly overwintering season from October 1 through
March 31 if monarch butterflies are present, or while great blue heron nests are active from
February 1 to August 31. If construction activities must be conducted during these periods,
a qualified biologist shall conduct overwintering monarch surveys and/or nesting great blue
heron surveys within one week of habitat disturbance. If surveys do not locate clustering
monarchs or nesting great blue herons, construction activities may be conducted. If
clustering monarchs and/or nesting great blue herons are located, no construction activities
shall occur within 100 feet of the edge of the overwintering grove and/or active nest(s)
until the qualified biologist determines that no more monarchs are overwintering in the
grove or the nest(s) are no longer active.
• A qualified biologist shall prepare and implement a habitat enhancement plan to be
reviewed and approved by the City’s Natural Resource Manager prior to issuance of
grading permits to enhance and restore overwintering and nesting habitat that is to be
preserved. The habitat enhancement plan may include but shall not be limited to:
o On- or off-site planting of native shrubs and trees such as Monterey Cypress
(Hesperocyparis macrocarpa) that may support heron roosting and monarch
butterfly overwintering.
o As eucalyptus trees senesce, they shall be replaced with native species. Native trees
and shrubs shall also be used to supplement gaps in canopy or act as windbreaks.
o Create new offsite nesting habitat for great blue herons to mitigate for removal of
onsite nesting habitat. With a qualified biologist present, the current rookery may
be moved to a suitable offsite location where the same great blue herons can resume
nesting, following methods detailed in Crouch et al. (2002). It should be noted that
creating offsite nesting habitat for great blue herons is experimental and that the
relocation techniques described in Crouch et al. (2002) were used to relocate black-
crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax). In addition, an agreement with the
City will be required prior to implementation of the offsite strategy on their
property. The methods detailed in Crouch et al. (2002) include:
Packet Pg 220
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 11
R ______
a. This entails at least one year of pre-construction monitoring of the rookery,
where the timing of rookery activities will be noted: arrival of breeding adults,
egg laying, hatching, and fledging. During this time, audio recordings of adults
and juveniles shall be made.
b. Following the completion of the nesting season in late summer, a certified
arborist specializing in the translocation of trees will examine the mature trees
onsite and work with the City’s Natural Resources Manager to determine
whether or not it is feasible to relocate the mature trees containing nests across
Madonna Road to a suitable location at Laguna Lake Open Space.
c. Prior to the start of the next nesting season (based on timing of adult arrival in
previous years), nesting adults will be recruited to the new location via decoys
and playback of vocalizations. The new location will be monitored regularly by
a qualified biologist for the following three breeding seasons.
BIO-1(g). Nesting Birds Impact Avoidance and Minimization. The applicant shall ensure the
following actions are undertaken to avoid and minimize potential impacts to nesting birds:
• For construction activities occurring during the nesting season (generally February 1 to
September 15), surveys for nesting birds covered by the California Fish and Game Code and
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days
prior to vegetation removal. The surveys shall include the disturbance area plus a 500-foot
buffer around the site. If active nests are located, all construction work shall be conducted
outside a buffer zone from the nest to be determined by the qualified biologist. The buffer shall
be a minimum of 50 feet for non-raptor bird species and at least 300 feet for raptor species.
Larger buffers may be required depending upon the status of the nest and the construction
activities occurring in the vicinity of the nest. The buffer area(s) shall be closed to all
construction personnel and equipment until the adults and young are no longer reliant on the
nest site. A qualified biologist shall confirm that breeding/nesting is completed and young have
fledged the nest prior to removal of the buffer.
• If feasible, removal of vegetation within suitable nesting bird habitats will be scheduled to
occur in the fall and winter (between September 1 and February 14), after fledging and before
the initiation of the nesting season.
BIO-1(h). Roosting Bats Impact Avoidance and Minimization. The applicant shall ensure the
following actions are undertaken to avoid and minimize potential impacts to roosting bats:
• Prior to issuance of grading permits, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey of existing
structures within the project site to determine if roosting bats are present. The survey shall be
conducted during the non-breeding season (November through March). The biologist shall
have access to all interior attics, as needed. If a colony of bats is found roosting in any structure,
further surveys shall be conducted sufficient to determine the species present and the type of
roost (day, night, maternity, etc.) If the bats are not part of an active maternity colony, passive
exclusion measures may be implemented in close coordination with CDFW. These exclusion
measures must include one-way valves that allow bats to exit the structure but are designed so
that the bats may not re-enter the structure.
• If a bat colony is excluded from the project site, appropriate alternate bat habitat as determined
by a qualified biologist shall be installed on the project site or at an approved location offsite.
Packet Pg 221
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 12
R ______
• Prior to removal of any trees over 20 inches diameter-at-breast-height (DBH), a survey shall
be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if any of the trees proposed for removal or
trimming harbor sensitive bat species or maternal bat colonies. If a non-maternal roost is found,
the qualified biologist, in close coordination with CDFW shall install one-way valves or other
appropriate passive relocation method. For each occupied roost removed, one bat box shall be
installed in similar habitat and should have similar cavity or crevices properties to those which
are removed, including access, ventilation, dimensions, height above ground, and thermal
conditions. Maternal bat colonies may not be disturbed.
BIO-2(a). Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. A Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
(HMMP) shall be prepared which will provide a minimum 2:1 ratio (replaced: removed) for
temporary and permanent impacts to riparian habitat. The HMMP will identify the specific
mitigation sites and it will be implemented immediately following project completion. The
HMMP shall include, at a minimum, the following components:
• Description of the project/impact site (i.e. location, responsible parties, areas to be impacted
by habitat type);
• Goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation project [type(s) and area(s) of habitat to be established,
restored, enhanced, and/or preserved; specific functions and values of habitat type(s) to be
established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved];
• Description of the proposed compensatory mitigation site (location and size, ownership status,
existing functions and values of the compensatory mitigation site);
• Implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation site (rationale for expecting
implementation success, responsible parties, schedule, site preparation, planting plan
[including plant species to be used, container sizes, seeding rates, etc.]);
• Maintenance activities during the monitoring period, including weed removal and irrigation as
appropriate (activities, responsible parties, schedule);
• Monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation site, including no less than quarterly
monitoring for the first year (performance standards, target functions and values, target
acreages to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved, annual monitoring reports);
• Success criteria based on the goals and measurable objectives; said criteria to be, at a minimum,
at least 80 percent survival of container plants and 80 percent relative cover by vegetation type;
• An adaptive management program and remedial measures to address negative impacts to
restoration efforts;
• Notification of completion of compensatory mitigation and agency confirmation; and
• Contingency measures (initiating procedures, alternative locations for contingency
compensatory mitigation, funding mechanism).
BIO-2(b). Tree Replacement. Riparian trees four inches or greater measured at diameter-at-
breast-height (DBH) shall be replaced in-kind at a minimum ratio of 3:1 (replaced: removed).
Trees 24 inches or greater inches DBH shall be replaced in-kind at a minimum ratio of 10:1.
Willows and cottonwoods may be planted from live stakes following guidelines provided in the
California Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual for planting dormant cuttings and
container stock (CDFW 2010).
• Tree replacement shall be conducted in accordance with a Natural Habitat Restoration and
Enhancement Plan to be approved by the City’s Natural Resource Manager.
Packet Pg 222
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 13
R ______
• The Natural Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Plan shall prioritize the planting of
replacement trees on-site where feasible, but shall allow that replacement trees may be planted
off-site with approval of the City’s Natural Resource Manager.
• Replacement trees may be planted in the fall or winter of the year in which trees were removed.
All replacement trees will be planted no more than one year following the date upon which the
native trees were removed.
BIO-2(c). Froom Ranch Way Bridge Design to Avoid Riparian Areas. The Froom Ranch
Way Bridge crossing footings shall be placed outside mapped riparian areas. The placement of
the bridge and footings shall be indicated on the Development Plan, VTM, and HMMP, and shall
show the bridge’s placement in relation to existing vegetation and the bed and bank of Prefumo
Creek.
Cultural Resources Mitigation
CR-1(a). Historical Structure Relocation and Reconstruction Plan. In order to implement
Specific Plan Policy 2.5, a relocation and reconstruction plan for the former spectator’s
barn/viewing stand, main residence, and main barn shall be developed by a qualified historic
architect. The plan shall include a structural/architectural report documenting existing integrity
and conditions and include detailed treatment methods and measures to ensure that historic
integrity is retained and that all identified character defining features will be preserved.
CR-1(b). Archival Documentation of Historic Buildings. The applicant shall provide archival
documentation of the San Luis Ranch Complex in as-built and as-found condition in the form of
an Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Level II documentation. The documentation shall
comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Architectural and Engineering
Documentation (NPS 1990), and shall include large-format photographic recordation, detailed
historic narrative report, and compilation of historic research. The documentation shall be
completed by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the
Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for History and/or Architectural History (NPS
1983). The original archival-quality documentation shall be offered as donated material to the
History Center of San Luis Obispo County. Archival copies of the documentation shall also be
submitted to the San Luis Obispo County Library.
CR-1(c). Informational Display of Historic Resources. A retrospective interpretive display
detailing the history of the San Luis Ranch Complex and the project site, its significance, and its
important details and features shall be developed by the applicant. The information should be
incorporated into a publicly-accessed building on the project site, such as the proposed
Agricultural Heritage Facilities and Learning Center, or a publicly-accessed outdoor location.
The display shall include images and details from the HABS documentation described in
Mitigation Measure CR-1(b) and any collected research pertaining to the historic property. The
content shall be prepared by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for History and/or Architectural
History (NPS 1983).
Packet Pg 223
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 14
R ______
CR-2(a). Retain a Qualified Principal Investigator. In accordance with Conservation and Open
Space Policies 3.5.6 and 3.5.7, a qualified principal investigator, defined as an archaeologist who
meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for professional archaeology (hereafter qualified
archaeologist), shall be retained to carry out all mitigation measures related to archaeological
resources. Monitoring shall involve inspection of subsurface construction disturbance at or in the
immediate vicinity of known sites, or at locations that may harbor buried resources that were not
identified on the site surface. A Native American monitor shall also be present because the area
is a culturally sensitive location. The monitor(s) shall be on -site on a full-time basis during
earthmoving activities, including grading, trenching, vegetation removal, or other excavation
activities.
CR-2(b). Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources. In the event that
archaeological resources are exposed during construction, all work shall be halted in the vicinity
of the archaeological discovery until a qualified archaeologist can visit the site of discovery and
assess the significance of the cultural resource. In the event that any artifact or an unusual amount
of bone or shell is encountered during construction, work shall be immediately stopped and
relocated to another area. The lead agency shall stop construction within 100 feet of the exposed
resource until a qualified archaeologist/paleontologist can evaluate the find (see 36 CFR 800.11.1
and CCR, Title 14, Section 15064.5[f]). Examples of such cultural materials might include:
ground stone tools such as mortars, bowls, pestles, and manos; chipped stone tools such as
projectile points or choppers; flakes of stone not consistent with the immediate geology such as
obsidian or fused shale; historic trash pits containing bottles and/or ceramics; or structural
remains. If the resources are found to be significant, they must be avoided or will be mitigated
consistent with State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Guidelines.
Hazardous Materials Mitigation
HAZ-4. Soil Sampling and Remediation. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, a
contaminated soil assessment shall be completed in the portions of land to be graded for
development. Soil samples shall be collected under the supervision of a professional geologist or
environmental professional to determine the presence or absence of contaminated soil in these
areas. The sampling density shall be in accordance with guidance from San Luis Obispo County
Environmental Health Services, so as to define the volume of soil that may require remediation.
Laboratory analysis of soil samples shall be analyzed for the presence of organochlorine
pesticides, in accordance with EPA Test Method SW8081A, and heavy metals in accordance with
EPA Test Methods 6010B and 7471A. If soil sampling indicates the presence of pesticides or
heavy metals exceeding applicable environmental screening levels, the soil assessment shall
identify the volume of contaminated soil to be excavated.
If concentrations of contaminants exceed EPA action levels and therefore warrant remed iation,
contaminated materials shall be remediated either prior to concurrent with construction and an
Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) shall be prepared. Cleanup may include excavation,
disposal, bio-remediation, or any other treatment of conditions subject to regulatory action. All
necessary reports, regulations and permits shall be followed to achieve cleanup of the site. The
contaminated materials shall be remediated under the supervision of an environmental consultant
licensed to oversee such remediation and under the direction of the lead oversight agency. The
Packet Pg 224
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 15
R ______
remediation program shall also be approved by a regulatory oversight agency, such as the San
Luis Obispo County Environmental Health Services, the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB), or DTSC. All proper waste handling and disposal procedures shall be followed. Upon
completion of the remediation, the environmental consultant shall prepare a report summarizing
the project, the remediation approach implemented, and the analytical results after completion of
the remediation, including all waste disposal or treatment manifests.
HAZ-6. Naturally Occurring Asbestos Exposure Avoidance and Minimization:
a. Prior to earthwork activities, a site-specific health and safety plan shall be developed per
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (CalOSHA) requirements. The plan
shall include appropriate health and safety measures if NOA is detected in soil or bedrock
beneath the project site. All construction workers that have the potential to come into contact
with contaminated soil/bedrock and groundwater shall be knowledgeable of the requirements
in the health and safety plan, which includes proper training and personal protective equipment.
The health and safety plan shall prescribe appropriate respiratory protection for construction
workers.
b.Prior to beginning construction, a soil and bedrock analysis for asbestos using polarized light
microscopy and transmission electron microscopy by a qualified laboratory shall be conducted.
Samples of soil shall be collected from multiple locations across the site, and bedrock samples
shall be collected from locations where excavation into bedrock is anticipated. If NOA is
detected, appropriate regulations pertaining to excavation, removal, transportation, and
disposal of NOA shall be followed. The sampling strategy shall take into account the locations
of potential source areas, and the anticipated lateral and vertical distribution of contaminants
in soil and/or groundwater. The results of the investigation shall be documented in a report that
is signed by a California Professional Geologist. The report shall include recommendations
based upon the findings for additional investigation/remediation if contaminants are detected
above applicable screening levels (e.g., excavate and dispose, groundwater and/or soil vapor
extraction, or in situ bioremediation).
c. During earthwork activities, appropriate procedures shall be incorporated in the event that
NOA is detected in soil or bedrock beneath the project site. These procedures shall be followed
to eliminate or minimize construction worker or general public exposure to potential
contaminants in soil. Procedures shall include efforts to control fugitive dust, contain and cover
excavation debris piles, appropriate laboratory analysis of soil for waste characterization, and
segregation of contaminated soil from uncontaminated soil. The applicable regulations
associated with excavation, removal, transportation, and disposal of contaminated soil shall be
followed (e.g., tarping of trucks and waste manifesting). These procedures may be subject to
San Luis Obispo APCD requirements under the California ARB ATCM for Construction,
Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations.
Hydrology and Water Quality Mitigation
HWQ-1(a). Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. All required actions shall be implemented
pursuant to a SWPPP and SWMP to be prepared by the project applicant and submitted by the
City to the Regional Water Quality Control Board under the NPDES Phase II program. At a
minimum, the SWPPP/SWMP shall including the following BMPs:
Packet Pg 225
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 16
R ______
• The use of sandbags, straw bales, and temporary de-silting basins during project grading and
construction during the rainy season to prevent discharge of sediment-laden runoff into
stormwater facilities;
• Revegetation as soon as practicable after completion of grading to reduce sediment transport
during storms;
• Installation of straw bales, wattles, or silt fencing at the base of bare slopes before the onset of
the rainy season (October 15th through April 15th);
• Installation of straw bales, wattles, or silt fencing at the project perimeter and in front of storm
drains before the onset of the rainy season (October 15th through April 15th); and/or
• Alternative BMPs as approved by the RWQCB as part of the SWPPP submittal.
HWQ-1(b). Berms and Basins. As specified in the SWPPP, the applicant shall be required to
manage and control runoff by constructing temporary berms, sediment basins, runoff diversions,
or alternative BMP’s as approved by the RWQCB as part of the SWPPP submittal, in order to
avoid unnecessary siltation into local streams during construction activities where grading and
construction shall occur in the vicinity of such streams.
• Berms and basins shall be constructed when grading commences and be periodically inspected
and maintained. The project applicant shall sufficiently document, to the CCRWQCB
satisfaction, the proper installation of such berms and basins during grading.
HWQ-1(c). Concept Grading Plan and Master Drainage Plan. As specified in the SWPPP
and the City’s Floodplain Management Regulations, the applicant shall be required to submit a
Grading Plan and Master Drainage Plan to the Planning Division and City Public Works Director
for approval prior to approval of the VTTM. The grading and drainage plans shall be designed to
minimize erosion and water quality impacts, to the extent feasible, and shall be consistent with
the project’s SWPPP. The plans shall include the following:
a. Graded areas shall be revegetated with deep-rooted, native, non-invasive drought tolerant
species to minimize slope failure and erosion potential. Geotextile fabrics shall be used if
necessary to hold slope soils until vegetation is established;
b.Temporary storage of construction equipment shall be limited to a minimum of 100 feet away
from drainages on the project site; and
c. Erosion control structures shall be installed.
d.Demonstrate peak flows and runoff for each phase of construction.
e. Be coordinated with habitat restoration efforts, including measures to minimize removal of
riparian and wetland habitats and trees (Mitigation Measures BIO-2[a] and BIO-2[b]).
Grading and drainage plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division.
The applicant shall ensure installation of erosion control structures prior to beginning of
construction of any structures, subject to review and approval by the City.
HWQ-3(a). Stormwater Quality Treatment Controls. BMP devices shall be incorporated into
the stormwater quality system depicted in the Master Drainage Plan (refer to Mitigation Measure
HWQ-1[c]). The final design of the stormwater quality system shall be reviewed and approved
by the City. The Master Drainage Plan shall contain the following relevant BMPs:
• Vegetated bioswales to reduce sediment and particulate forms of metals and other pollutants
along corridors of planted grasses.
Packet Pg 226
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 17
R ______
• Vegetated buffer strips to reduce sediment and particulate forms of metals and nutrients.
HWQ-3(b). Stormwater BMP Maintenance Manual. The project applicant shall prepare a
development maintenance manual for the stormwater quality system BMPs (refer to Mitigation
Measure HWQ-3[a]). The maintenance manual shall include detailed procedures for maintenance
and operations of all stormwater facilities to ensure long-term operation and maintenance of post-
construction stormwater controls. The maintenance manual shall require that stormwater BMP
devices be inspected, cleaned, and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s maintenance
specifications. The manual shall require that devices be cleaned prior to the onset of the rainy
season (i.e., October 15th) and immediately after the end of the rainy season (i.e., May 15th). The
manual shall also require that all devices be checked after major storm events.
HWQ-3(c). Stormwater BMP Semi-Annual Maintenance Report. The property manager(s)
or acceptable maintenance organization shall submit to the City of San Luis Obispo Public Works
Department a detailed report prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer addressing the condition of
all private stormwater facilities, BMPs, and any necessary maintenance activities on a semi-
annual basis (October 15th and May 15th of each year). The requirement for maintenance and
report submittal shall be recorded against the property.
HWQ-4. Conditional Letter of Map Revision/Letter of Map Revision. The applicant, in
conjunction with the City of San Luis Obispo, shall prepare the CLOMR application and obtain
a LOMR from FEMA.
Noise Mitigation
N-1(a). Construction Vehicle Travel Route. Construction vehicles and haul trucks shall utilize
roadways which avoid residential neighborhoods and sensitive receptors where possible. The
applicant shall submit a proposed construction vehicle and hauling route for City review and
approval prior to grading/building permit issuance. The approved construction vehicle and
hauling route shall be used for soil hauling trips prior to construction as well as for the duration
of construction.
N-1(b). Construction Activity Timing. Except for emergency repair of public service utilities,
or where an exception is issued by the Community Development Department, no operation of
tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or demolition work shall occur
daily between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM, or any time on Sundays, holidays, or afte r
sunset, such that the sound creates a noise disturbance that exceeds 75 dBA for single family
residential, 80 dBA for multi-family residential, and 85 dBA for mixed residential/commercial
land uses across a residential or commercial property line.
N-1(c). Construction Equipment Best Management Practices (BMPs). For all construction
activity at the project site, noise attenuation techniques shall be employed to ensure that noise
levels are maintained within levels allowed by the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Title
9, Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control). Such techniques shall include:
• Sound blankets on noise-generating equipment.
Packet Pg 227
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 18
R ______
• Stationary construction equipment that generates noise levels above 65 dBA at the project
boundaries shall be shielded with barriers that meet a sound transmission class (a rating of how
well noise barriers attenuate sound) of 25.
• All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with
factory-recommended mufflers.
• For stationary equipment, the applicant shall designate equipment areas with appropriate
acoustic shielding on building and grading plans. Equipment and shielding shall be installed
prior to construction and remain in the designated location throughout construction activities.
• Electrical power shall be used to power air compressors and similar power tools.
• The movement of construction-related vehicles, with the exception of passenger vehicles,
along roadways adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 AM
and 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday. No movement of heavy equipment shall occur on
Sundays or official holidays (e.g., Thanksgiving, Labor Day).
• Temporary sound barriers shall be constructed between construction sites and affected uses.
N-1(d). Neighboring Property Owner Notification and Construction Noise Complaints. The
contractor shall inform residents and business operators at properties within 300 feet of the project
site of proposed construction timelines and noise complaint procedures to minimize potential
annoyance related to construction noise. Proof of mailing the notices shall be provided to the
Community Development Department before the City issues a zoning clearance. Signs shall be
in place before beginning of and throughout grading and construction activities. Noise-related
complaints shall be directed to the City’s Community Development Department.
N-4(a). HVAC Equipment. Retail HVAC equipment shall be shielded and located on building
rooftops, or a minimum of 100 feet from the nearest residential property line.
N-4(b). Parking Lot/Loading Dock Orientation and Noise Barrier. If parking areas or loading
docks would be located within 250 feet of the residential properties to the west, a masonry noise
barrier shall be installed along the eastern boundary of the proposed residences adjacent to the
commercial land use area on the eastern portion of the project site. The noise barrier shall be
constructed of any masonry material with a surface density of at least three pounds per square
foot, and shall have no openings or gaps.
N-5(a). Interior Noise Reduction. The project applicant shall implement the following
measures, or similar combination of measures, which demonstrate that interior nois e levels in
proposed residences adjacent to Froom Ranch Way and Madonna Road, hotel, and offices would
be reduced below the City’s 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. The required interior noise
reduction shall be achieved through a combination of standard interior noise reduction techniques,
which may include (but are not limited to):
• In order for windows and doors to remain closed, mechanical ventilation such as air
conditioning shall be provided for all units (Passive ventilation may be provided, if mechanical
ventilation is not necessary to achieve interior noise standards, as demonstrated by a qualified
acoustical consultant).
• All exterior walls shall be constructed with a minimum STC rating of 50, consisting of
construction of 2 inch by 4 inch wood studs with one layer of 5/8 inch Type “X” gypsum board
on each side of resilient channels on 24 inch centers and 3 ½ inch fiberglass insulation.
Packet Pg 228
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 19
R ______
• All windows and glass doors shall be rated STC 39 or higher such that the noise reduction
provided will satisfy the interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL.
• An acoustical test report of all the sound-rated windows and doors shall be provided to the City
for review by a qualified acoustical consultant to ensure that the selected windows and doors
in combination with wall assemblies would reduce interior noise levels sufficiently to meet the
City’s interior noise standard.
• All vent ducts connecting interior spaces to the exterior (i.e., bathroom exhaust, etc.) shall have
at least two 90 degree turns in the duct.
• All windows and doors shall be installed in an acoustically-effective manner. Sliding window
panels shall form an air-tight seal when in the closed position and the window frames shall be
caulked to the wall opening around the perimeter with a non-hardening caulking compound to
prevent sound infiltration. Exterior doors shall seal air-tight around the full perimeter when in
the closed position.
• The applicant shall submit a report to the Community Development Department by a qualified
acoustical consultant certifying that the specific interior noise reduction techniques included
in residential, hotel, and office components of the project would achieve interior noise levels
that would not exceed 45 dBA CNEL.
N-5(b). Residential Outdoor Activity Area Noise Attenuation. Outdoor activity areas (e.g.,
patios and hotel pool areas) associated with shared multifamily residential recreational spaces,
hotel, commercial, and office uses shall be protected from sound intrusion so that they meet the
City’s exterior standard of 60 dBA CNEL. Outdoor activity areas shall be oriented away from
traffic noise such that intervening buildings reduce traffic noise or sh all include noise barriers
capable of reducing traffic noise levels to meet the City’s exterior standard. Hotel pool areas shall
be located a minimum of 500 feet from the U.S. 101 right-of-way. Noise barriers may be
constructed of a material such as tempered glass, acrylic glass, or masonry material with a surface
density of at least three pounds per square foot, and shall have no openings or gaps. The applicant
shall submit a report to the Community Development Department by a qualified acoustic
consultant certifying that the specific outdoor noise reduction techniques in combination with the
orientation of outdoor activity areas of shared multifamily residential recreational spaces, hotel,
commercial, and offices would achieve exterior noise levels that would not exceed 60 dBA
CNEL.
N-5(c). Froom Ranch Way Noise Barrier. A masonry noise barrier or alternative barrier, such
as a landscaped berm, shall be installed along the southern property line of residential lots that
abut Froom Ranch Way to protect outdoor activity areas (patios and pools) at these residences
from sound intrusion from traffic along Froom Ranch Way. The noise barrier or berm shall
provide, at minimum, a 6 foot high barrier between Froom Ranch Way and the neighboring
residences from the final grade of whichever use (i.e., Froom Ranch Way or residences) has a
higher final elevation. If a masonry noise barrier is implemented, the noise barrier shall be
constructed of any masonry material with a surface density of at least three pounds per squ are
foot, and shall have no openings or gaps. If an alternative material is used, the developer shall
submit a report to the Community Development Department by a qualified acoustical consultant
certifying that the specific exterior noise reduction techniques included would achieve exterior
noise levels that would not exceed 60 dBA CNEL.
Packet Pg 229
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 20
R ______
N-5(d). U.S. Highway 101 Noise Barrier at Hotel. If the hotel includes an outdoor activity area
(such as a patio or pool) a masonry noise barrier or alternative barrier, such as berms, landscaping,
or glass, must be installed along the eastern property line of the hotel where it abuts the U.S. 101
right of way to protect these outdoor activity areas from sound intrusion from traffic along U.S.
101. If a masonry noise barrier is implemented, the noise barrier shall provide, at minimum, an 8
foot high barrier between U.S. 101 and the hotel from the final grade of whichever use (i.e., U.S.
101 or hotel) has a higher final elevation. Such a noise barrier shall be constructed of any masonry
material with a surface density of at least three pounds per square foot, and shall have no openings
or gaps. If an alternative material is used, the developer shall submit a report to the Community
Development Department by a qualified acoustical consultant demonstrating that the specific
exterior noise reduction techniques included in the hotel component of the project would achieve
exterior noise levels that would not exceed 60 dBA CNEL.
Recreation Mitigation
REC-1. Parkland In-lieu Fees. The project applicant shall pay parkland in-lieu fees in
accordance with the City’s parkland in-lieu fee program for the parkland shortage. The project’s
specific fee shall be determined by the City at the time of project approval, after accounting for
parkland provided within the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Area. The in-lieu fees collected from
the project shall be directed to new projects or improvements to existing parks and recreation
facilities within the City of San Luis Obispo parks system.
Transportation Mitigation
T-1(a). Intersection #1: Madonna Road & Los Osos Valley Road.
• City optimize signal timing to accommodate increased project volumes (ongoing)
T-1(b). Intersection #3: Madonna Road & Dalidio Drive/Prado Road.
• Extend existing westbound left turn lane on Madonna Road to Dalidio Drive/Prado Road to
310’ (Phase 1)
• Install 2nd westbound 310’ left turn lane on Madonna Road to Dalidio Drive/Prado Road
(Phase 1)
• Install eastbound 250’ right turn pocket on Madonna Road to Dalidio Drive/Prado Road (Phase
1)
• Install 2nd northbound left shared with through-lane on Prado Road/Dalidio Drive to Madonna
Road (Phase 1)
• Prohibit westbound U-turns on Madonna Road (Phase 1)
• Provide split phase operations & optimize signal timing (Phase 1)
T-1(c). Intersection #5: Madonna Road & U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps.
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass-Only, Phase 2)
T-1(d). Intersection #8: Higuera Street & South Street.
• Optimize Signal Timing
T-1(e) . Intersection #9: Los Osos Valley Road & Froom Ranch Way.
Packet Pg 230
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 21
R ______
• Install dedicated 230’ right turn lane on northbound Froom Ranch Way approach to Los Osos
Valley Road (with Froom Ranch Way bridge construction)
• Extend right turn lane on southbound Froom Ranch Way approach to Los Osos Valley Road
to 110’ (with Froom Ranch Way bridge construction)
• Install 2nd southbound left turn lane on Froom Ranch Way approach to eastbound Los Osos
Valley Road (with Froom Ranch Way bridge construction)
T-1(f). Intersection #10: Los Osos Valley Road & Auto Park Way.
• Signalization (Phase 1)
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass Only, Phase 2)
T-1(g). Intersection #16: S. Higuera Street & Tank Farm Road.
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass Only Phase 2)
• Extend northbound right turn pocket to 230’ and channelize movement (Phase 1)
T-1(h). Intersection #21: Prado Road/Dalidio Drive & Froom Ranch Way.
• Install multilane roundabout control (when connection is constructed)
T-1(i). Intersection #25: Prado Road/Dalidio Drive & SC Project Driveway.
• Install multilane roundabout control or restricted access (when connection is constructed)
T-2(a). Intersection #1: Madonna Road & Los Osos Valley Road.
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass Only, Phase 2)
T-2(b). Intersection #2: Madonna Road & Oceanaire Drive.
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass Only, Phase 2)
T-2(c). Intersection #5: Madonna Road & U.S. 101 S.B Ramps.
• Extend northbound Madonna Road left turn lane to 150’ (Phase 1)
T-2(d). Intersection #6: Madonna Road & U.S. 101 Northbound Ramps.
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass Only, Phase 2)
T-2(e) . Intersection #7: Madonna Road & Higuera Street.
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass Plus U.S. 101 northbound ramps, Phase 2)
T-2(f). Intersection #9: Los Osos Valley Road & Froom Ranch Way.
• Install dedicated 230’ right turn lane on Los Osos Valley Road approach to northbound Froom
Ranch Way (with Froom Ranch Way bridge construction)
• Extend right turn lane on Los Osos Valley Road approach to southbound Froom Ranch Way
to 110’ (with Froom Ranch Way Bridge construction)
• Install 2nd southbound left turn lane on Froom Ranch Way approach to eastbound Los Osos
Valley Road (with Froom Ranch Way bridge construction)
T-2(g). Intersection #12: Los Osos Valley Road & U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps.
Packet Pg 231
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 22
R ______
• Extend off-ramp left turn pocket to 320’ (Phase 1)
T-2(h). Intersection #13: Los Osos Valley Road & U.S. 101 Northbound Ramps.
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass Only, Phase 2)
T-2(i). Intersection #14: Los Osos Valley Road & Higuera Street.
• Extend eastbound right turn lane to 180’ (Phase 1)
T-2(j). Intersection #18: Prado Road & Higuera Street
• Install 2nd U.S. 101 northbound left turn lane (Phase 1)
• Extend westbound right turn pocket to 400’ (Phase 1)
T-3(a). Segments #1 - #6: Madonna Road (Los Osos Valley Road to Higuera Street)
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass Only, Phase 2)
• Fund assessment of decreasing transit headways to 25 min
• Construct parallel Class I multiuse paths or bike boulevard (Phase 1)
T-3(b). Segments #7 - #8: Higuera Street (Madonna Road to Prado Road)
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass and U.S. 101 northbound ramps, Phase 2)
• Construct parallel Class I multiuse paths or bike boulevard (Phase 1)
T-3(c) . Segments #13 - #17: Los Osos Valley Road (Madonna Road to Higuera Street)
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass and U.S. 101 northbound ramps, Phase 2)
• Construct parallel Class I multiuse paths or bike boulevard (Phase 3)
T-3(d). Segments #18 - #20: Dalidio Drive/Prado Road (Froom Ranch Way to Higuera
Street)
• Construct parallel Class I multiuse paths or bike boulevard (when Prado Road is
constructed/improved)
T-4. Construction Traffic Management Plan. Prior to construction, a traffic management plan
shall be prepared for review and approval by the City of San Luis Obispo Public Works
Department. The traffic management plan shall be based on the type of roadway traffic conditions,
duration of construction, physical constraints, nearness of the work zone to traffic and other
facilities (bicycle, pedestrian, driveway access, etc.). The traffic management plan shall include:
• Advertisement. The project developer shall prepare an advertisement campaign informing the
public of the proposed construction activities. Advertisements shall occur prior to beginning
work and periodically during the course of the project construction. The advertising shall
include notification of changes to bus schedules and potential changes to bus stop locations,
potential impacts during school drop-off and pick-up times, and major intersections that may
be impacted during construction.
• Property Access. Access to parcels along the construction area shall be maintained to the
greatest extent feasible. Affected property owners shall receive advance notice of work
adjacent to their property access and when driveways would be potentially closed.
• Schools. Any construction adjacent to schools shall ensure that access is maintained for
vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists, particularly at the beginning and end of the school day.
Packet Pg 232
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 23
R ______
• Buses, Bicycles, and Pedestrians. The work zone shall provide for passage by buses, bicyclists,
and pedestrians, particularly in the vicinity of schools.
• Intersections. Traffic control (i.e., use of flag persons) shall be used at intersections that are
determined to be unacceptably congested due to construction traffic.
T-5. Froom Ranch Way Bridge Phasing. The Froom Ranch Way bridge connection shall be
completed prior to occupancy of Phase 1 of the Specific Plan buildout.
T-6. Project Site Intersection Roundabout Control. New roadway intersections within the
Specific Plan Area shall be controlled using roundabout design, unless the City Public Works
Department determines that roundabout control is infeasible.
T-7. Traffic Calming Features. New roadway intersections along San Luis Ranch Road shall
include neighborhood traffic circles at key intersections, and traffic -calming features, such as
diverters, along longer uninterrupted segments.
T-8(a). Intersection #3: Madonna Road & Dalidio Drive/Prado Road
• Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measure T-1[b])
T-8(b). Intersection #9: Los Osos Valley Road & Froom Ranch Way
• Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measure T-1[e]/Mitigation
Measure T-2[f])
T-8(c). Intersection #10: Los Osos Valley Road & Auto Park Way
• Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measure T-1[f])
T-8(d). Intersection #12: Los Osos Valley Road & U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and southbound ramps)
T-8(e). Intersection #13: Los Osos Valley Road & U.S. 101 Northbound Ramps
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and southbound ramps)
T-8(f). Intersection #14: Los Osos Valley Road & S. Higuera Street
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and southbound ramps)
T-8(g). Intersection #16: S. Higuera Street & Tank Farm Road
• Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measure T-1[f])
T-9(a). Intersection #1: Madonna Road & Los Osos Valley Road
• Extend northbound right turn pocket on Los Osos Valley Road to 295’
• Extend southbound left turn pocket on Madonna Road to 395’
T-9(b). Intersection #2: Madonna Road & Oceanaire Drive
• Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measure T-1[b])
Packet Pg 233
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 24
R ______
• Extend westbound right turn land on Madonna Road to 200’
T-9(c). Intersection #3: Madonna Road & Dalidio Drive
• Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measure T-1[b])
T-9(d). Intersection #4: Madonna Road & El Mercado
• Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measures T-1[b])
T-9(e). Intersection #5: Madonna Road & U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and southbound ramps)
T-9(f). Intersection #6: Madonna Road & U.S. 101 Northbound Ramps
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and southbound ramps)
T-9(g). Intersection #8: Higuera Street & South Street
• Extend northbound Higuera Street left turn pocket to 120’
• Extend eastbound South Street right turn pocket to 100’
T-9(h). Intersection #9: Los Osos Valley Road & Froom Ranch Way
• Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measure T-1[d]/Mitigation
Measure T-2[f])
T-9(i). Intersection #11: Los Osos Valley Road & Calle Joaquin
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and southbound ramps)
T-9(j). Intersection #12: Los Osos Valley Road & U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and southbound ramps)
T-9(k). Intersection #14: Los Osos Valley Road & S. Higuera Street
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and southbound ramps)
T-9(l). Intersection #16: S. Higuera Street & Tank Farm Road
• Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measure T-1[g])
T-9(m). Intersection #18: Higuera Street & Prado Road
• Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measure T-2[j])
T-10(a). Segments #1 - #6: Madonna Road (Higuera Street to Los Osos Valley Road)
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and southbound ramps)
T-10(b). Segments #15 - #16: Los Osos Valley Road (Calle Joaquin to U.S. 101 Northbound
Ramps)
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and southbound ramps)
T-10(c). Segment #24: Prado Road/Dalidio Drive (Project Driveway to Froom Ranch Way).
Packet Pg 234
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 25
R ______
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and southbound ramps)
Other Required Mitigation from the Initial Study
GEO-1. Earthquake and Ground Acceleration Design and Construction Measures . Design
and construction of the buildings, roadway infrastructure and all subgrades shall be specifically
proportioned to resist Design Earthquake Ground Motions (Design amax) of SD1=0.481 and
SDS=0.832 and engineered to withstand Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) peak ground
acceleration (PGAM) equal to 0.519 g, as described in the Soils Engineering Report for the project
(GeoSolutions, Inc., 2015). The design should take into consideration the soil type, potential for
liquefaction, and the most current and applicable seismic attenuation methods that are available.
GEO-2. Operational Seismic Safety Requirement. For retail stores included in the project,
goods for sale may be stacked no higher than 8 feet from the floor in any area where customers
are present, unless provisions are made to prevent the goods from falling during an earthquake of
up to 7.5 magnitude. The stacking or restraint methods shall be reviewed and approved by the
City before approval of occupancy permits, and shall be a standing condition of occupancy.
GEO-3. Geotechnical Design. The project plans and specifications shall include the geotechnical
recommendations included in the Soils Engineering Report, prepared by GeoSolutions, Inc. on
May 29, 2015. Recommendations therein that shall be incorporated into the final project building
plans include specification for the following components of development preparation and design:
• Building Pad Preparation
• Paved Areas Preparation
• Pavement Design
• Interlocking Concrete Pavers
• Conventional Foundations
• Post-Tensioned Slabs
• Slab-On-Grade Construction
• Retaining Walls
• Exterior Concrete Flatwork
SECTION 2. Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment/Pre-Zoning, and Development
Plan/Vesting Tentative Tract Map Approval with Findings & Conditions. The City Council
does hereby approve application SPEC/ANNX/ER-1502-2015, a Specific Plan, General Plan
Amendment/Pre-Zoning, and Development Plan/Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTM #3096), to
allow up to 580 dwelling units, including an 80-unit density bonus consistent with City
requirements, based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions being
incorporated into the Vesting Tentative Tract Map:
Findings:
1. The project area was identified as one of three Specific Plan areas designated for
development when the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements update were
Packet Pg 235
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 26
R ______
adopted by the City Council in December 2014. The San Luis Ranch Specific Plan was
prepared to implement this aspect of the General Plan.
2. The San Luis Ranch Specific Plan is consistent with policy direction for the area included in
the General Plan, specifically Land Use Element Policy 8.1.4, which identifies the San Luis
Ranch area as a Special Focus Area (SP-2), subject to policies for the development of a
specific plan and certain broad development parameters and principles. The Specific Plan is
also consistent with all other applicable General Plan policies, as described and analyzed in
Section 6.0 of the May 24, 2017, staff report to the Planning Commission for this project,
and as discussed further within the Final EIR.
3. The General Plan Amendment/Pre-Zoning allows the implementation of the San Luis Ranch
Specific Plan by:
• Updating the City’s Land Use Map to reflect the development pattern included in the
Specific Plan;
• Updating the City’s Circulation Map to reflect the circulation system included in the
Specific Plan;
• Updating the relevant portions of the General Plan to update statistical data related to
land use acreage and long-term buildout potential; and
• Providing the pre-zoning information needed for LAFCo to consider annexation of the
site to the City, which is a prerequisite for allowing development on the site under the
City’s General Plan.
4. As conditioned, the design of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the General
Plan because it is consistent with the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan, it respects existing
environmental site constraints, will add to the City’s residential housing inventory, allow for
appropriate non-residential development, and provides needed infrastructure and roa dway
improvements identified in the City’s General Plan.
5. The Specific Plan project was reviewed by various City advisory bodies, including the
Architectural Review Commission, Bicycle Advisory Committee, Parks and Recreation
Commission, and Cultural Heritage Committee, and incorporates input consistent with their
direction.
6. The Airport Land Use Commission found the Specific Plan project as proposed to be
consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan.
7. Development will occur consistent with the Vesting Tentative Tract Map and the required
architectural review process, which will allow for detailed review of development plans to
assure compliance with City plans, policies, and standards.
8. As conditioned, the design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access
through (or use of property within) the proposed subdivision, and the project is consistent
with the pattern of development prescribed in the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan.
Packet Pg 236
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 27
R ______
9. The proposed project will provide affordable housing consistent with the intent of
California Government Code §65915, and in compliance with City policies and the
Housing Element.
10. The Tentative Map, as conditioned, will comply with all environmental mitigation measures
prescribed herein, and therefore is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act,
as implemented through the San Luis Ranch Final EIR.
Planning Commission Recommended Modifications to the Specific Plan
1. Madonna Road - Safe Pedestrian Crossing. Explore ways to improve pedestrian access
and safety related to crossing Madonna Road near Oceanaire Drive, particularly to
improve access to Laguna Lake Park.
2. Froom Ranch Way Safety. Address ways to slow vehicular speeds on Froom Ranch
Way, especially in the context of improving bike safety.
3. Net Zero Carbon Policy. Explore ways to promote a Net Zero Carbon concept in new
development, probably most effectively addressed as a Specific Plan policy that allows
some degree of flexibility.
4. Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Stations. Modify the Specific Plan to require that
garages are “EV-ready” to allow for installation of EV charging stations, without actually
requiring the EV stations to be installed as part of development. Also consider allowing
for EV stations adjacent to apartment buildings in higher density portions of the project.
5. Zero Lot Line. Allow for the flexibility to include more zero lot line development, as a
means of creating more usable outdoor area within the small lots. Incorporate zero lot
line concept with flexibility if possible.
6. Promoting a “Sense of Place”. Consistent with Architectural Review Commission
direction, clarify graphics in the Specific Plan to better show how new development can
create a “sense of place” through the placement of buildings and nearby outdoor usable
public areas.
7. Commercial/Residential Buffer. Use text and graphics in the Specific Plan to clarify
how buffer areas between residential and commercial areas can be effectively addressed
to minimize land use conflicts.
8. Great Blue Heron Mitigation. Clarify how proposed FEIR Mitigation Measure BIO-
1(f), which addresses potential impacts to great blue heron habitat, can be effectively
implemented through the Specific Plan.
9. Tie Fees to Modal Split Goals. Clarify in the Specific Plan that transportation fees
should be tied to the attainment of modal split goals.
Other Modifications to the Specific Plan to Ensure Consistency with the Final EIR and Map
10. Add a roadway classification map that is consistent with the General Plan;
11. Add a bicycle classification map that is consistent with General Plan and Bicycle
Transportation Plan;
Packet Pg 237
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 28
R ______
12. Expand Section 6.5 Neighborhood Traffic Management to be consistent with the
findings of the Final EIR;
13. Revise Section 6.6 Street Network & Standards such that street classifications and cross
sections are consistent with general plan policy, City standards, and the vesting tentative
map;
14. Revise Section 6.7 Summary of Supportive Interface with Adjacent Street and Path
to include all relevant connections and improvements consistent with the findings and
mitigations identified in the Final EIR;
15. Revise Section 7.4 Utilities and Streets such that discussion regarding the Dalidio/Prado
Connection and Froom Ranch Way Connection is consistent with the findings and
mitigation identified in the Final EIR;
16. Revise Sections 7.6 Performance Triggers & 7.7 Phasing Strategy into a single
comprehensive infrastructure improvements section listing all of the applicant proposed
infrastructure improvements in addition to the primary onsite infrastructure
improvements identified as mitigation in the Final EIR along with phasing and
establishment of which party is responsible for implementation;
17. Revise Section 7.8 Financing Strategy – Required Facilities to reflect the project
description evaluated in the EIR, to include all of the improvement projects and their
actual triggers as established in the EIR, to update construction estimates and impact fees,
and to be consistent with the draft development agreement;
18. Revise Section 8 Implementation to add policies requiring sequential construction of the
project consistent with the project description evaluated in the Final EIR, policies
requiring participation in an infrastructure financing program, and policies regarding the
acquisition of ROW necessary for infrastructure;
19. Eliminate Section 8.2 San Luis Ranch Approval and Adoption due to redundancy with
other policies and processes;
20. Replace Table ES-1 in Appendix B of the Specific Plan with the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program as established in the Final EIR; and
21. Update Tables 7-14 and 7-15, which address improvement projects cost allocation and
estimated project impact fees, based on the outcome of ongoing Development Agreement
negotiations between the City and applicant. The phasing and infrastructure costing
Tables in Chapter 7 of the Specific Plan shall be updated with accurate infrastructure
costs, fair share calculations, and phasing information following a detailed financial
analysis to be prepared for the Development Agreement. These tables shall be updated
prior to final approval of the Development Agreement. A specific plan amendment shall
not be required to update table information in the document.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map Conditions:
Fire
1. A second point of fire department access to the multi-family portion of the development
shall be provided in accordance with the General Plan Safety Element and Fire Code
Appendix D. The second access road may be for Emergency Vehicles only, shall be at least
Packet Pg 238
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 29
R ______
20 feet of drivable surface in width, be designed to support 73,000 lbs, and be accessible
from either side by an automatic opening gate compatible with emergency preemption
equipment. The second point of access shall be at least one half the diagonal distance of the
area served separated from the main access point in accordance with the Safety Element
and Fire Code Access Provisions or as approved by the Fire Chief. Access roads parallel to
project buildings of 3 stories in height or more shall have an unobstructed width of 26 feet.
2. The project shall provide a minimum of two points of access to the subdivision from
an existing public way wherever there are more than 30 housing units. Emergency Vehicle
Access points may be accepted in lieu of full access.
3. All streets that are less than 28 feet in width shall be posted “No Parking – Fire Lane”
on both sides. Streets less than 36 feet in width shall be posted on one side only.
4. The project shall provide water mains and city-standard fire hydrants to provide a
minimum needed fire flow of 1500 GPM for 2 hours to within 300 feet of the exterior
walls of all proposed structures. Fire hydrant spacing shall not exceed 500 feet.
Transportation
5. Unless a design exception is approved by the Public Works Director, the final map shall
conform to City adopted Engineering Standards, Engineering Specifications, Policies, and
Plans.
6. Project construction and infrastructure shall be completed in the sequential phase order as
evaluated in the San Luis Ranch Final EIR, or as agreed to between the City and Developer.
If phasing is modified amendments to the Specific Plan and EIR maybe required.
7. Prado Road Interchange. As part of, or prior to, recordation of the final map the subdivider
shall submit an irrevocable offer to dedicate to the City property necessary to construct the
Prado Road Overcrossing and Southbound U.S. 101 Ramps Improvements (“the
Improvements”), and all appurtenances to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
a. Approval of this map is contingent upon the effectiveness of an ordinance approving a
development agreement for the project providing mechanism(s) to fund construction and
maintenance of the Improvements (“Funding Mechanism”).
b. The Development Agreement required by condition 6(a) shall waive the rights of the
applicant, and any future successors in interest to the applicant in the property to oppose
establishment of one or more Funding Mechanisms described in the Development
Agreement or the imposing of any tax, assessment, fee or charge with respect to such a
Funding Mechanism. In the event that voters or property owners dissolve a Funding
Mechanism, a Homeowners Association will be obliged to fund any and all costs for
infrastructure and/or services that the Funding Mechanism would otherwise have funded.
CC&Rs establishing such a Homeowners Association shall be submitted for the
reasonable approval of the City Attorney and recorded before any building permit may
issue for the improvement of the Project.
Packet Pg 239
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 30
R ______
c. Overcrossing and NB Ramp Improvements Fee Payment. The Funding Mechanism
identified in 7(b), shall be adopted before occupancy of Phase 2. The subdivider shall pay
its fair share mitigation fees for the Prado Rd. Overcrossing and Northbound U.S. 101
Ramps Improvements prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phase 2.
d. SB Ramp Improvements Fee Payments. Fair share fees, for remainder of
Improvements, not included in the initial Interchange construction, (future South Bound
Ramps of the Prado Rd. Interchange and all appurtenances) shall be collected at the time
of issuance of each individual building permit for each phase.
8. Madonna & Dalidio/Prado Widening of the Madonna & Dalidio/Prado intersection per
Table 4.12-1 #2 of the San Luis Ranch EIR, Class I path on the South side, and ADA ramp
upgrades on all corners shall be constructed by the subdivider prior to issuance of building
permits. Deferral of the Class I path to “Future by others” as shown in the proposed vesting
tentative map is not approved, this improvement shall be required prior to issuance of
building permits for Phase 1. Prior to recordation of the final map the applicant shall
complete the design of these improvements and exhaust all feasible efforts to acquire the
necessary off-site dedications, easements, and agreements for construction, all to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
a. Madonna Road Travel Lanes shall be a minimum of 11’ with a minimum 2’ median
or wider as necessary if pedestrian refuge is required adjacent to the left turn pockets.
Where ROW is limited widening should be accommodated on the park side.
b. Please refer to Engineering Development Review condition on dedications and
easements. If the Developer cannot acquire the necessary interests in land to implement
this mitigation measure, the Public Works Director may authorize the Developer in
writing to mitigate to the greatest extent feasible within right-of-way, dedication areas,
and easements under the control of the Subdivider and/or City. Alternative measures
shall be established with recordation of the final map.
9. Enhanced Madonna Pedestrian/Bicycle Crossings. Unless otherwise approved by the
Public Works Director; prior to issuance of building permits for phase 1 the subdivider
shall upgrade the pedestrian crossing at Madonna and Oceanaire to include curb
extensions and a pedestrian refuge island with push button signal activation. Space for
Curb extensions and refuge island should be accommodated by removing frontage street
parking.
Unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director; prior to issuance of building
permits for Phase 3 the subdivider shall construct a “hawk” pedestrian signal and crossing
at the intersection of Dogwood and Madonna interconnected with the adjacent traffic
signals.
10. Dalidio/Prado & Froom a multilane roundabout shall be constructed by the subdivider
at the intersection of Dalidio/Prado & Froom Ranch Way prior to the issuance of building
Packet Pg 240
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 31
R ______
permits. An interim single lane roundabout is permitted prior to issuance of building
permits for Phase 2. Prior to recordation of the final map the applicant shall complete the
design of the multilane roundabout and exhaust all feasible efforts to acquire the necessary
off-site dedications, easements, and agreements for construction all to the satisfaction of
the Public Works Director. If the Developer cannot acquire the necessary land interests
to implement this mitigation measure, the Public Works Director may authorize the
Developer in writing to modify the alignment and design of the roundabout such that off-
site property interests are not necessary. The Final map shall reflect lot adjustments
resulting from final roundabout design.
Interim all-way stop control as shown in the proposed vesting tentative map or
signalization is not approved.
11. Los Osos Valley Road & SB 101 Ramp Extension of the LOVR & SB 101 off ramp left
turn lane to 320’ shall be constructed by the applicant prior to issuance of building permits.
The construction of this improvement shall be coordinated with CalTrans and the City.
12. Madonna Bike Path A protected bike facility along Madonna Road shall be constructed
within the existing right-of-way between El Mercado & Hwy 101 SB Ramps and between
the existing bike trail termini and the intersection of Oceanaire & Madonna prior to
issuance of building permits, unless otherwise deferred by the Community and Public
Works Department Directors. Prior to recordation of the final map the applicant shall
complete design.
a. Prior to issuance of building permits the subdivider shall upgrade the existing pathway
to Class I standards from El Mercado to its South Western Terminus, unless otherwise
deferred by the Community and Public Works Department Directors.
13. Froom Ranch Bridge The Froom Ranch – Prefumo Creek bridge shall be constructed
prior to issuance of building permits, unless otherwise deferred by the Community and
Public Works Department Directors. The cross section of the bridge shall at a minimum
include: 12’ clear class I multi-use path, two 6.5’ bicycle lanes, and two 11’ travel lanes.
14. Froom Ranch Widening Design of Froom Ranch widening to its final cross section from
its existing northern terminus to the LOVR frontage road shall be completed prior to
issuance of building permits for Phase 1 unless otherwise deferred by the Community and
Public Works Department Directors. The cross section shall at a minimum include: 12’
class I multi-use path with two 2’ shoulders, two 6.5’ bicycle lanes, two 11’ travel lanes
and a 10’ landscaped median.
15. Froom Ranch Road Froom Ranch Road shall have a design speed of no more than 35
miles per hour and include buffered bicycle lanes. Adjustments to lots as a result of the
design shall be reflected with recordation of the final map.
Packet Pg 241
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 32
R ______
16. Froom Ranch & Los Osos Valley Intersection. The Froom Ranch and Los Osos Valley
Road intersection shall be widened per San Luis Ranch EIR table 4.12-1 prior to the
issuance of building permits unless otherwise deferred by the Community and Public
Works Department Directors. Prior to recordation of the final map the applicant shall
complete the design of this improvement and exhaust all feasible efforts to acquire the
necessary off-site dedications, easements, and agreements for construction all to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Department.
a. Please refer to Engineering Development Review condition on dedications and
easements. If the Developer cannot acquire the necessary interests in land to implement
this mitigation measure, the Public Works Director may authorize the Developer in writing
to mitigate to the greatest extent feasible within right-of-way, dedication areas, and
easements under the control of the Subdivider and/or City. Alternative measures shall be
memorialized with recordation of the final map.
17. Prior to issuance of each individual building permit, the subdivider shall pay City wide
transportation impact fees. Crediting of fees for eligible expenses identified in the City’s
Transportation Fee Program is permitted.
18. Prior to beginning each phase, the subdivider shall pay its fair share mitigation costs
proportional to each phase for the intersection improvements as prescribed in the project
EIR (see Table 123 of Appendix L -Traffic Impact Study).
19. All access rights to Prado/Dalidio, Madonna Rd. and Froom Ranch Way shall be dedicated
to the City. All private access points along Dalidio/Prado shall be restricted to right in &
out, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director.
20. The final map shall be revised to include a standard “knuckle” design at the intersection of
San Luis Ranch Road and Haystack Place. The knuckle will include emergency access and
pedestrian and bicycle access to the proposed Ped/Bike Bridge and Phase 3.
21. Final map shall include a class I connection between Harvest Street and commercially
zoned property.
22. Final map shall include a trail connection between San Luis Ranch Road and the
commercially zoned lot either along the drainage channel or via Haystack Place and
between any two of parcels 293-296.
23. As part of final map the subdivider shall dedicate access easements for pedestrian/bicycle
connections including the Cul-De-Sacs to Froom Ranch Road, San Luis Ranch Rd. Bridge,
San Luis Ranch Rd. to the commercially zoned lot/Dalidio Road, and Lot 216 & Legacy
lane to open space and the central park.
Packet Pg 242
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 33
R ______
24. As part of final map the subdivider shall exhaust all reasonable efforts to dedicate a 25’
access easement adjacent to the US 101 freeway frontage for maintenance purposes and
potential future trails.
25. Prior to recordation of the final map, design shall be completed for in-tract traffic calming
to the approval of the Public Works Director, per Final EIR Mitigation Measures T-6 and
T-7. The final map shall reflect lot adjustments resulting from completed traffic calming
design.
26. Parallel parking shall be prohibited on Froom Ranch Way.
27. The final map and improvement plans shall be adjusted to accommodate a channelized
right turn lane with median on the Dogwood approach to Madonna.
Engineering Development Review
Dedications and Easements
28. Any easements including but not limited to provisions for all public and private utilities,
water wells, access, grading, drainage, agriculture / open space, slope banks,
construction, public and private streets/alleys, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, 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 recordation of the map, unless a
deferral is requested by the subdivider and granted by the City. Said easements may be
provided for in part or in total as blanket easements.
29. The final map and improvement plans shall show the extent of all on-site and known off-
site offers of dedication. Subdivision improvement plans and / or preliminary designs
may be required for any deferred improvements so that dedication limits can be
established. These improvements may include but are not limited to road construction
and widening, grading and drainage improvements, stormwater facilities, utility
easements, bridges, bike bridges, transit stops, bikeways, pedestrian paths, signalized
intersections, traffic circles, and roundabouts.
30. The subdivider shall dedicate a 10’ wide street tree easement and public utility easement
(P.U.E.) across the frontage of each residential lot. A 10’ wide street tree easement and
15’ P.U.E. shall be provided across the frontage of each commercial or multi-family lot
unless reduced with the approval of the City and of PGE. Said easements shall be
adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot.
31. The subdivider shall include a separate offer of dedication for any offsite easements
located outside the tract boundary if needed for circulation, access, and/or utility
extensions. The developer shall include a separate offer of dedication for any easements
related to orderly development that could otherwise sunset with a map offer only.
32. All private improvements shall be owned and maintained by the individual property
owners, a property owner association, or the Homeowner’s Association (HOA) as
Packet Pg 243
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 34
R ______
applicable or by a Community Facilities District if specifically identified upon the
formation of the CFD. Private improvements may include but are not limited to
streets/alleys, parking lots, sidewalks, private pedestrian/bike paths, sewer mains/laterals,
water services, drainage systems, detention basin(s), street lighting, landscape, landscape
irrigation, common areas, pocket parks, and linear park improvements.
33. All private stormwater treatment facilities shall be owned and maintained by the
Homeowners Association, Property Owner Association, property owner association,
and/or by individual property owners or by a Community Facilities District if specifically
identified upon the formation of the CFD. All stormdrain facilities shall be private
property unless the final map and subdivision improvement plans specifically designates
them as offered to the City and the City, in fact, accepts title and maintenance
responsibility for them. A separate encroachment agreement, in a form approved by the
City Attorney, shall be recorded for any private stormwater systems, piping, BMP’s, and
other components of such systems that are approved for location within the public right-
of-way.
34. A notice of requirements or other agreement acceptable to the City of San Luis Obispo
and the developer shall be recorded upon the City’s written request in conjunction with the
Final Map to clarify development restrictions, fee payments, conditions of development,
and references to any pertinent conditions of approval related to this map, off-site
requirements, and/or the interaction of this development to the future development of lots
1, 2, and the commercial lots.
35. Park in-lieu fees shall be paid for each residential lot with recordation of the final map
creating that lot. The vacant multi-family lots may pay park fees at map recordation based
on an assumed build-out density or may defer to the time of development. If payment is
received with the map, any balance due based on a change in density shall be paid prior
building permit issuance for each unit in excess of those for which payments were made
with the map. Deferred payment will be subject to the fees in effect at the time of re-
subdivision or building permit application unless the fee payor has a vested right to pay a
lesser amount. If residential occupancies, including any care-takers units, are proposed
with the future development of the commercial lots, park in-lieu fees will be required to
be paid prior to building permit issuance.
a. As required by Land Use Element Policy 8.1.4, the San Luis Ranch project is
required to provide 5.8 acres of developed parkland. The project is providing 2.8
acres of developed parkland on site. Therefore, funding for 3.0 acres of developed
parkland is required for the project to offset its requirement. The following table
identifies the total amount of in-lieu fees necessary for the project to meet its full
park requirements. The final fee amounts are subject to change based on the final
acreage of developed parkland constructed across all phases of the project.
Packet Pg 244
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 35
R ______
Unit Type Parkland Cost Per
Unit1
Park Improvement
Cost Per Unit2
In-Lieu Fee Requirement
(Total * 52%3)
Single Family (200 units) $5,839 $6,585 $1,292,096
Multi-Family (380 units) $4,630 $4,899 $1,882,930
Total = $3,175,026
1. Current City of San Luis Oibpso Parkland In-Lieu Fee Amount.
2. Most recent cost estimate for park improvement costs (Orcutt Area Neighborhood Park).
3. The in-lieu fee requirement calculated as the difference between the 2.8 acre neighborhood park and the 5.8
acre policy minimum requirement for improved parkland.
36. Off-site dedication/acquisition of property for public right-of-way purposes may be
necessary to facilitate orderly development, anticipated build-out improvements,
and/or satisfaction of mitigation measures, conditions of approval, or compliance with
City Standards and policies. The subdivider shall exhaust all reasonable efforts and
diligently pursue acquisition of the necessary easement and/or right-of-way. For purposes
of this section 36, the term “reasonable efforts” shall include proof the subdivider has
made a commercially reasonable written offer to purchase the property interest at a fair
market value, in accordance with an appraisal conducted by an MAI appraiser. In the event
the subdivider is unable to acquire said rights-of-way, the City Council may consider
lending the subdivider its powers of condemnation to acquire the off-site right-of-way
dedication, including any necessary slope and drainage easements. The subdivider shall
pay all costs associated with such acquisition or condemnation proceedings including but
not limited to attorney’s fees, court costs, expert witness fees, and jury awards of any kind.
Without limiting the foregoing, the subdivider shall indemnify, defend and hold City
harmless from and against any and all such claims, liabilities, causes of action of any kind,
associated with City’s acquisition of such real property interests.
37. With respect to all off-site improvements, prior to filing of the Final Map, the subdivider
shall either:
a. Clearly demonstrate their right to construct the improvements by showing title or
interest in the property in a form acceptable to the City Engineer; or,
b. Demonstrate, in writing, that the subdivider has exhausted all reasonable efforts to
acquire interest to the subject property and request that the City assist in acquiring the
property required for the construction of such improvements and exercise its power of
eminent domain in accordance with Government Code Section 66462.5 to do so, if
necessary. Subdivider shall also enter into an agreement with the City to pay all costs
of such acquisition including, but not limited to, all costs associated with
condemnation. Said agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the City Engineer and
the City Attorney. If condemnation proceedings are required, the subdivider shall
submit, in a form acceptable to the City Engineer, the following documents regarding
the property to be acquired:
Packet Pg 245
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 36
R ______
i. Property legal description and sketch stamped and signed by a Licensed Land
Surveyor or Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying in the State of
California;
ii. Preliminary title report including chain of title and litigation guarantee;
iii. Appraisal of the property by a City approved appraiser. In the course of obtaining
such appraisal, the property owner(s) must be given an opportunity to accompany
the appraiser during any inspection of the property or acknowledge in writing that
they knowingly waived the right to do so;
iv. Copies of all written correspondence with off-site property owners including
purchase summary of formal offers and counter offers to purchase at the appraised
price.
v. Prior to submittal of the aforementioned documents for City Engineer approval, the
Subdivider shall deposit with the City all or a portion of the anticipated costs, as
determined by the City Attorney, of the condemnation proceedings. The City does
not and cannot guarantee that the necessary property rights can be acquired or will,
in fact, be acquired. All necessary procedures of law would apply and would have
to be followed.
38. Transportation and Subdivision Improvements. Secondary access is required from all
portions and/or phases of the subdivision where more than 30 dwelling units are proposed.
The location and development of the proposed secondary access shall be presented to the
City for review and approval prior to the preparation of the related improvement plans or
final map approval. Any temporary or permanent emergency access location,
construction, and controls shall be in accordance with the Fire Code, City Engineering
Standards, and shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Fire Department and Public
Works Department.
39. Fire Department access shall be provided for each building construction phase to the
satisfaction of the Fire Chief. Phased street construction shall consider and provide
suitable Fire Department hydrant access, circulation routes, passing lanes, and turn-
around areas in accordance with current City codes and standards.
40. All public streets shall conform to City Engineering Standards and the specific plan
including curb, gutter, and sidewalk, driveway approaches, and curb ramps as approved
by the City Engineer. Where conflicts occur between the City Engineering Standards
and concepts identified in the specific plan and/or represented on the tentative map, the
City Engineer shall make the final determination of design approval and/or exceptions.
41. Final roadway alignment shall be consistent with the City Engineering Standards except
where the applicant has requested and been granted a formal exception. A request for
public street/gutter gradients of less than 1% has been approved. The applicant sh all
propose final construction details, specifications, and minimum construction
Packet Pg 246
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 37
R ______
tolerances/testing for review and approval by the City Engineer in support of the request.
The request shall be endorsed prior to submittal of complete public improvement plans.
42. The developer shall be responsible for the placement and the maintenance of parking
limitation signage to allow for periodic sweeping of the entire public street system. Said
signage maintenance shall be specified by the City Engineer and shall inclu de, but need
not be limited to, damage, displacement, minimum reflectivity, and the reasonable change
of sweeping schedules.
43. Unless otherwise approved by the Community Development Director and City Engineer,
the final street and drainage system design shall include standard center median
planting/treatments along Dalidio Drive and Froom Ranch Way. The bio-retention
facilities proposed for the medians shall be relocated to the adjoining commercial lots and
agricultural open space. Any offset for the adjoining displaced agricultural open space
lands shall be approved by the Planning Division and Natural Resources Manager.
44. Final street sections shall be approved in conjunction with the review and approval of the
final project drainage report. The final design shall consider drainage, transitions, and
accessibility.
45. Final traffic circle and roundabout geometry shall be consistent with applicable
engineering standards and design guidelines.
46. The developer shall record a Notice of Requirements with the map regarding the designed
and installed traffic calming devices and that the subdivision is not eligible for a future
Residential Parking District or Neighborhood Traffic Management program processing.
47. The improvement plans shall include a line-of-sight analysis at applicable intersections to
the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. Fence heights and plantings in the areas
of control shall be reviewed in conjunction with the analysis. A separate recorded
agreement or Notice of Requirements for private property owner or HOA maintenance of
sight lines may be required as a condition of the City Engineer’s approval of the
improvement plans.
48. The subdivision improvement plans shall include full on-site and any off-site public and
private frontage improvements as required. The plans shall comply with the City
Engineering Standards, Bike Plan, Community Design Guidelines, Cal Trans Highway
Design Manual, and City policies.
49. Any jurisdictional permits from authorities other than the City, including but not limited
to, those from the Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Fish and Wildlife, and
Regional Water Quality Control Board required for any ground disturbing activities,
grading, demolitions, and/or street and road improvements shall be obtained prior to the
City’s approval of improvement plans and the Developer’s commencing work in
waterways within the jurisdiction of such regulatory agencies.
50. Access rights shall be offered for dedication to the City along Madonna Road, Dalidio
Packet Pg 247
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 38
R ______
Drive, Prado Road, and Froom Ranch Way except at approved driveway locations.
51. The subdivider shall install public street lighting and all associated facilities including but
not limited to conduits, sidewalk vaults, fusing, wiring, and luminaires along all public
streets, including Madonna Road per City Engineering Standards.
52. Private street lighting may be provided along the private streets/alleys/parking areas,
pocket parks, and linear parks per City Engineering Standards and/or as approved in
conjunction with the final ARC approvals.
53. Street trees are required as a condition of development. Street trees shall generally
be planted at the rate of one 15-gallon street tree for each 35 lineal feet of property
frontage. Landscape plans may include grouping of trees to vary this standard to honor
site/public improvements, achieve visual variety, or to honor line-of-sight corridors
within the subdivision.
54. The public improvement plans shall provide a final analysis of the trees to be removed
and trees to be retained. The existing trees located along or across the tract boundary,
within areas of utility work, and/or within vacant lots proposed for future development
shall be specifically identified in those plans as removed or retained. The plan/map
submittals shall include a tree preservation plan and/or notice of requirements attached to
the final map. Trees not previously noted and approved for removal shall be retained
unless otherwise specifically approved for removal by the City. A tree preservation plan
shall be provided by a Certified Arborist and approved by the City for any trees to remain
or to be relocated.
55. Improvement plans for the entire subdivision, including any off-site improvements shall
be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Utilities Department,
and Fire Department prior to map recordation. Off-site improvements may include but
are not limited to roadways, sewer mains, water mains, recycled water mains, storm drain
improvements, off-site access roadways, transportation improvements, and utility system
improvements.
56. A separate demolition permit will be required from the Building Division for the removal
of any existing structures and related infrastructure. Building removals are subject to the
Building Demolition Regulations including the additional notification and timing
requirements for any structure over 50-years old.
57. The improvement plans shall clearly show all existing structures, site improvements,
utilities, water wells, septic tanks, leach fields, gas and wire services, etc. The plan shall
include any pertinent off-site water well and private waste disposal systems that are
located within regulated distances to the proposed drainage and utility improvements. The
plan shall include the proposed disposition of the improvements and any proposed phasing
of their demolition and removal.
58. The map and improvement plans shall show and clarify the extent of all existing public
and private easements. The developer shall provide any additional clarification regarding
Packet Pg 248
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 39
R ______
the water wells shown on the proposed map and listed as City wells. The developer shall
provide any additional clarification on any outstanding private easement agreements
including but not limited to the billboard easement agreement (including the exact ingress
and egress in favor of the Grantee of the billboard easement). The im provement plans
shall clearly show and label the limits of existing and proposed improvements within the
easements.
59. If phased construction of the new street pavement is proposed, the phasing plan shall
provide for the ultimate structural street section and pavement life (per the City's
Pavement Management Plan) prior to acceptance by the City Engineer. The engineer of
record shall detail this requirement in the public improvement plans, to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
60. The improvement plan submittal shall include a complete construction phasing plan in
accordance with the mitigation measures, conditions of approval, City codes, and
standards. A truck circulation plan and construction management and staging plan shall
be included with any demolition, stockpile, grading, or improvement plan submittal.
General truck routes shall be submitted for review and acceptance by the City. The
engineer of record shall provide a summary of the extent of cut and fill with estimates on
the yards of import and export material. The summary shall include rough grading, utility
trench construction, road construction, AC paving, concrete delivery, and vertical
construction loading estimates on the existing public roadways. The developer shall
either: 1) complete roadway deflection testing before and after construction to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall complete repairs to the pre-construction
condition, or 2) shall pay a roadway maintenance fee in accordance with City Engineering
Standards and guidelines, or 3) shall propose a pavement repair/replacement program
satisfactory to the City Engineer. The roadway impacts analysis and mitigation strategy
shall be approved prior to commencing with grading or construction.
61. Retaining wall and/or retaining wall/fence combinations along property lines shall be
approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Division and shall conform with the zoning
regulations for allowed combined heights or shall be approved through the ARC or
separate Fence Height exception process.
62. The ARC plans and public improvement plans shall show the location of the proposed
mail receptacles or mail box units (MBU’s) to the satisfaction of the Post Master and the
City Engineer. The subdivider shall provide a mailbox unit or multiple units to serve all
dwelling units within this development as required by the Post Master. MBU’s shall not
be located within the public right-of-way or public sidewalk area unless specifically
approved by the City Engineer. Contact the Post Master at 543-2605 to establish any
recommendations regarding the number, size, location, and placement for any MBU’s to
serve the several neighborhoods and occupancies.
63. Porous concrete, pavers, or other surface treatments as approved by the City Engineer
shall be used for private parking areas, V-gutters, private curb and gutter, etc. to the extent
feasible within the over-all drainage design for water quality treatment/retention in
accordance with the specific plan and Land Use Policies.
Packet Pg 249
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 40
R ______
64. The subdivision improvement plans shall show that accessibility to all common areas,
linear parkways, and connecting neighborhood paths/trails is achieved per the ADA and
the California Building Code to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Building Official.
Utilities
65. Potable city water shall not 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. An annual Construction Water Permit is available from the City’s
Utilities Department. Recycled water is readily available near the intersection of Madonna
Road and San Luis Ranch Road, and shall be stubbed within the project site with a
temporary filling station / recycled water hydrant assembly before grading operations
begin.
66. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the development’s recycled water system shall
have: an 8-inch recycled water system along San Luis Ranch Road and Dogwood Court
from Madonna Road to Froom Ranch Way, and along Froom Ranch Way from Prefumo
Creek to Highway 101, and a 14” recycled water main shall extend easterly from the
intersection of San Luis Ranch and Madonna Road up to the northeastern corner of the
project’s frontage along Madonna Road.
67. Water flow rates and velocities shall comply with the requirements of the 2016 Potable
Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan. The City of San Luis Obispo shall be
the sole water purveyor for water services within the proposed development, which shall
comply with all municipal code requirements. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the
development’s water system shall have: a 12-inch water main extending easterly along
Froom Ranch Way from Oceanaire Drive up to Dalidio Drive and southerly along Dalidio
Drive up to Highway 101, and shall include a 10-inch water main along San Luis Ranch
Road from Madonna Road up to Froom Ranch Way.
68. Sewer flow rates and velocities shall comply with the requirements of the 2016
Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy. Prior to issuance of a
building permit the development’s sewer system shall have: a 24-inch sewer main
extending along the south boundary of the parcel within a new sewer easement from Lot
209 to the Laguna Lift Station, and shall include associated improvements at the lift station
to accommodate the proposed casing and sewer line. Easements and encroachment
permits from Caltrans shall be secured to cross the highway, and shall include the
installation of a new sewer casing per requirements of the encroachment permit.
69. Separate utilities, including water, sewer, gas, electricity, telephone, and cable TV shall
be served to each lot to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and serving
utility companies. Fiber-optic communication shall be provided from the existing Laguna
lift station to the proposed community park along the sewer alignment. All public and
private sewer mains/laterals shall be shown on the public improvement plans and shall
be constructed per City Engineering Standards unless a waiver or alternate standard
is approved by the City. The plans shall clearly delineate and distinguish public and
Packet Pg 250
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 41
R ______
private improvements. No sewer lift stations shall be used for the wastewater collection
system given that preliminary designs demonstrate the ability to serve the development
by a gravity sewer system.
70. All proposed utility infrastructure shall comply with the latest engineering design
standards effective at the time of improvement plan approval, and shall have alignments
for maintenance of public infrastructure acceptable to the Public Works Department. All
public utilities shall be within the public right of way and the final alignments of all water
and sewer mains shall be approved by the Utilities Engineer.
71. All sewer and water infrastructure impacted by the proposed Highway 101 interchange
layout and associated clearances required by the Engineering Design Standards shall be
relocated to the satisfaction of the Utilities Director.
72. Final grades and alignments of all public and/or private water, recycled water, sewer and
storm drains shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and
Utilities Department. The final location, configuration, and sizing of on-site service
laterals and meters shall be approved in conjunction with the review of the building plans,
fire sprinkler plans, and/or public improvement plans.
73. The limit, extent, and method of termination for all public utilities shall be approved to
the satisfaction of the City Utilities Engineer. Redundant mains or mainlines located with
limited access for maintenance may need to be redesigned prior to issuanc e of a building
permit and as directed by the Utilities Engineer. The extension of mainlines along the
subdivision boundary/frontage may be required for orderly development prior to issuance
of a building permit and as a directed by the Utilities Engineer.
74. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, the gas main shall be located in a joint
trench in accordance with PUC and utility company standards to provide additional
clearances within the pavement section of all streets to accommodate the several City
public utility mains.
75. The improvement plans shall show the location of all domestic and landscape water
meters. The plan shall include service lateral sizes and meter sizes. Sizing calculations
shall justify service and meter sizing prior to issuance of a building permit and to the
satisfaction of the Utilities Director. Water impact fees related to the irrigation water
meter(s) shall be paid prior to approval of the subdivision improvement plans for each
map and/or construction phase depicting that meter or those meters.
76. A final sewer report and supporting documentation for the design of the public sewer
main serving the future development on lots 1 & 2 shall be approved by the Utilities
Department prior to approval of the public improvement plans. The depth of the off-site
and on-site sewer mains shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Utilities Director.
77. The public improvement plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed overhead
wire utilities. Any existing overhead primary and secondary wiring within the tract
Packet Pg 251
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 42
R ______
boundary shall be undergrounded in conjunction with the subdivision improvements.
Unless otherwise specifically approved, pole relocation in lieu of undergrounding is not
permitted. Off-site service drops shall be eliminated. The new service feeds for the
subdivision shall be completed by underground wiring without a net increase in utility
poles. Terminal end utility poles shall be located off-site unless otherwise approved by
the City.
78. Any widening of streets with existing overhead wire utilities shall include the
undergrounding of the existing wiring. The City Engineer may require replacement
streetlights per City Standards where streetlights exist on wood poles.
79. The developer shall exhaust all reasonable efforts to eliminate or underground the existing
overhead wiring located along the southeast tract boundary. The elimination and/or
undergrounding shall consider existing services and/or utilization equipment to remain.
The plan to eliminate, reduce, or underground the existing services shall be approved to
the satisfaction of the City, Cal Trans, PGE, and billboard easement grantee.
Undergrounding service to any existing or proposed water well shall consider standard
farming operations and the depth of deep ripping. Any proposal for partial
undergrounding, waiver, or deferral shall be subject to the approval of the Community
Development Director. The existing PGE high voltage wires and towers and the existing
overhead wiring along Highway 101 are specifically excluded from this requirement.
80. Preliminary undergrounding plans for the entire subdivision shall be processed through
PGE and any respective wire utility companies in conjunction with public improvement
plan submittal. The preliminary PGE plans/memo shall be provided to the engineer of
record and the City for review and approval prior to commencing with the PGE final
handout package.
81. Irrigation systems using recycled water shall be designed and operated as described in the
City’s Procedures for Recycled Water Use, including the requirement that sites utilizing
recycled water require backflow protection on all potable service connections. Three sets of
irrigation plans shall be submitted for review during the City’s improvement plan and/or
building permit review process.
82. The project’s Landscape Plan shall be consistent with provisions in effect at the time of
building permit issuance for declared drought emergency conditions that may require an
Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU) below 50 percent of the Maximum Applied Water
Allowance (MAWA).
Grading, Drainage & Storm Water
83. Any permit approvals required from the Army Corps of Engineers, California Department
of Fish and Wildlife, or the Regional Water Quality Control Board shall be secured and
presented to the City prior to the approval of any subdivision grading and/or
improvements related to the jurisdictional area. The engineer of record shall review the
permit approvals and any specific permit conditions for compliance with the plans,
subdivision improvement designs, drainage system design/report, and soils report. The
Packet Pg 252
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 43
R ______
engineer of record shall forward the permits to the City with a notation that the permits
have been reviewed and are in general conformance with the design of the improvements.
84. The public improvement plans submittal shall clarify how any wetlands, creek corridors,
and riparian habitat areas will be preserved to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources
Manager. Include any specific details for the proposed creek crossings in accordance with
any preservation strategies, mitigation measures, and other requirements and needed
permits from agencies with jurisdiction or permitting authority. Sensitive areas shall be
staked, fenced, or otherwise delineated and protected prior to commencing with
construction, grading, or grubbing.
85. The developer shall exhaust reasonable efforts to eradicate and control the expansion of
any known non-native invasive plant species to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources
Manager. These plants may require treatment in advance and prior to commencing with
ground disturbing activities and grading.
86. Expansion index testing or other soils analysis may be required on a lot-by-lot basis for all
graded pads and for in-situ soils on natural lots in accordance with the current Building
Codes or otherwise as deemed necessary by the City Engineer or Building Official.
87. Final pad certifications shall include the certification of pad construction and elevations.
The soils engineer shall certify all grading prior to acceptance of the public improvements
and/or prior to building permit issuance. The certification shall indicate that the graded
pads are suitable for their intended use.
88. Cut and fill slopes shall be protected as recommended by the soils engineer. Brow ditches,
drainage collection devices, and drainage piping may be required. The public
improvement plans and final map shall reflect any additional improvements and private
easements necessary for slope protection and maintenance. Unless otherwise approved for
public maintenance by the City Engineer, brow ditches and drainage collection devices
shall be maintained by the HOA or funded by a Funding Mechanism.
89. A separate easement agreement for the existing and altered Cerro San Luis Channel shall
be approved to the satisfaction of the City. The easement agreement shall be in a format
provided by the City. The agreement shall include the maintenance responsibility by the
individual property owner(s), a property owner association, the Homeowner’s Association
(HOA) as applicable, or by a Community Facilities District if specifically identified upon
the formation of the CFD. The easement agreement shall include limitations in use within
the easement area, and provisions for City access rights for maintenance in an emergency
or if the responsible party fails to maintain.
90. The subdivision improvement plans shall include a complete grading plan to show site
accessibility in accordance with State and Federal regulations for all public and/or private
roads, transit stops, trails, paths, walks, bikeways, parks, and bridges where applicable.
The submittal shall provide additional analysis if site accessibility will not be provided and
for any feature or element where accessibility is purportedly not required. The
accessibility regulations or guidelines in effect at the time of subdivision improvement
Packet Pg 253
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 44
R ______
construction will be applied.
91. The subdivision improvement plans, grading plans, drainage plans, and drainage reports
shall show and note compliance with City Codes, Standards and Ordinances, Floodplain
Management Regulations, specific plan stormwater provisions, Waterways Management
Plan Drainage Design Manual, and the Post Construction Stormwater Regulations as
promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, whichever pertinent sections
are more restrictive.
92. The improvement plan submittal shall include a complete grading, drainage, and erosion
control plan. The proposed grading, drainage plan, and reports shall consider the proposed
construction phasing. Historic off-site and upslope watersheds tributary to the area of
phased construction shall be considered. Run-on from adjoining developed or
undeveloped parcels shall be considered.
93. The project plan and reports shall show compliance with the City’s Floodplain
Management Regulations and FEMA requirements. This project is located within an
unstudied A zone and adjacent to an AE zone. The required Conditional Letter of Map
Revisions Based on Fill (CLOMR-F) shall be processed and approved by FEMA prior to
commencement of construction or placement of fill within the Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA). The final LOMR-F shall be submitted to FEMA, along with the required
Community Acknowledgement form, within 6 months of the completion of the grading.
The LOMR-F shall be approved by FEMA prior to acceptance of the final building pad
and development grades by the City of San Luis Obispo and prior to building permit
issuance.
94. The revised 100-year flood limits shall be shown and noted on the improvement plans and
an additional final map sheet for reference. The drainage report and final plans shall clarify
the 100-year flood elevations, clearances, and freeboard at all new vehicle bridge,
pedestrian bridge, and pipe bridge crossings of the creek corridors.
95. The improvement plans shall clarify the extent of improvements at each respective well
site related to the proposed grading, top soil removal, grade lowering, etc. The plan shall
include any alterations to well head and appurtenant electrical service, pum ps, and panel
boards. The plans shall show and note compliance with the City’s Floodplain Management
Regulations, adopted Building Code/Electrical Code, and Department of Water Resources
requirements for protection of the service equipment and the well/groundwater.
96. The engineer of record shall provide a digital copy of the final Hydrologic Engineering
Center’s River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) modeling to the City in accordance with
Section 4.0 of the Waterways Management Plan Drainage Design Manual.
97. The final drainage report, Post Construction Stormwater Regulation compliance strategy,
and plans shall include final details related to the Cerro Channel diversion structure. The
plan, report, and jurisdictional permits shall consider the limits of any necessary silt
removal and construction of the diversion. The applicant shall evaluate the need for any
additional upstream silt/trash removal and/or the elimination of illicit discharges from off-
Packet Pg 254
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 45
R ______
site properties. The final reports and O & M Manual shall consider any need for on-going
maintenance. The plan shall include reasonable provisions for the capture of silt, trash,
and debris through pre-basins or other methods to minimize the impacts to the detention
basin.
98. The final stormwater reports, plan, and program shall include consideration of solid
waste/trash and floating trash removal from the stormdrain system and BMP’s prior to
discharge to the adjoining creeks and/or waterways. The strategy shall consider any City
or State regulations or guidelines regarding trash removal available at the time of public
improvement plan development and shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
99. The developer shall prepare an Operations and Maintenance Manual for review and
approval by the City in conjunction with the development of any stormwater BMP’s that
will be maintained by the Homeowners Association, Property Owner Association, or by
private property owners. A Private Stormwater Conveyance Agreement shall be recorded
in a format provided by the City prior to final inspection approvals and acceptance of
subdivision improvements.
100. The subdivider/developer shall provide notification to private property owners regarding
any individual maintenance responsibility of any parkway or backyard stormwater BMP’s
in accordance with Section E.2 of the RQWCB Resolution R3-2013-0032. The
notification may be by Notice of Requirements or other method acceptable to the City.
101. The stormwater improvements other than City Standard public storm drain infrastructure
shall be maintained by the individual property owner(s), a property owner association, the
Homeowner’s Association (HOA) as applicable, or by a Community Facilities District if
specifically identified upon the formation of the CFD. A separate encroachment/hold
harmless agreement may be required in conjunction with certain private improvements
proposed for location within the public rights-of-way.
102. The final details for any proposed bio-retention facilities or other stormwater BMP’s
located within the public right-of-way shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. The project soils engineer shall review and provide recommendations on any
proposed site-constructed and/or proprietary retention systems. Analysis of impacts to the
public improvements, protection of utilities, and methods to minimize piping and
protection of private properties shall be addressed in the final analysis.
103. The proposed detention basins and any pre-basin shall be designed in accordance with the
Waterways Management Plan Drainage Design Manual. The proposed surface runoff and
drainage from the detention basin(s) shall include a non-erosive outlet to an approved point
of disposal. The outlet(s) design and location should replicate the historic drainage where
feasible. Any off-site detention basin, temporary basin, or other drainage improvements
shall be subject to approval by the City. Any required or proposed off-site grading or
drainage improvements shall be completed within recorded easements or under an
appropriate license or other private agreement.
Packet Pg 255
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 46
R ______
104. The required CC&R’s shall entitle the owners of lots 1, 2, the commercial lots, and any
parcels resulting from the further subdivision of those parcels to annex to the HOA to allow
a common stormwater management strategy for the subdivision, at the option of those
owners. The subsequent development/re-subdivisions may, at the sole discretion of those
developers or subdividers, annex to the HOA, or demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City
how they will provide storm drainage mitigation through their own development strategy
and/or subdivision design and HOA. The HOA shall provide for maintenance of all private
common area drainage channels, on-site and/or sub-regional drainage basins, water quality
treatment and conveyance improvements. The CC&R's shall be approved by the City and
shall be recorded prior to or concurrently with recordation of the Final Map. A Notice of
Annexation or other appropriate mechanism to annex other subdivisions into the HOA,
including but not limited to any shared regional detention basin, shall be recorded
concurrently with the map.
105. Any existing areas of swale, creek and/or channel erosion shall be stabilized to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer, Natural Resources Manager, and other permitting
agencies. The existing channel shall be cleared of any illegal dumping, construction
debris, or other deleterious material to the satisfaction of the City Natural Resources
Manager.
106. The project soils engineer shall review the final grading and drainage plans and Low
Impact Development (LID) improvements. The soils report shall include specific
recommendations related to public improvements, site development, utility, and building
pad/foundation construction related to the proposed LID improvements. The project soils
engineering report shall be referenced on the final map in accordance with the Subdivision
Regulations and City Engineering Standards.
107. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required in accordance with State
and local regulations. A hard copy of the SWPPP shall be provided to the City in
conjunction with the Public Improvement Plan submittal and subsequent building plan
submittals. The Water Discharge Identification (WDID) number shall be included by
reference on all construction plans sets. An erosion control plan shall be included with the
improvement plans and all building plan submittals for demolitions, grading, and new
construction.
108. The project development and grading shall comply with all air quality standards and
mitigation measures. The developer shall provide written notification from the County Air
Pollution Control District (APCD) regarding compliance with all local, state, and federal
regulations including but not limited to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations related to Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) to
the City prior to plan approval, permits, and commencing with development grading.
Planning Requirements
109. At the time of submittal of a request for approval of a final map, the subdivider shall
provide a written report detailing the methods and techniques employed for complying
with these conditions of approval and the mitigation measures imposed upon certification
Packet Pg 256
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 47
R ______
of the EIR for the Project.
110. Agricultural Heritage Facility and Learning Center: Prior to issuance of building permits
for Phase 3, the proposed relocation and rehabilitation/reconstruction of buildings at the
Agricultural Heritage Facility and Learning Center shall be completed in conformance
with Mitigation Measure CR-1(a). Prior to grading or commencement of any construction
activities for infrastructure or building construction, a security and protection plan shall be
submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. The
plan shall detail methods to prevent trespassing and prevent removal of any building
materials. The plan shall continue to remain in active implementation through Phases 1 &
2, and prior to the relocation action.
111. All owners, potential purchasers, occupants (whether as owners or renters), and potential
occupants (whether as owners or renters) shall receive full and accurate disclosure
concerning the noise, safety, or overflight impacts associated with airport operations prior
to entering any contractual obligation to purchase, lease, rent, or otherwise occupy any
property or properties within the airport area consistent with Section 2.6.7 of the San Luis
Ranch Specific Plan.
112. Prior to final map, County of San Luis Obispo Avigation easements shall be recorded for
each parcel within the development.
113. Prior to the recording of any phase of the final map, the applicant shall enter into and record
an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City, detailing the timing of construction of
affordable units on-site, and with guarantees to ensure timely delivery of all of the required
affordable housing units. The Affordable Housing Agreement must be included as an
exhibit to the Development Agreement, and include appropriate guarantees to ensure the
timely delivery of affordable housing units, dedication of real property, or payment of in -
lieu fees, consistent with Section 5.2.2 of the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan.
114. Pursuant to Government Code §66474.9(b), the subdivider 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 map and its related approvals, and all actions
relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review. The City shall promptly
notify the subdivider of any claim, action, or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the
defense. If the city fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action, or
proceeding, or to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not thereafter be
responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold the City harmless.
115. This map is conditioned upon the annexation of the property to the city and this approval
shall not be effective until annexation of the property to the city has been completed. If the
annexation is not completed within one year of the date the City Council approves the map
or following any agreed extension in writing, then the approval of the map shall be null
and void. Consequently, no final or parcel map may be filed until the Project site is annexed
to the city.
Packet Pg 257
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 48
R ______
Natural Resources
116. Subdivider shall submit a plan for the interim stockpiling and salvage of topsoils from the
protected agriculture land to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager and
Community Development Director. The stockpiling / top soil salvage plan shall depict
depths of excavation, temporary storage locations for salvaged top soil, and phasing of
stockpiles so that no salvaged top soil stockpiles will be in place for a period greater than
seven (7) days at a time before being replaced back in the field in order to protect soil
health and viability for future farming operations. A pre-construction meeting shall be
required prior to any grading or top soil salvage activity, and post-top soil replacement and
finished slope and drainage aspect shall be confirmed by a surveyor using laser leveling or
similar techniques.
117. A comprehensive Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) shall be submitted to
the satisfaction of or approval by the Natural Resources Manager that provides detailed
strategies for the restoration of riparian impacts to Prefumo Creek and Cerro San Luis
Channel to mitigate impacts associated with bridge structures and the stormwater outfall
locations, as well as for the restoration and protection strategy for the areas identified in
the Specific Plan for monarch butterfly habitat and the heron rookery. The HMMP shall
identify baseline conditions, restoration techniques, monitoring protocols, success
standards, and contingency measures and identify the responsible parties and funding
sources for implementing the plan.
SECTION 3. Term Sheet. The City Council does hereby approve the Term Sheet to
form the basis for the Development Agreement, which represents the tentative agreement between
the applicant and the City on important areas related to the phased and orderly development of the
property.
Findings:
1. A Development Agreement, which is authorized by statute pursuant to Government Code
section 65864 – 65869.5, is a contract between a developer and a city (or county) in which the
city provides the developer with vested development rights for a defined period of years in
exchange for the developer providing “extraordinary” public or “community” benefits that
exceed what would otherwise be permissible by law, i.e. the land use regulation “police powers”
delegated to local government by the State of California;
2. The Term Sheet forms the basis for the Development Agreement, which represents the tentative
agreement between the applicant and the City on important areas related to the phased and
orderly development of the property.
3. The Development Agreement works in parallel to other entitlements, and in the case of San
Luis Ranch, the proposed conditions of approval require its approval with a detailed
infrastructure financing plan before certain portions of the entitlement can take effect.
4. The Development Agreement would not change the development parameters included in the
Specific Plan, but would fine-tune their implementation, building on the Conditions of Approval
Packet Pg 258
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 49
R ______
associated with the Vesting Tentative Tract Map.
SECTION 4. Annexation. The City Council does initiate the process of annexing the
project site into the City of San Luis Obispo, by authorizing staff to make application for annexation
to the San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo).
Findings:
1. The project area was identified as one of three Specific Plan areas designated for development
when the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements update were adopted by the City
Council in December 2014. The San Luis Ranch Specific Plan was prepared to implement this
aspect of the General Plan.
2. The San Luis Ranch Specific Plan are is within the City’s Sphere of Influence as defined by
LAFCo, which is an area designated for eventual annexation provided that City services can be
provided, and that that annexation is otherwise consistent with LAFCo policies;
3. The San Luis Ranch Specific Plan as conditionally approved, provides a framework for
providing the necessary City services.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2017.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of
San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
Packet Pg 259
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 50
R ______
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg 260
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
1
SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo considers and relies on the Final Environmental
Impact Report (EIR; State Clearinghouse Number 2015101083) for the San Luis Ranch Specific
Plan in determining to carry out the project. The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, responses to
comments on the Draft EIR, a list of persons and agencies commenting on the Draft EIR, a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and technical appendices. The City Council has
received, reviewed, considered, and relied on the information contained in the Final EIR, as well
as information provided at hearings and submissions of testimony from official participating
agencies, the public, and other agencies and organizations.
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 required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects 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 that agency; or
• Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations, including provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make the mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the Final EIR infeasible.
The California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15091(b) requires that the City’s findings be
supported by substantial evidence in the record. Accordingly, the Lead Agency’s record consists
of the following, which are located at the City Community Development Department office, San
Luis Obispo, California:
• Documentary and oral evidence, testimony and staff comments and responses received and
reviewed by the Lead Agency during public review and the public hearings on the San Luis Ranch
Project.
• The City of San Luis Obispo San Luis Ranch Project Final Environmental Impact Report (May
2017).
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 San Luis Ranch Specific Plan and reflects the City’s independent judgment. This document
Packet Pg 261
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
2
incorporates by reference the Final 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: Doug Davidson
(805) 781-7177
Having received, reviewed and considered the foregoing information, as well as any and all
information in the record, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby makes these
Findings pursuant to, and in accordance with, Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code.
SECTION 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
As required by the City General Plan, the San Luis Ranch 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 project is to adopt a specific plan for the San Luis Ranch project site, pursuant to the City
General Plan. The City’s objectives for the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan include:
1. Provide infill growth for the City that is anticipated and desired by City planning decisions and
guidelines;
2. Preserve agricultural land and open space on site, maintain agricultural views from U.S. 101;
3. Create significant entry-level, workforce housing opportunities within the City that is specifically
“affordable by design;”
4. Implement a walkable-bikeable neighborhood design that is integrated with public transit access
and open space amenities that encourage alternative modes of transportation;
5. Create new commercial, office and hotel opportunities that will accommodate and complement
existing businesses in downtown San Luis Obispo;
6. Develop an Agriculture Heritage Facilities & Learning Center offering seasonal attractions and
local goods that promote the region’s agricultural richness;
7. Establish an important link in the Bob Jones Regional Trail;
8. Provide fair-share financial contribution towards important public circulation improvements.
B. PROPOSED PROJECT
The San Luis Ranch Project consists of a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment/Pre-Zoning,
and Development Plan/Vesting Tentative Tract Map for a 131-acre project site, including
annexation of the site into the City of San Luis Obispo. The project would also address a
Development Agreement/Memorandum of Understanding, which provides a mechanism for
project implementation. The project is intended to be consistent with the development parameters
Packet Pg 262
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
3
described in the City’s Land Use and Circulation Element (adopted in December 2014). The
project includes construction of up to 580 residential units, 150,000 square feet of commercial
development, 100,000 square feet of office development, and a 200-room hotel, with a portion of
the site preserved for agriculture and open space uses.
The San Luis Ranch Specific Plan is proposed to be constructed in six phases. Phases 1, 2, and 3
would consist of residential build out, with construction planned to begin in 2017 and anticipated
to be completed by 2020. Phases 4, 5, and 6 would consist of non-residential build out, with
construction planned to begin in 2017 and anticipated to be completed by 2023. In addition to the
land use components of the project, the project phasing plan indicates that the Froom Ranch Way
extension and infrastructural improvements along Madonna Road would be constructed
concurrent with Phases 1 and 2. Infrastructure improvements along Prado Road/Dalidio Drive,
traffic signal improvements, and the Froom Ranch Way Bridge are proposed to be constructed
beginning during Phase 3. The proposed phasing plan is shown in Figure 2-14 (Project Phasing
Plan) of the Final EIR.
These project elements are further described in the EIR, specifically Section 2.5, Project
Characteristics. The San Luis Ranch Specific Plan is included in the EIR as Appendix B, and is
available at the following link: http://www.slocity.org/government/department-
directory/community-development/planning-zoning/specific-area-plans/san-luis-ranch
SECTION 3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
A. BACKGROUND
The Final EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines. In accordance
with Section 15121 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of this Final EIR is to serve as an
informational document for the public and City of San Luis Obispo decision makers. Although
the project is a specific plan and development plan, The Final EIR contains a project-level
environmental review that fulfills the requirement of a project-level EIR. As defined in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15161, a project-level EIR:
…examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project. This type of EIR should
focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project.
The EIR shall examine all phases of the project including planning, construction, and operation.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182, “where a public agency has prepared an EIR on a
specific plan after January 1, 1980, no EIR or negative declaration need be prepared for a
residential project undertaken pursuant to and in conformity to that specific plan if the project,”
as long as the residential project is within the scope of the EIR, no new environmental effects are
anticipated to occur, and no new mitigation measures are required for the residential project.
In accordance with Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines, Draft EIR was circulated for a
52-day public review period that began December 9, 2016 and concluded on January 31, 2017. The
original 45-day comment period was scheduled to end on January 23, 2017, but was extended one
calendar week. The City held a public Planning Commission hearing on January 11, 2017, which
Packet Pg 263
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
4
was continued on January 25, 2017, to receive public testimony in the form of verbal comments
on the Draft EIR. The City held a Cultural Heritage Committee hearing for the project on January
23, 2017 to receive public testimony in the form of verbal comments on the Draft EIR.
In addition, Section 5.0, Other CEQA-Related Discussions, of the Draft EIR was recirculated for a
45-day public review period that began March 3, 2017 and concluded on April 17, 2017. This
section of the Draft EIR was revised to include an updated discussion of energy use and
conservation related to the project. This recirculation also included the relevant portions of
Appendix D as originally contained in the Draft EIR. It should be noted that as a result of this
new discussion, no new significant impacts or mitigation measures were identified. Pursuant to
Section 15088.5(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, if the revisions subject to recirculation are
limited to a few portions of the Draft EIR, the lead agency need only recirculate the portions that
have been modified.
Responses to each written and verbal comment that the City received are included in the
Responses to Comments section of the Final EIR. The Draft EIR and Responses to Comments
collectively comprise the Final EIR for the project.
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 II Class II impacts are significant but can be mitigated to a level of insignificance by
measures identified in the Final EIR. 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.
C. CLARIFICATIONS TO FINAL EIR MITIGATION MEASURES
Based on feedback from the Planning Commission as well as City staff, including the City
Attorney, during the preparation of Conditions of Approval for the project, the City of San Luis
Obispo has revised certain Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR to clarify timing and
implementation for required mitigation actions. These changes are discussed in this section, and
are reflected in the Mitigation Measures detailed in Sections 5 and 6, below. Pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15088.5, these clarifications do not constitute a change to the project or the
substance of any required mitigation, nor do they present significant new information that would
Packet Pg 264
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
5
require recirculation of the Final EIR, as they do not deprive the public of a meaningful
opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a
feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the
project’s proponents have declined to implement.
The Mitigation Measures that have been modified, including a brief description of these
modifications, are shown here. Changes in the Final EIR Mitigation Measure text are signified by
strikeouts (strikeouts) where text is removed and by underline font (underline font) where text is
added.
• Mitigation Measure AG-1 Agricultural Conservation has been revised to clarify the
intended meaning of “comparable agricultural quality,” to indicate City staff preferential
order for mitigation options, and to specify the requirement for endowment under all
mitigation options to ensure permanent preservation and maintenance of agricultural
land, as shown:
Mitigation Measure AG-1 Agricultural Conservation. Prior to issuance of any grading
permits, the project proponent shall provide that for every one (1) acre of Important
Farmland (Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland)
on the site that is permanently converted to non-agricultural use as a result of project
development, one (1) acre of land of comparable agricultural productivity (e.g., Prime-
for-Prime) shall be preserved in perpetuity. The land dedicated to agriculture pursuant to
this measure shall be of soil quality, size, location and configuration appropriate to
maintain a viable, working agricultural operation. The acreage required to meet the 1:1
ratio may be met by the off-site agricultural conservation easement/deed restriction
proposed by the project applicant, as long as this land meets the conditions outlined in
this measure. Said mitigation shall be satisfied by the applicant through one or more of
the following options (listed in order of preference):
1) Granting a perpetual conservation easement(s), deed restriction(s), or other farmland
conservation mechanism(s) to the City or qualifying entity, which has been approved
by the City, such as the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo, for the purpose of
permanently preserving agricultural land. The required easement(s) area or deed
restriction(s) shall therefore total a minimum of 56 acres of Prime Farmland. The land
covered by said on- and/or off-site easement(s) or deed restriction(s) shall be located
within or contiguous to the City’s Urban Reserve Line or Greenbelt subject to review
and approval of the City’s Natural Resources Manager; or
2) Making an in-lieu payment to a qualifying entity, which has been approved by the
City, such as the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo, to be applied toward the
future sufficient to fund the purchase of a minimum of 56 acres of Prime Farmland in
San Luis Obispo County, together with an endowment amount as may be required to
ensure permanent preservation and maintenance of agricultural land. The amount of
the payment amount and endowment shall be determined by the qualifying entity or
a licensed appraiser; or
3) Making an in-lieu payment to a qualifying entity, which has been approved by the
City and that is organized for conservation purposes, to be applied toward a future
Packet Pg 265
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
6
perpetual conservation easement, deed restriction, or other farmland conservation
mechanism to preserve a minimum of 56 acres of Prime Farmland in San Luis Obispo
County, together with an endowment amount as may be required to ensure
permanent preservation and maintenance of agricultural land. The amount of the
payment and endowment shall be determined by the qualifying entity or a licensed
appraiser; or
4) Any combination of the above mitigation options.
Prior to issuance of any grading permits for the project, the applicant shall provide
evidence of the recorded easement(s), deed restriction(s), or evidence of payment to the
City Planning Department or qualifying entity, for approval by the City’s Natural
Resource Manager to demonstrate compliance with this measure.
• Mitigation Measure AG-3(c) Buffer Landscaping has been revised to use clearer
terminology, as shown:
Mitigation Measure AG-3(c) Buffer Landscaping. To reduce the potential for noise, dust,
and pesticide drift to affect future residents on the project site, the project applicant shall
ensure that project landscape plans include planting of a windrow windbreak hedgerow
of trees and shrubs within the agricultural buffer along Froom Ranch Way at a sufficient
density to buffer the site from surrounding agricultural operations.
• Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Encourage Telecommuting has been revised to focus on the
office component of the project, as retail and hotel components typically involve service
employees that would not be able to telecommute, as shown:
Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Encourage Telecommuting. The project applicant or
developers of individual projects within the Specific Plan Area shall include provisions to
encourage employers within the proposed commercial, office, and hotel components of
the project to implement telecommuting programs and include teleconferencing
capabilities, such as web cams or satellite linkage, which will allow employees to attend
meetings remotely without requiring them to travel out of the area.
• Mitigation Measure BIO-1(c) Western Pond Turtle and Two-Striped Garter Snake Impact
Avoidance and Minimization has been revised to address a clerical error, as shown:
Mitigation Measure BIO-1(c) Western Pond Turtle and Two-Striped Garter Snake Impact
Avoidance and Minimization. The applicant shall ensure the following actions are
implemented to avoid and minimize potential impacts to western pond turtle and two-
striped garter snake (these reptiles utilize similar habitats; therefore, implementation of
the proposed measures for western pond turtle are also suitable and appropriate for two-
striped garter snake):
• A qualified biologist(s) shall conduct a pre-construction survey within 24 hours prior
to the onset of work activities within and around areas that may serve as potential
western pond turtle habitat. If this species is found and the individuals are likely to be
Packet Pg 266
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
7
injured or killed by work activities, the approved biologist shall be allowed sufficient
time to move them from the project site before work activities begin. The biologist(s)
must relocate the any western pond turtle the shortest distance possible to a location
that contains suitable habitat that is not likely to be affected by activities associated
with the project.
• Access routes, staging, and construction areas shall be limited to the minimum area
necessary to achieve the project goal and minimize potential impacts to western pond
turtle habitat including locating access routes and construction staging areas outside
of wetlands and riparian areas to the maximum extent practicable.
• Mitigation Measure BIO-1(f) Great Blue Heron and Monarch Butterfly Impact Avoidance
and Minimization has been revised to clarify implementation of construction mitigation
actions, to specify review and approval of the required habitat enhancement plan by the
City’s Natural Resource Manager, and to subordinate the potential for creating new off-
site nesting habitat as one potential mitigation action to be described in the habitat
enhancement plan, as shown:
Mitigation Measure BIO-1(f) Great Blue Heron and Monarch Butterfly Impact Avoidance
and Minimization. The applicant shall ensure the following actions are undertaken to
avoid and minimize potential impacts to overwintering monarch butterflies and nesting
great blue herons.
• Tree trimming/removal and construction activities that affect eucalyptus trees near or
within the monarch overwintering grove or active great blue heron nests identified in
the San Luis Ranch Monarch Trees Inspection Memo, Results of 2015 and 2016 San Luis
Ranch Heron Rookery Surveys Memo, and San Luis Ranch – Prefumo Creek Widening
Biological Constraints Memo prepared by Althouse and Meade (Appendix F), shall not
be conducted during the monarch butterfly overwintering season from October 1
through March 31 if monarch butterflies are present, or while great blue heron nests
are active from February 1 to August 31. If construction activities must be conducted
during these time periods in areas where overwintering or nests may be present, a
qualified biologist shall conduct overwintering monarch surveys and/or nesting great
blue heron surveys within one week of habitat disturbance. If surveys do not locate
clustering monarchs or nesting great blue herons, construction activities may be
conducted. If clustering monarchs and/or nesting great blue herons are located, no
construction activities shall occur within 100 feet of the edge of the overwintering
grove and/or active nest(s) until the qualified biologist determines that no more
monarchs are overwintering in the grove or the nest(s) are no longer active.
• A qualified biologist shall prepare and implement a habitat enhancement plan to be
reviewed and approved by the City’s Natural Resource Manager prior to issuance of
grading permits to enhance and restore overwintering and nesting habitat that is to be
preserved. The habitat enhancement plan may include but shall include not be limited
to:
o On- or off-site planting of native shrubs and trees such as Monterey Cypress
(Hesperocyparis macrocarpa) that may support heron roosting and monarch
butterfly overwintering.
Packet Pg 267
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
8
o As eucalyptus trees senesce, they shall be replaced with native species. Native
trees and shrubs shall also be used to supplement gaps in canopy or act as
windbreaks.
o Create new offsite nesting habitat for great blue herons to mitigate for removal of
onsite nesting habitat. With a qualified biologist present, the current rookery may
be moved to a suitable offsite location where the same great blue herons can
resume nesting, following methods detailed in Crouch et al. (2002). It should be
noted that creating offsite nesting habitat for great blue herons is experimental and
that the relocation techniques described in Crouch et al. (2002) were used to
relocate black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax). In addition, an
agreement with the City will be required prior to implementation of the offsite
strategy on their property. The methods detailed in Crouch et al. (2002) include:
a. This entails at least one year of pre-construction monitoring of the rookery,
where the timing of rookery activities will be noted: arrival of breeding adults,
egg laying, hatching, and fledging. During this time, audio recordings of
adults and juveniles shall be made.
b. Following the completion of the nesting season in late summer, a certified
arborist specializing in the translocation of trees will examine the mature trees
onsite and work with the City’s Natural Resources Manager to determine
whether or not it is feasible to relocate the mature trees containing nests across
Madonna Road to a suitable location at Laguna Lake Open Space.
c. Prior to the start of the next nesting season (based on timing of adult arrival in
previous years), nesting adults will be recruited to the new location via decoys
and playback of vocalizations. The new location will be monitored regularly
by a qualified biologist for the following three breeding seasons.
• Mitigation Measure T-4 Construction Traffic Management Plan has been revised to clarify
the intended definition of “unacceptably congested,” as shown:
Mitigation Measure T-4 Construction Traffic Management Plan. Prior to construction, a
traffic management plan shall be prepared for review and approval by the City of San
Luis Obispo Public Works Department. The traffic management plan shall be based on
the type of roadway traffic conditions, duration of construction, physical constraints,
nearness of the work zone to traffic and other facilities (bicycle, pedestrian, driveway
access, etc.). The traffic management plan shall include:
• Advertisement. The project developer shall prepare an advertisement campaign
informing the public of the proposed construction activities. Advertisements shall
occur prior to beginning work and periodically during the course of the project
construction. The advertising shall include notification of changes to bus schedules
and potential changes to bus stop locations, potential impacts during school drop-off
and pick-up times, and major intersections that may be impacted during construction.
• Property Access. Access to parcels along the construction area shall be maintained to
the greatest extent feasible. Affected property owners shall receive advance notice of
work adjacent to their property access and when driveways would be potentially
closed.
Packet Pg 268
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
9
• Schools. Any construction adjacent to schools shall ensure that access is maintained for
vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists, particularly at the beginning and end of the
school day.
• Buses, Bicycles, and Pedestrians. The work zone shall provide for passage by buses,
bicyclists, and pedestrians, particularly in the vicinity of schools.
• Intersections. Traffic control (i.e., use of flag persons) shall be used at intersections that
are determined to be unacceptably congested based on the City’s most recently
adopted traffic impact thresholds due to construction traffic.
• Mitigation Measure T-6 Project Site Intersection Roundabout Control has been revised to
clarify the intended definition of “infeasible” in the context of the required mitigation
action, as shown:
Mitigation Measure T-6 Project Site Intersection Roundabout Control. New roadway
intersections within the Specific Plan Area shall be controlled using roundabout design,
unless the City Public Works Department determines that roundabout control is
physically infeasible.
It is the finding of the City Council that based on modifications to the Final EIR Mitigation
Measures as described above, impacts resulting from implementation of the San Luis Ranch
Project would not otherwise result in a change in the levels of impact identified in the existing
analysis contained in the Final EIR. As such, the modified mitigation measures may be used to
fulfill the environmental review requirements for the current project, and the information
contained herein does not require recirculation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
SECTION 4. FINDINGS FOR LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The findings below are for Class III impacts. Class III impacts are adverse but not significant.
The City Council has concluded that the following effects are effects are adverse but not
significant.
A. AESTHETICS
1. Impact AES-1: Although there are potentially adverse impacts to scenic viewsheds, the
project would implement the open space and agricultural preservation and design elements
included in the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, potential impacts to scenic vistas and scenic
resources within a state scenic highway would be less than significant. (Refer to page 4.1-11
of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: None
b. Finding: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
Packet Pg 269
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
10
2. Impact AES-2: The project would alter the existing visual character of the site by converting
over half of the agricultural site into a predominantly residential and commercial use site.
Due to the project’s visual compatibility with surrounding development, preservation of on-
site open space and agricultural land, and compliance with design guidelines, the project’s
impact on the visual character and quality of the site would be less than significant. (Refer to
page 4.1-13 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: None
b. Finding: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
3. Impact AES-3: The project would introduce a new source of nighttime lighting and daytime
glare, which could increase ambient light and affect the quality of the nighttime sky.
However, project compliance with existing City requirements and design guidelines would
limit the magnitude of these effects. (Refer to page 4.1-15 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: None
b. Finding: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
4. Cumulative Aesthetics Impacts: As determined in the LUCE Update EIR, all development
that adheres to applicable General Plan policies would result in less than significant aesthetic
impacts. Therefore, the overall aesthetic impact of cumulative development in the project
vicinity would be less than significant. (Refer to page 4.1-16 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: None
b. Finding: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Impact AG-2: The project would alter the existing land use and zoning on the project site.
However, these alterations would be consistent with the General Plan’s identification of the
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan for a mix of urban, agricultural, and open space use. (Refer to
page 4.2-19 of the Final EIR.)
c. Mitigation: None
d. Finding: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
2. Impact AG-4: Re-grading of the project site would not result in significant degradation of
viability of on-site agricultural land. On-site farmland would remain viable with removal of
topsoil, on-site soils will retain prime agricultural soils status, and stormwater will drain from
the site on the same slope and aspect as the current condition following project
implementation. (Refer to page 4.2-23 of the Final EIR.)
Packet Pg 270
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
11
a. Mitigation: None
b. Finding: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
3. Cumulative Agricultural Resources Impacts: Consistent with the LUCE Update EIR, the
project would implement Land Use Element Policies 1.8.1 and 1.9.2, and Conservation and
Open Space Element Policy 8.6.3. (Refer to page 4.2-24 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: None
b. Finding: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
C. AIR QUALITY
1. Impact AQ-4: The project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations. There are no major industrial uses near the project site, and the project does
not include any industrial uses, and new residences on the project site would be located over
500 feet from U.S. Highway 101, consistent with ARB guidance for siting sensitive receptors.
(Refer to page 4.3-29 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: None
b. Finding: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
D. GREENOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
1. Impact GHG-1: The San Luis Ranch Specific Plan is consistent with the City’s Climate Action
Plan, which serves as a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy consistent with State CEQA
Guidelines. The GHG-reducing policy provisions contained in the Climate Action Plan were
prepared with the purpose of complying with the requirements of AB 32 and achieving the
goals of the AB 32 Scoping Plan. As a result, the Climate Action Plan is consistent with
statewide efforts established in ARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan to reduce statewide GHG
emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. (Refer to page 4.6-16 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: None
b. Finding: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
E. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1. Impact HAZ-1: Small quantities of hazardous materials may be used in conjunction with the
proposed residential and commercial retail uses on site. However, these materials would be
limited in type and quantity such that they would not create a hazard to the public or
environment. (Refer to page 4.7-18 of the Final EIR.)
Packet Pg 271
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
12
a. Mitigation: None
b. Finding: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
2. Impact HAZ-2: The project site is adjacent to U.S. Highway 101, on which accidents that
involve hazardous materials could occur. Such accidents could potentially create a significant
hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. However,
compliance with applicable regulations related to the handling and storage of hazardous
materials would minimize the risk of the public’s potential exposure to these substances.
(Refer to page 4.7-19 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: None
b. Finding: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
3. Impact HAZ-3: Two schools are located within one-quarter mile of the project site.
Compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations would ensure that hazardous
materials impacts to schools would remain less than significant. (Refer to page 4.7-20 of the
Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: None
b. Finding: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
4. Impact HAZ-7: Asbestos Containing Material (ACM) and Lead Based Paint (LBP) may be
present in existing on-site structures. Demolition of these structures would be required to
comply with applicable State and local policies and regulations for the control and
remediation of hazardous materials to prevent human exposure. (Refer to page 4.7-27 of the
Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: None
b. Finding: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
5. Impact HAZ-8: The project site is located within a San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport
area of influence. The project would be consistent with the CALUPH Airport Safety Zones,
which represent the extent of Airport-related safety hazard zones for people residing or
working in these areas. (Refer to page 4.7-27 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: None
b. Finding: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
6. Cumulative Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts: As described in the LUCE Update
EIR, adherence to applicable General Plan policies and applicable State and federal regulatory
requirements would reduce any cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impacts
Packet Pg 272
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
13
resulting from buildout of the City under the General Plan, including buildout of the San Luis
Ranch Specific Plan, to a less than significant level. (Refer to page 4.7-30 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: None
b. Finding: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
F. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1. Impact HWQ-2: The project would alter the existing drainage pattern of the project site, which
could result in flooding, erosion, or siltation onsite and offsite. However, the proposed
retention and detention systems, along with compliance with applicable regulations, would
ensure that this impact would remain less than significant. (Refer to page 4.8-25 of the Final
EIR.)
a. Mitigation: None
b. Finding: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
2. Cumulative Water Quality Impacts: The project, in conjunction with pending cumulative
development would not significantly increase the concentration of urban pollutants such as
oil, grease, and vehicular heavy metals in surface runoff. Polluted runoff which may be
generated during construction activities of cumulative development and projects considered
in this analysis would be regulated by the SWRCB under General Construction, NPDES
permits, and would be minimized through the implementation of standard construction
BMPs. (Refer to page 4.8-33 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: None
b. Finding: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
3. Cumulative Flooding Impacts: The proposed on-site drainage system would adequately
capture associated runoff, and the project would not substantially contribute to flooding on-
or off-site. The project grading plan has been designed such that the resulting post-
development floodplain would exclude areas proposed for housing. (Refer to page 4.8-33 of
the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: None
b. Finding: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
Packet Pg 273
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
14
G. LAND USE
1. Impact LU-3: The Specific Plan would be consistent with the land use strategy in SLOCOG’s
2014 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. (Refer to page 4.9-44
of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: None
b. Finding: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
2. Impact LU-4: The Specific Plan would allow residential and non-residential land uses
consistent with density and use restrictions in the City’s Airport Safety Zones, which
represent the extent of Airport-related safety hazard zones for people residing or working in
these areas. The LUCE Update EIR provided substantial evidence that the development of the
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Area under the updated General Plan land use designations
would be consistent with ALUP safety and noise standards. The project would not conflict
with land use policies intended to prevent airport-related safety hazards. (Refer to page 4.9-
45 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: None
b. Finding: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
H. NOISE
1. Impact N-2: Short-term construction activities would generate intermittent levels of
groundborne vibration. However, the expected vibration level during construction of the
project would not be perceptible at the nearest residential receptors. (Refer to page 4.10-19 of
the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: None
b. Finding: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
2. Impact N-3: Project-generated traffic would incrementally increase traffic-related noise on
study area roadway segments, except on Madonna Road near the project site, which would
potentially affect existing noise-sensitive receptors along local roadways. However, the
increase in traffic noise levels along area roadways would not exceed 3 dBA, which is the
increase threshold typically audible to the human ear. (Refer to page 4.10-20 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: None
b. Finding: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
3. Cumulative Noise Impacts: Traffic noise levels along roadways in the project vicinity would
not increase by more than 0.5 dBA due to cumulative traffic. This increase would not be
Packet Pg 274
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
15
significant based on the applicable traffic noise increase threshold of 3 dBA. (Refer to page
4.10-37 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: None
b. Finding: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
I. WATER RESOURCES
1. Impact WR-1: The project would increase water demand as a result of new residential and
commercial development on the project site. However, the Specific Plan includes water
conservation measures intended to manage on-site water consumption associated with new
development, and the project’s water demand would be within the City of San Luis Obispo’s
projected primary water supply. (Refer to page 4.13-10 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: The Specific Plan includes water conservation measures intended to manage
on-site water consumption associated with development Specific Plan Development. No
mitigation is required.
b. Finding: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
2. Cumulative Water Resources Impacts: The Specific Plan includes water conservation
measures intended to manage on-site water consumption associated with new development,
and project’s water demand would not exceed supply when combined with all possible future
development within the City. In addition, the project would reduce the overall demand on
the San Luis Obispo groundwater basin as a result of reduced on-site agricultural uses and,
therefore, would not exacerbate potential cumulative impacts on the local groundwater basin
associated with future development within the City. (Refer to page 4.13-14 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: The Specific Plan includes water conservation measures intended to manage
on-site water consumption associated with development Specific Plan Development. No
mitigation is required.
b. Finding: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
Packet Pg 275
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
16
SECTION 5. FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT THAT HAVE BEEN
MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
Class II impacts are significant but can be mitigated to a level of insignificance by measures identified in
the EIR. When approving a project with Class II impacts, the decision-makers must make findings that
changes or alterations to the project have been incorporated that reduce the impacts 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 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 to avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects 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 that agency; or
• Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations, including provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make the mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the Final EIR infeasible.
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
Final EIR. The impacts identified in this section are considered in the same sequence in which
they appear in the EIR.
A. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Impact AG-1: The project would result in the direct conversion of 56 acres of Prime Farmland,
as mapped by the FMMP, to non-agricultural uses. With implementation of Mitigation
Measure AG-1, Agricultural Conservation, this impact would be reduced to a less than
significant level. (Refer to page 4.2-15 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: Specific Plan Goal 2 establishes a goal to provide a community that maintains
and promotes the land’s agricultural heritage. San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Policy 2.4,
which requires strict monitoring of the conversion of active agriculture to non-agricultural
uses and consideration of the possible effects of new development on character of the
community as a whole, is intended to help achieve Specific Plan Goal 2. The project also
includes a commitment, to be included in the Development Agreement, to procure an off-
site agricultural conservation easement/deed restriction to comply with the Land Use
Element Policy 8.1.4.f. In addition to these Specific Plan and project components, the
Packet Pg 276
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
17
following mitigation measures would be required to ensure that impacts associated with
the conversion of Prime Farmland are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible
— Mitigation Measure AG-1 Agricultural Conservation. Prior to issuance of any grading
permits, the project proponent shall provide that for every one (1) acre of Important
Farmland (Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique
Farmland) on the site that is permanently converted to non-agricultural use as a result
of project development, one (1) acre of land of comparable agricultural productivity
(e.g., Prime-for-Prime) shall be preserved in perpetuity. The land dedicated to
agriculture pursuant to this measure shall be of size, location and configuration
appropriate to maintain a viable, working agricultural operation. The acreage
required to meet the 1:1 ratio may be met by the off-site agricultural conservation
easement/deed restriction proposed by the project applicant, as long as this land
meets the conditions outlined in this measure. Said mitigation shall be satisfied by the
applicant through one or more of the following options (listed in order of preference):
5) Granting a perpetual conservation easement(s), deed restriction(s), or other
farmland conservation mechanism(s) to the City or qualifying entity, which has
been approved by the City, such as the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo, for
the purpose of permanently preserving agricultural land. The required
easement(s) area or deed restriction(s) shall therefore total a minimum of 56 acres
of Prime Farmland. The land covered by said on- and/or off-site easement(s) or
deed restriction(s) shall be located within or contiguous to the City’s Urban
Reserve Line or Greenbelt subject to review and approval of the City’s Natural
Resources Manager; or
6) Making an in-lieu payment to a qualifying entity, which has been approved by the
City, such as the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo, sufficient to fund the
purchase of a minimum of 56 acres of Prime Farmland in San Luis Obispo County,
together with an endowment amount as may be required to ensure permanent
preservation and maintenance of agricultural land. The amount of the payment
and endowment shall be determined by the qualifying entity or a licensed
appraiser; or
7) Making an in-lieu payment to a qualifying entity, which has been approved by the
City and that is organized for conservation purposes, to be applied toward a future
perpetual conservation easement, deed restriction, or other farmland conservation
mechanism to preserve a minimum of 56 acres of Prime Farmland in San Luis
Obispo County, together with an endowment amount as may be required to
ensure permanent preservation and maintenance of agricultural land. The amount
of the payment and endowment shall be determined by the qualifying entity or a
licensed appraiser; or
8) Any combination of the above mitigation options.
Prior to issuance of any grading permits for the project, the applicant shall provide
evidence of the recorded easement(s), deed restriction(s), or evidence of payment to
the City Planning Department or qualifying entity, for approval by the City’s Natural
Resource Manager to demonstrate compliance with this measure.
Packet Pg 277
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
18
b. Finding The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR.
2. Impact AG-3: The project would include development of commercial and residential uses
adjacent to agricultural uses on the project site. This may result in conflict with existing or
future urban and agricultural zoning and uses and adversely affect the long-term viability of
the remaining agricultural uses onsite and at the adjacent SLO City Farm. However, with
implementation of Mitigation Measures AG-3(a) through AG-3(c), which require agricultural
conflict avoidance measures be added to the Specific Plan, agricultural fencing, and buffer
landscaping, as well as compliance with standard APCD dust control measures and City
policies, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. (Refer to page 4.2-20 of
the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: Specific Plan Goal 2 establishes a goal to provide a community that maintains
and promotes the land’s agricultural heritage. San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Policy 2.1
requires that the Specific Plan encourage open space and agricultural uses that support a
green buffer surrounding residential and commercial neighborhoods in the Specific Plan
area. Specific Plan Policy 2.4 requires strict monitoring of the conversion of active
agriculture to non-agricultural uses and considers the possible effects of new
development on character of the community as a whole. Specific Plan Policy 2.7 requires
incorporation of appropriate agricultural uses in public places and neighborhoods. These
policies are intended to help achieve Specific Plan Goal 2. The Specific Plan also includes
a 72-foot buffer between agricultural operations and urban development to reduce and/
or avoid noise, dust, light impacts, odors, chemical use, access by people and pets,
pilferage, and pesticide drift to new residential and commercial land uses on the project
site. In addition, the Specific Plan proposes that on-site agricultural operations would
transition to organic farming, which would not involve pesticide or chemical fertilizer use
on the site. Nevertheless, the following mitigation measure would be required.
— Mitigation Measure AG-3(a) Agricultural Conflict Avoidance Measures. The
following language shall be added to Section 4.2.1, Agricultural Buffer, of the San Luis
Ranch Specific Plan:
Agricultural buffers will include City-approved measures to reduce availability of
public access to agricultural cultivation areas adjacent to the project site (e.g., fencing,
signs, etc.). Future residents will be notified of agricultural buffers as part of purchase
or lease agreements.
— Mitigation Measure AG-3(b) Agricultural Fencing. The project applicant shall
coordinate with the City to fund installation of fencing and signs along Froom Ranch
Way and Dalidio Drive/Prado Road to minimize potential for increases in trespass
and vandalism of adjacent agricultural areas.
— Mitigation Measure AG-3(c) Buffer Landscaping. To reduce the potential for noise,
dust, and pesticide drift to affect future residents on the project site, the project
applicant shall ensure that project landscape plans include planting of a windbreak
Packet Pg 278
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
19
hedgerow of trees and shrubs within the agricultural buffer along Froom Ranch Way
at a sufficient density to buffer the site from surrounding agricultural operations.
b. Finding The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR.
B. AIR QUALITY
1. Impact AQ-2: Construction of the project would generate temporary increases in localized air
pollutant emissions. Construction emissions of ROG, NOX, and DPM would exceed
SLOAPCD construction thresholds. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures
AQ-2(a) through AG-2(e), which require fugitive dust control measures, standard control
measures for construction equipment, Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for
construction equipment, low or no VOC-emission paint for architectural coatings, and
preparation of a Construction Activity Management Plan (CAMP), this impact would be
reduced to a less than significant level. (Refer to page 4.3-13 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measures are required to reduce construction
emissions of ROG, NOX, DPM, and fugitive dust.
— Mitigation Measure AQ-2(a) Fugitive Dust Control Measures. Construction projects
shall implement the following dust control measures so as to reduce PM10 emissions
in accordance with SLOAPCD requirements.
• Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible;
• Water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used during construction in sufficient
quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering
frequency shall be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed
(non-potable) water or a SLOAPCD-approved dust suppressant shall be used
whenever possible, to reduce the amount of potable water used for dust control;
• All dirt stock pile areas shall be sprayed daily as needed;
• Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation
and landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible following
completion of any soil disturbing activities;
• Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one
month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive
grass seed and watered until vegetation is established;
• All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using
approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in
advance by the SLOAPCD;
• All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon
as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used;
• Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any
unpaved surface at the construction site;
Packet Pg 279
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
20
• All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or shall
maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of
load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114;
• Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or
wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site;
• Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent
paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water shall be used where feasible;
• All of these fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and
building plans; and
• The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the
fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as
necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below 20 percent
opacity, and to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include holidays
and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone
number of such persons shall be provided to the SLOAPCD Compliance Division
prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition.
— Mitigation Measure AQ-2(b) Standard Control Measures for Construction
Equipment. The following standard air quality mitigation measures shall be
implemented during construction activities at the project site:
• Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer’s
specifications;
• Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment with ARB certified motor
vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for sue off-road);
• Use diesel construction equipment meeting ARB’s Tier 2 certified engines or
cleaner off-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State Off-Road
Regulation;
• Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the ARB’s 2007 or cleaner certification
standard for on-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State On-
Road Regulation;
• Construction or trucking companies with fleets that do not have engines in their
fleet that meet the engine standards identified in the above two measures (e.g.
captive or NOX exempt area fleets) may be eligible by proving alternative
compliance;
• 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
Packet Pg 280
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
21
5.0 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of a restricted area,
except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation.
• Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5-minute idling restriction
identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board's In-Use Off-
Road Diesel regulation.
• Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and or job sites to remind
drivers and operators of the 5 minute idling limit;
• In addition to the state required diesel idling requirements, the project applicant
shall comply with these more restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to
nearby sensitive receptors:
1. Signs that specify the no idling areas shall be posted and enforced at the site.
2. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted;
3. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of
sensitive receptors;
4. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended;
• Electrify equipment when feasible;
• Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where
feasible; and
• Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible, such as
compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane or biodiesel.
— Mitigation Measure AQ-2(c) Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for
Construction Equipment. The following BACT for diesel-fueled construction
equipment shall be implemented during construction activities at the project site,
where feasible:
• Further reducing emissions by expanding use of Tier 3 and Tier 4 off-road and
2010 on-road compliant engines where feasible;
• Repowering equipment with the cleanest engines available; and
• Installing California Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies, such as level 2
diesel particulate filters. These strategies are listed at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm
— Mitigation Measure AQ-2(d) Architectural Coating. To reduce ROG and NOX levels
during the architectural coating phase, low or no VOC-emission paint shall be used
with levels of 50 g/L or less.
— Mitigation Measure AQ-2(e) Construction Activity Management Plan. Emissions
reduction measures and construction practices required to comply with Mitigation
Measures AQ-2(a) through AQ-2(d) shall be documented in a Construction Activity
Management Plan (CAMP) and submitted to SLOAPCD for review and approval at
least three months before the start of construction. The CAMP shall include a Dust
Control Management Plan, tabulation of on and off-road construction equipment (age,
horse-power and miles and/or hours of operation), construction truck trip schedule,
construction work-day period, and construction phasing. If implementation of the
Standard Mitigation and Best Available Control Technology measures cannot bring
Packet Pg 281
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
22
the project below the Tier 1 threshold (2.5 tons of NOX+ROG per quarter), off-site
mitigation shall be implemented in coordination with SLOAPCD to reduce NOX and
ROG emissions to below the Tier 1 threshold.
b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR.
2. Impact AQ-3: Operation of the project would generate air pollutant emissions on an ongoing
daily and annual basis. The project’s daily emissions would exceed SLOAPCD daily
emissions thresholds, but would not exceed annual thresholds. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure AQ-3(a), SLOAPCD Standard Operational Mitigation Measures, and Mitigation
Measure AQ-3(b), Off-Site Mitigation, would reduce emissions to a less than significant level.
(Refer to page 4.3-19 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: The Specific Plan includes a mix of commercial and residential uses, a new
transit connection, and workforce housing intended to balance jobs and housing. The
project also emphasizes bikeways and pedestrian connections, all of which contribute to
reduced VMT and air pollutant emissions. In addition to these project components, the
following mitigation measures would be required to reduce operational emissions. All
feasible on-site mitigation (Mitigation Measure AQ-3[a]) shall be implemented prior to
implementation of off-site mitigation (Mitigation Measure AQ-3[b]).
— Mitigation Measure AQ-3(a) Standard Operational Mitigation Measures. Prior to
issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall define and incorporate into the San
Luis Ranch Specific Plan standard emission reduction measures from the SLOAPCD
CEQA Air Quality Handbook to reduce emissions to below daily threshold levels.
Emission reduction measures shall include, but would not be limited to:
• Increase the building energy rating by 20 percent above 2013 Title 24 requirements
(used in the California Emissions Estimator Model) or consistent with 2016 Title
24 requirements, whichever is stricter. Measures used to reach the 20 percent
rating cannot be double counted;
• Utilize onsite renewable energy systems (e.g., solar, wind, geothermal, low-impact
hydro, biomass and bio-gas); and
• Provide bicycle-share program.
In addition, the proposed hotel component of the Specific Plan shall participate in the
SLO Car Free Program, provide incentives to car-free travelers, and promote the
program in their communication tools.
— Mitigation Measure AQ-3(b) Off-site Mitigation. If implementation of standard
emission reduction measures from the SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook
described in Mitigation Measure AQ-3(a) is insufficient to reduce emissions to below
daily threshold levels, then the applicant shall coordinate with SLOAPCD to provide
funding for off-site emission reduction measures to reduce emissions to below daily
Packet Pg 282
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
23
threshold levels. In accordance with SLOAPCD methodology, the excess emissions
shall be multiplied by the cost effectiveness of mitigation as defined in the State’s
current Carl Moyer Incentive Program Guidelines to determine the annual off-site
mitigation amount. This amount shall then be extrapolated over the life of the project
to determine total off-site mitigation. Off-site emission reduction measures may
include, but would not be limited to:
• Developing or improving park-and-ride lots;
• Retrofitting existing homes in the project area with SLOAPCD-approved wood
combustion devices;
• Retrofitting existing homes in the project area with energy-efficient devices;
• Constructing satellite worksites;
• Funding a program to buy and scrap older, higher emission passenger and heavy-
duty vehicles;
• Replacing/re-powering transit buses;
• Replacing/re-powering heavy-duty diesel school vehicles (i.e. bus, passenger or
maintenance vehicles);
• Funding an electric lawn and garden equipment exchange program;
• Retrofitting or re-powering heavy-duty construction equipment, or on-road
vehicles;
• Re-powering marine vessels;
• Re-powering or contributing to funding clean diesel locomotive main or auxiliary
engines;
• Installing bicycle racks on transit buses;
• Purchasing particulate filters or oxidation catalysts for local school buses, transit
buses or construction fleets;
• Installing or contributing to funding alternative fueling infrastructure (i.e. fueling
stations for CNG, LPG, conductive and inductive electric vehicle charging, etc.);
• Funding expansion of existing transit services;
• Funding public transit bus shelters;
• Subsidizing vanpool programs;
• Subsidizing transportation alternative incentive programs;
• Contributing to funding of new bike lanes;
• Installing bicycle storage facilities; and
• Providing assistance in the implementation of projects that are identified in City
or County Bicycle Master Plans.
b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR.
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Impact BIO-1: Implementation of the project could have a substantial adverse effect on
candidate, sensitive, or special status species that may occur on the project site.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) through BIO-1(h), which require Best
Packet Pg 283
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
24
Management Practices (BMPs) for construction, Worker Environmental Awareness Program
Training, and avoidance or minimization measures for western pond turtle, two-striped
garter snake, California red-legged frog, steelhead, great blue heron, monarch butterfly,
nesting birds, and roosting bats, would reduce impacts to listed, candidate or special-status
plant and wildlife species to a less than significant level and ensure that the project would
comply with COSE Policies 7.3.1, Protect Listed Species, and 7.3.2, Species of Local Concern.
(Refer to page 4.4-50 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: Specific Plan Policy 5.3 and Program 5.3.1 require attention be given to the
preservation of biological and habitat resources through the identification of sensitive
habitats and species early in the development process. Nevertheless, Mitigation Measures
BIO-1(a) through BIO-1(h) would be required to reduce impacts to special status animal
species.
— Mitigation Measure BIO-1(a) Best Management Practices. The applicant shall ensure
the following general wildlife Best Management Practices (BMPs) are required for
construction activity within the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Area:
• No pets or firearms shall be allowed at the project site during construction
activities.
• All trash that may attract predators must be properly contained and removed from
the work site. All such debris and waste shall be picked up daily and properly
disposed of at an appropriate site.
• All refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles shall occur at
least 100 feet from Prefumo Creek and in a location where a spill would not drain
toward aquatic habitat. A plan must be in place for prompt and effective response
to any accidental spills prior to the onset of work activities. All workers shall be
informed of the appropriate measures to take should an accidental spill occur.
• Pallets or secondary containment areas for chemicals, drums, or bagged materials
shall be provided. Should material spills occur, materials and/or contaminants
shall be cleaned from the project site and recycled or disposed of to the satisfaction
of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
• Prior to construction activities in areas adjacent to Prefumo Creek and Cerro San
Luis Channel, the drainage features shall be fenced with orange construction
fencing and signed to prohibit entry of construction equipment and personnel
unless authorized by the City. Fencing should be located a minimum of 20 feet
from the edge of the riparian canopy or top of bank and shall be maintained
throughout the construction period for each phase of development. Once all
phases of construction in this area are complete, the fencing may be removed.
• To control sedimentation during and after project implementation, appropriate
erosion control BMPs (e.g., use of coir rolls, jute netting, etc.) shall be implemented
to minimize adverse effects on Prefumo Creek. No plastic monofilament netting
shall be utilized on site.
• Construction equipment shall be inspected at the beginning of each day to ensure
that wildlife species have not climbed into wheel wells or under tracks since the
equipment was last parked. Any sensitive wildlife species found during
Packet Pg 284
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
25
inspections shall be gently encouraged to leave the area by a qualified biological
monitor or otherwise trained personnel.
• All vehicles and equipment shall be in good working condition and free of leaks.
• Environmentally Sensitive Areas shall be delineated by a qualified biologist prior
to construction to confine access routes and construction areas.
• Construction work shall be restricted to daylight hours (7:00 AM to 7:00 PM) to
avoid impacts to nocturnal and crepuscular (dawn and dusk activity period)
species. No construction night lighting shall be permitted within 100 yards of the
top of the Prefumo Creek bank.
• Concrete truck and tool washout shall be limited to locations designated by a
qualified biologist such that no runoff will reach Prefumo Creek or Cerro San Luis
Channel.
• All open trenches shall be constructed with appropriate exit ramps to allow species
that accidentally fall into a trench to escape. Trenches will remain open for the
shortest period necessary to complete required work.
• Existing facilities and disturbed areas shall be used to the extent possible to
minimize the amount of disturbance and all new access roads other than the
Froom Ranch Way Bridge shall be cited to avoid high quality habitat and minimize
habitat fragmentation.
• In the event that construction must occur within the creek or creek setback, a
biological monitor shall be present during all such activities with the authority to
stop or redirect work as needed to protect biological resources.
— Mitigation Measure BIO-1(b) Worker Environmental Awareness Program Training.
Prior to the initiation of construction activities (including staging and mobilization),
the applicant shall ensure all personnel associated with project construction attend a
Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training.
• The training shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, to aid workers in
recognizing special status resources that may occur in the project area. The
specifics of this program shall include identification of the sensitive species and
habitats, a description of the regulatory status and general ecological
characteristics of sensitive resources, and review of the limits of construction and
avoidance measures required to reduce impacts to biological resources within the
work area. A fact sheet conveying this information shall also be prepared for
distribution to all contractors, their employers, and other personnel involved with
construction of the project. All employees shall sign a form provided by the trainer
documenting they have attended the WEAP and understand the information
presented to them.
— Mitigation Measure BIO-1(c) Western Pond Turtle and Two-Striped Garter Snake
Impact Avoidance and Minimization. The applicant shall ensure the following actions
are implemented to avoid and minimize potential impacts to western pond turtle and
two-striped garter snake (these reptiles utilize similar habitats; therefore,
implementation of the proposed measures for western pond turtle are also suitable
and appropriate for two-striped garter snake):
Packet Pg 285
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
26
• A qualified biologist(s) shall conduct a pre-construction survey within 24 hours
prior to the onset of work activities within and around areas that may serve as
potential western pond turtle habitat. If this species is found and the individuals
are likely to be injured or killed by work activities, the approved biologist shall be
allowed sufficient time to move them from the project site before work activities
begin. The biologist(s) must relocate any western pond turtle the shortest distance
possible to a location that contains suitable habitat that is not likely to be affected
by activities associated with the project.
• Access routes, staging, and construction areas shall be limited to the minimum
area necessary to achieve the project goal and minimize potential impacts to
western pond turtle habitat including locating access routes and construction
staging areas outside of wetlands and riparian areas to the maximum extent
practicable.
— Mitigation Measure BIO-1(d) California Red-legged Frog, Western spadefoot, and
Coast Range Newt Impact Avoidance and Minimization. The applicant shall
implement the following to avoid and minimize potential impacts to CRLF. Because
coast range newt and western spadefoot are amphibians that utilize similar habitats
to CRLF, implementation of the following measures provided for CRLF shall be
implemented for these species as well.
• Only USFWS-approved biologists shall participate in activities associated with the
capture, handling, and monitoring of CRLF.
• Ground disturbance shall not begin until written approval is received from the
USFWS that the biologist is qualified to conduct the work. If the USFWS does not
authorize the relocation of CRLF occurring within the project site, CRLF found
within the project site shall be avoided with a 100-foot buffer and no activities shall
occur within that buffer until the CRLF has left the project site on its own.
• Areas of the project site that lie within 100 feet upland from riparian or
jurisdictional areas shall be surrounded by a solid temporary exclusion fence (such
as silt fencing) that shall extend at least three feet above the ground and be buried
into the ground at least 6 inches to exclude CRLF from the project site. Plastic
monofilament netting or other similar material will not be used. The location of
the fencing shall be determined by a qualified biologist. The fence shall remain in
place throughout construction activities. Installation of the exclusion fencing shall
be monitored by a qualified biologist to ensure that it is installed correctly.
• During new grading activities in habitats within 100 feet upland from riparian or
jurisdictional areas, a qualified biologist shall be on-site to recover any spadefoot
toads that may be excavated/unearthed with native material or found under
vegetation. If the animals are in good health, they shall be immediately relocated
to a designated release area. If they are injured, the animals shall be turned over
to an approved wildlife rehabilitator until they are in a condition to be released
into the designated release area.
Packet Pg 286
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
27
• To ensure that diseases are not conveyed between work sites by the approved
biologist, the fieldwork code of practice developed by the Declining Amphibian
Populations Task Force shall be followed at all times.
— Mitigation Measure BIO-1(e) Steelhead Impact Avoidance and Minimization. The
applicant shall ensure the following actions are undertaken to avoid and minimize
potential impacts to steelhead:
• Before any activities begin on the project, a qualified biologist will conduct a
training session for all construction personnel. At a minimum, the training will
include a description of the steelhead and its habitat, the specific measures that are
being implemented to conserve this species for the project, and the boundaries
within which the project may be accomplished. Brochures, books, and briefings
may be used in the training session, provided that a qualified person is on hand to
answer any questions.
• During the duration of project activities, all trash that may attract predators will
be properly contained and secured, promptly removed from the work site, and
disposed of regularly. Following construction, all trash and construction debris
will be removed from the work areas.
• All refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles will occur at
least 100 feet from riparian habitat or bodies of water and in a location where a
potential spill would not drain directly toward aquatic habitat (e.g., on a slope that
drains away from the water source). The monitor shall ensure that contamination
of suitable habitat does not occur during such operations. Prior to the onset of
work activities, a plan must be in place for prompt and effective response to any
accidental spills. All workers shall be informed of the importance of preventing
spills and of the appropriate measures to take should an accidental spill occur.
• The number of access routes, size of staging areas, and the total area used for
construction activities shall be limited to the minimum area necessary to achieve
the project goals.
• The City will only permit work within the immediate vicinity of Prefumo Creek
for times of the year when potential impacts to steelhead would be minimal. Work
shall be restricted during the wet season (October 15 through April 30) and should
ideally occur during the late summer and early fall during the driest portion of the
year; however, water may still be present during construction. If work is proposed
in the streambed and water is present during construction, a diversion will be
required to dewater the work area and the following avoidance and minimization
measures will apply:
1. Upstream and downstream passage for fish, including juvenile steelhead, shall
be provided through or around the construction site at all times construction
is occurring within the Prefumo Creek streambed.
2. A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey and be present
onsite during the diversion installation and dewatering process to capture and
relocate any trapped steelhead and/or other fish. Upon approval from the
NMFS, the biologist(s) must relocate these individuals the shortest distance
Packet Pg 287
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
28
possible to a location that contains suitable habitat that is not likely to be
affected by activities associated with the project.
3. Dewatering operations shall employ a five millimeter mesh screen fastened to
the intake hose to exclude fish and other wildlife species from the pump.
4. Steelhead shall be excluded from the construction zone with block nets
installed upstream and downstream the of the bridge construction zone. The
distance upstream and downstream for block net installation will depend on
the type of construction activities occurring in the streambed.
• To control sedimentation during and after project implementation, the following
BMPs shall be implemented. If the BMPs are somehow ineffective, consultation
with the City and appropriate resource agencies will be undertaken, and all
attempts to remedy the situation will commence immediately.
1. It shall be the owner’s/contractor’s responsibility to maintain control of the
entire construction operations and to keep the entire site in compliance.
2. The owner/contractor shall be responsible for monitoring erosion and
sediment control measures (including but not limited to fiber rolls, inlet
protections, silt fences, and gravel bags) prior, during and after storm events,
monitoring includes maintaining a file documenting onsite inspections,
problems encountered, corrective actions, and notes and a map of remedial
implementation measures.
3. Erosion shall be controlled by covering stockpiled construction materials (i.e.
soil, spoils, aggregate, fly-ash, stucco, hydrated lime, etc.) over 2.0 cubic yards
that are not actively being used, consistent with the applicable construction
general permit, or through other means of erosion control approved by the
City (e.g., surrounding with straw bales or silt fencing). The site shall be
maintained to minimize sediment-laden runoff to any storm drainage system
including existing drainage swales and/or sand watercourses.
a. Construction operations shall be carried out in such a manner that erosion
and water pollution will be minimized.
b. State and local laws concerning pollution abatement shall be complied
with.
c. If grading operations are expected to denude slopes, the slopes shall be
protected with erosion control measures immediately following grading
on the slopes.
4. Specifically, in order to prevent sedimentation and debris from entering
Prefumo Creek during construction, silt fencing shall be installed along the top
of the banks on the west side of the channel prior to the onset of construction
activities.
• The project biologist will monitor construction activities, in stream habitat, and
overall performance of BMPs and sediment controls for the purpose of identifying
and reconciling any condition that could adversely affect steelhead or their habitat.
The biologist will halt work if necessary and will recommend site-specific
measures to avoid adverse effects to steelhead and their habitat.
• Equipment will be checked daily for leaks prior to the initiation of construction
activities. A spill kit will be placed near the creek and will remain readily available
during construction in the event that any contaminant is accidentally released.
Packet Pg 288
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
29
• In addition to these avoidance and minimization measures, Mitigation Measure
BIO-2(a) would also ensure that potential temporary and permanent indirect
impacts to steelhead from the project are reduced as much as practicable.
— Mitigation Measure BIO-1(f) Great Blue Heron and Monarch Butterfly Impact
Avoidance and Minimization. The applicant shall ensure the following actions are
undertaken to avoid and minimize potential impacts to overwintering monarch
butterflies and nesting great blue herons.
• Tree trimming/removal and construction activities that affect eucalyptus trees
near or within the monarch overwintering grove or active great blue heron nests
identified in the San Luis Ranch Monarch Trees Inspection Memo, Results of 2015 and
2016 San Luis Ranch Heron Rookery Surveys Memo, and San Luis Ranch – Prefumo
Creek Widening Biological Constraints Memo prepared by Althouse and Meade
(Appendix F), shall not be conducted during the monarch butterfly overwintering
season from October 1 through March 31 if monarch butterflies are present, or
while great blue heron nests are active from February 1 to August 31. If
construction activities must be conducted during these periods, a qualified
biologist shall conduct overwintering monarch surveys and/or nesting great blue
heron surveys within one week of habitat disturbance. If surveys do not locate
clustering monarchs or nesting great blue herons, construction activities may be
conducted. If clustering monarchs and/or nesting great blue herons are located,
no construction activities shall occur within 100 feet of the edge of the
overwintering grove and/or active nest(s) until the qualified biologist determines
that no more monarchs are overwintering in the grove or the nest(s) are no longer
active.
• A qualified biologist shall prepare and implement a habitat enhancement plan to
be reviewed and approved by the City’s Natural Resource Manager prior to
issuance of grading permits to enhance and restore overwintering and nesting
habitat that is to be preserved. The habitat enhancement plan may include but
shall not be limited to:
o On- or off-site planting of native shrubs and trees such as Monterey
Cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa) that may support heron roosting and
monarch butterfly overwintering.
o As eucalyptus trees senesce, they shall be replaced with native species.
Native trees and shrubs shall also be used to supplement gaps in canopy
or act as windbreaks.
o Create new offsite nesting habitat for great blue herons to mitigate for
removal of onsite nesting habitat. With a qualified biologist present, the
current rookery may be moved to a suitable offsite location where the same
great blue herons can resume nesting, following methods detailed in
Crouch et al. (2002). It should be noted that creating offsite nesting habitat
for great blue herons is experimental and that the relocation techniques
described in Crouch et al. (2002) were used to relocate black-crowned night
heron (Nycticorax nycticorax). In addition, an agreement with the City will
Packet Pg 289
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
30
be required prior to implementation of the offsite strategy on their
property. The methods detailed in Crouch et al. (2002) include:
d. This entails at least one year of pre-construction monitoring of the
rookery, where the timing of rookery activities will be noted: arrival of
breeding adults, egg laying, hatching, and fledging. During this time,
audio recordings of adults and juveniles shall be made.
e. Following the completion of the nesting season in late summer, a
certified arborist specializing in the translocation of trees will examine
the mature trees onsite and work with the City’s Natural Resources
Manager to determine whether or not it is feasible to relocate the
mature trees containing nests across Madonna Road to a suitable
location at Laguna Lake Open Space.
f. Prior to the start of the next nesting season (based on timing of adult
arrival in previous years), nesting adults will be recruited to the new
location via decoys and playback of vocalizations. The new location
will be monitored regularly by a qualified biologist for the following
three breeding seasons.
— Mitigation Measure BIO-1(g) Nesting Birds Impact Avoidance and Minimization.
The applicant shall ensure the following actions are undertaken to avoid and
minimize potential impacts to nesting birds:
• For construction activities occurring during the nesting season (generally
February 1 to September 15), surveys for nesting birds covered by the California
Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to vegetation removal. The surveys
shall include the disturbance area plus a 500-foot buffer around the site. If active
nests are located, all construction work shall be conducted outside a buffer zone
from the nest to be determined by the qualified biologist. The buffer shall be a
minimum of 50 feet for non-raptor bird species and at least 300 feet for raptor
species. Larger buffers may be required depending upon the status of the nest and
the construction activities occurring in the vicinity of the nest. The buffer area(s)
shall be closed to all construction personnel and equipment until the adults and
young are no longer reliant on the nest site. A qualified biologist shall confirm that
breeding/nesting is completed and young have fledged the nest prior to removal
of the buffer.
• If feasible, removal of vegetation within suitable nesting bird habitats will be
scheduled to occur in the fall and winter (between September 1 and February 14),
after fledging and before the initiation of the nesting season.
— Mitigation Measure BIO-1(h) Roosting Bats Impact Avoidance and Minimization.
The applicant shall ensure the following actions are undertaken to avoid and
minimize potential impacts to roosting bats:
• Prior to issuance of grading permits, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey
of existing structures within the project site to determine if roosting bats are
present. The survey shall be conducted during the non-breeding season
Packet Pg 290
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
31
(November through March). The biologist shall have access to all interior attics, as
needed. If a colony of bats is found roosting in any structure, further surveys shall
be conducted sufficient to determine the species present and the type of roost (day,
night, maternity, etc.) If the bats are not part of an active maternity colony, passive
exclusion measures may be implemented in close coordination with CDFW. These
exclusion measures must include one-way valves that allow bats to exit the
structure but are designed so that the bats may not re-enter the structure.
• If a bat colony is excluded from the project site, appropriate alternate bat habitat
as determined by a qualified biologist shall be installed on the project site or at an
approved location offsite.
• Prior to removal of any trees over 20 inches diameter-at-breast-height (DBH), a
survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if any of the trees
proposed for removal or trimming harbor sensitive bat species or maternal bat
colonies. If a non-maternal roost is found, the qualified biologist, in close
coordination with CDFW shall install one-way valves or other appropriate passive
relocation method. For each occupied roost removed, one bat box shall be installed
in similar habitat and should have similar cavity or crevices properties to those
which are removed, including access, ventilation, dimensions, height above
ground, and thermal conditions. Maternal bat colonies may not be disturbed.
b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR.
2. Impact BIO-2: Implementation of the project would have a substantial adverse effect on
sensitive habitats, including riparian areas. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a),
BIO-2(a), BIO-2(b), and BIO-2(c) would reduce direct impacts to sensitive habitats, including
riparian areas, by implementing construction BMPs, including containing construction
activities, debris, and sediment in appropriate locations outside of sensitive habitat to the
maximum extent practicable, and by providing compensatory mitigation for permanently
impacted riparian habitat. In addition Mitigation Measures HWQ-1(a) and HWQ-1(b) include
construction management practices that would reduce construction related impacts to water
quality. When combined with standard regulatory measures (including required permitting
from USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB), and regulatory oversight during construction by the
Environmental Monitor, implementation of required mitigation measures would reduce
impacts to a less than significant level. (Refer to page 4.4-63 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Policy 5.3 and Program 5.3.1 would be required
for the project and are intended to protect and enhances the natural habitats onsite. In
addition, Specific Plan Policy 5.1 would require support of restoration efforts for the creek
and associated habitat. Nevertheless, the following mitigation measure would be required
to address impacts related to sensitive habitats.
— Mitigation Measure BIO-2(a) Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. A Habitat
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) shall be prepared which will provide a
minimum 2:1 ratio (replaced: removed) for temporary and permanent impacts to
riparian habitat. The HMMP will identify the specific mitigation sites and it will be
Packet Pg 291
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
32
implemented immediately following project completion. The HMMP shall include, at
a minimum, the following components:
• Description of the project/impact site (i.e. location, responsible parties, areas to be
impacted by habitat type);
• Goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation project [type(s) and area(s) of habitat to be
established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved; specific functions and values
of habitat type(s) to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved];
• Description of the proposed compensatory mitigation site (location and size,
ownership status, existing functions and values of the compensatory mitigation
site);
• Implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation site (rationale for expecting
implementation success, responsible parties, schedule, site preparation, planting
plan [including plant species to be used, container sizes, seeding rates, etc.]);
• Maintenance activities during the monitoring period, including weed removal and
irrigation as appropriate (activities, responsible parties, schedule);
• Monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation site, including no less than
quarterly monitoring for the first year (performance standards, target functions
and values, target acreages to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or
preserved, annual monitoring reports);
• Success criteria based on the goals and measurable objectives; said criteria to be,
at a minimum, at least 80 percent survival of container plants and 80 percent
relative cover by vegetation type;
• An adaptive management program and remedial measures to address negative
impacts to restoration efforts;
• Notification of completion of compensatory mitigation and agency confirmation;
and
• Contingency measures (initiating procedures, alternative locations for
contingency compensatory mitigation, funding mechanism).
— Mitigation Measure BIO-2(b) Tree Replacement. Riparian trees four inches or greater
measured at diameter-at-breast-height (DBH) shall be replaced in-kind at a minimum
ratio of 3:1 (replaced: removed). Trees 24 inches or greater inches DBH shall be
replaced in-kind at a minimum ratio of 10:1. Willows and cottonwoods may be planted
from live stakes following guidelines provided in the California Salmonid Stream
Habitat Restoration Manual for planting dormant cuttings and container stock (CDFW
2010).
• Tree replacement shall be conducted in accordance with a Natural Habitat
Restoration and Enhancement Plan to be approved by the City’s Natural Resource
Manager.
• The Natural Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Plan shall prioritize the
planting of replacement trees on-site where feasible, but shall allow that
replacement trees may be planted off-site with approval of the City’s Natural
Resource Manager.
Packet Pg 292
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
33
• Replacement trees may be planted in the fall or winter of the year in which trees
were removed. All replacement trees will be planted no more than one year
following the date upon which the native trees were removed.
— Mitigation Measure BIO-2(c) Froom Ranch Way Bridge Design to Avoid Riparian
Areas. The Froom Ranch Way Bridge crossing footings shall be placed outside
mapped riparian areas. The placement of the bridge and footings shall be indicated on
the Development Plan, VTM, and HMMP, and shall show the bridge’s placement in
relation to existing vegetation and the bed and bank of Prefumo Creek.
b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR.
3. Impact BIO-3: Construction of the project could have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Implementation of
Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) andBIO-2(a) would reduce potential impacts to federally
protected wetlands, any riparian habitat, or other sensitive natural communities to a less than
significant level. (Refer to page 4.4-67 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: Specific Plan Goal 5 establishes a goal to provide a community that protects
and enhances the adjacent creek and habitat. Specific Plan Policy 5.1 and Program 5.3.1
would be required of the project and are intended to help achieve this goal through
protection of the creek. However, project-level impacts to jurisdictional areas would
remain potentially significant, and Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) and BIO-2(a) are
required to reduce this impact and ensure consistency with COSE Policy 7.5.5.
b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR.
4. Impact BIO-4: Development of the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Area would not permanently
interfere with the movement of resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established resident or migratory wildlife corridors along Prefumo Creek and through open
agricultural lands on the project site. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a), BIO-
1(c), BIO-1(d), BIO-1(e), BIO-1(f), BIO-1-(h), and BIO-2(a) would reduce potential impacts to
wildlife species, wildlife nursery sites, riparian corridors, and other sensitive natural
communities to a less than significant level. (Refer to page 4.4-68 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: The San Luis Ranch Specific Plan contains various goals, policies, and
programs intended to protect biological and habitat resources on the project site.
However, because the project would result in temporary impacts to species that use
Prefumo Creek for movement, including migratory birds and raptors, this impact would
be potentially significant.
Implementation of BIO-1(a) requires construction BMPs that would reduce potential
impacts to riparian habitat within the Prefumo Creek corridor. Implementation of
Packet Pg 293
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
34
Mitigation Measures BIO-1(c), BIO-1(d), and BIO-1(e), would reduce impacts to western
pond turtle, CRLF, coast range newt, and steelhead. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure BIO-1(f) would reduce impacts to heron rookeries. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure BIO-1(h) would reduce impacts to birds. Implementation of Mitigation Measure
BIO-1(h) would reduce impacts to bats roosting in trees. Implementation of Mitigation
Measures BIO-2(a) would reduce potential impacts to federally protected wetlands, any
riparian habitat, or other sensitive natural community.
b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR.
5. Cumulative Biological Resources Impacts: Consistent with the LUCE Update EIR, the
project would implement Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) through BIO-1(h) and BIO-2(a)
through BIO-2(c) to ensure compliance with the applicable goals and policies of the General
Plan. As a result, the project’s contribution to this cumulative impact would be potentially
significant but mitigable. (Refer to page 4.4-70 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) through BIO-1(h) and BIO-2(a) through BIO-
2(c) would be required to reduce cumulative impacts to biological resources to a less than
significant level.
b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR.
D. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Impact CR-2: Identified archaeological resources on the project site are ineligible for listing in
the CRHR and NRHP, and disturbance of these resources would not constitute a significant
impact. However, the potential remains for the project to result in impacts to previously
unidentified archaeological resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-2(a),
Retain a Qualified Principal Investigator, and CR-2(b), Unanticipated Discovery of
Archaeological Resources, would reduce impacts to archaeological resources to a less than
significant level. (Refer to page 4.5-24 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: The Specific Plan includes requirements intended to protect archaeological
resources. Specific Plan Policy 3.5.4 requires a preliminary site survey for development
within archaeologically sensitive areas. As described in Section 4.5.1(d), the Cultural
Resources Study (Appendix G) includes an evaluation of known archaeological resources
on the project site, and determined that these resources are not intact or otherwise
archaeologically significant. However, excavation associated with the project grading
plan would have the potential to encounter buried archaeological deposits. Therefore, the
following mitigation measures are required to ensure that any discovered resources
would be protected and curated if encountered during project construction.
Packet Pg 294
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
35
— Mitigation Measure CR-2(a) Retain a Qualified Principal Investigator. In accordance
with Conservation and Open Space Policies 3.5.6 and 3.5.7, a qualified principal
investigator, defined as an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for professional archaeology (hereafter qualified archaeologist), shall be
retained to carry out all mitigation measures related to archaeological resources.
Monitoring shall involve inspection of subsurface construction disturbance at or in the
immediate vicinity of known sites, or at locations that may harbor buried resources
that were not identified on the site surface. A Native American monitor shall also be
present because the area is a culturally sensitive location. The monitor(s) shall be on-
site on a full-time basis during earthmoving activities, including grading, trenching,
vegetation removal, or other excavation activities.
— Mitigation Measure CR-2(b) Unanticipated Discovery of Archeological Resources. In
the event that archaeological resources are exposed during construction, all work shall
be halted in the vicinity of the archaeological discovery until a qualified archaeologist
can visit the site of discovery and assess the significance of the cultural resource. In
the event that any artifact or an unusual amount of bone or shell is encountered during
construction, work shall be immediately stopped and relocated to another area. The
lead agency shall stop construction within 100 feet of the exposed resource until a
qualified archaeologist/paleontologist can evaluate the find (see 36 CFR 800.11.1 and
CCR, Title 14, Section 15064.5[f]). Examples of such cultural materials might include:
ground stone tools such as mortars, bowls, pestles, and manos; chipped stone tools
such as projectile points or choppers; flakes of stone not consistent with the immediate
geology such as obsidian or fused shale; historic trash pits containing bottles and/or
ceramics; or structural remains. If the resources are found to be significant, they must
be avoided or will be mitigated consistent with State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) Guidelines.
b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR.
E. GEOLOGY
1. Issues Addressed in the Initial Study – Geology and Soils Discussion: Due to the proximity
of the site to the Los Osos Fault and Alquist-Priolo Zone, impacts associated with earthquakes
and ground shaking would be potentially significant. In addition, the project site has been
identified as being located in an area of very high liquefaction potential, moderate to high
expansion potential, and high settlement potential. In addition, during historical drought
years, groundwater levels in the site vicinity were lowered enough to cause subsidence. With
implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1, Earthquake and Ground Acceleration Design
and Construction Measures, and GEO-2, Operational Seismic Safety Requirement, impacts
related to geology and soils would be less than significant. (Refer to page 4.14-2 of the Final
EIR.)
Packet Pg 295
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
36
a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts related to
geology and soils.
— Mitigation Measure GEO-1 Earthquake and Ground Acceleration Design and
Construction Measures. Design and construction of the buildings, roadway
infrastructure and all subgrades shall be specifically proportioned to resist Design
Earthquake Ground Motions (Design amax) of SD1=0.481 and SDS=0.832 and engineered
to withstand Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) peak ground acceleration
(PGAM) equal to 0.519 g, as described in the Soils Engineering Report for the project
(GeoSolutions, Inc., 2015). The design should take into consideration the soil type,
potential for liquefaction, and the most current and applicable seismic attenuation
methods that are available.
— Mitigation Measure GEO-2 Operational Seismic Safety Requirement. For retail stores
included in the project, goods for sale may be stacked no higher than 8 feet from the
floor in any area where customers are present, unless provisions are made to prevent
the goods from falling during an earthquake of up to 7.5 magnitude. The stacking or
restraint methods shall be reviewed and approved by the City before approval of
occupancy permits, and shall be a standing condition of occupancy.
— Mitigation Measure GEO-3 Geotechnical Design. The project plans and specifications
shall include the geotechnical recommendations included in the Soils Engineering
Report, prepared by GeoSolutions, Inc. on May 29, 2015. Recommendations therein
that shall be incorporated into the final project building plans include specification for
the following components of development preparation and design:
• Building Pad Preparation
• Paved Areas Preparation
• Pavement Design
• Interlocking Concrete Pavers
• Conventional Foundations
• Post-Tensioned Slabs
• Slab-On-Grade Construction
• Retaining Walls
• Exterior Concrete Flatwork
b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR.
F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1. Impact HAZ-4: Hazardous materials sites identified on and upgradient to the project site as
well as residual pesticides and agricultural chemicals in soil due to historical use of pesticides
and other agricultural chemicals onsite could create a hazard to construction workers during
the construction phase of the project. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-4,
Packet Pg 296
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
37
Soil Sampling and Remediation, impacts related to exposure to residual agricultural
chemicals would be reduced to a less than significant level. (Refer to page 4.7-21 of the Final
EIR.)
a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measures would further reduce risk of exposure to
residual agricultural chemicals in on-site soil.
— Mitigation Measure HAZ-4 Soil Sampling and Remediation. Prior to issuance of any
grading permits, a contaminated soil assessment shall be completed in the portions of
land to be graded for development. Soil samples shall be collected under the
supervision of a professional geologist or environmental professional to determine the
presence or absence of contaminated soil in these areas. The sampling density shall be
in accordance with guidance from San Luis Obispo County Environmental Health
Services, so as to define the volume of soil that may require remediation. Laboratory
analysis of soil samples shall be analyzed for the presence of organochlorine
pesticides, in accordance with EPA Test Method SW8081A, and heavy metals in
accordance with EPA Test Methods 6010B and 7471A. If soil sampling indicates the
presence of pesticides or heavy metals exceeding applicable environmental screening
levels, the soil assessment shall identify the volume of contaminated soil to be
excavated.
If concentrations of contaminants exceed EPA action levels and therefore warrant
remediation, contaminated materials shall be remediated either prior to concurrent
with construction and an Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) shall be prepared.
Cleanup may include excavation, disposal, bio-remediation, or any other treatment of
conditions subject to regulatory action. All necessary reports, regulations and permits
shall be followed to achieve cleanup of the site. The contaminated materials shall be
remediated under the supervision of an environmental consultant licensed to oversee
such remediation and under the direction of the lead oversight agency. The
remediation program shall also be approved by a regulatory oversight agency, such
as the San Luis Obispo County Environmental Health Services, the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or DTSC. All proper waste handling and disposal
procedures shall be followed. Upon completion of the remediation, the environmental
consultant shall prepare a report summarizing the project, the remediation approach
implemented, and the analytical results after completion of the remediation, including
all waste disposal or treatment manifests.
b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR.
2. Impact HAZ-6: The project site is located in an area where geologic analysis for NOA is
required prior to grading and could potentially result in exposure of people to NOA during
grading and construction activities. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-6,
Naturally Occurring Asbestos Exposure Avoidance and Minimization, impacts related to
exposure to NOA would be reduced to a less than significant level. (Refer to page 4.7-25 of
the Final EIR.)
Packet Pg 297
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
38
a. Mitigation: If NOA is identified at the site, an asbestos dust mitigation plan in accordance
with CCR Title 17, Section 93105 Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Construction,
Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations would be required to be implemented
during project construction, as a standard condition of approval. Additionally, the
following mitigation would be required to further reduce potential impacts associated
with NOA hazards:
— Mitigation Measure HAZ-6 Naturally Occurring Asbestos Exposure Avoidance and
Minimization.
a. Prior to earthwork activities, a site-specific health and safety plan shall be
developed per California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(CalOSHA) requirements. The plan shall include appropriate health and safety
measures if NOA is detected in soil or bedrock beneath the project site. All
construction workers that have the potential to come into contact with
contaminated soil/bedrock and groundwater shall be knowledgeable of the
requirements in the health and safety plan, which includes proper training and
personal protective equipment. The health and safety plan shall prescribe
appropriate respiratory protection for construction workers.
b. Prior to beginning construction, a soil and bedrock analysis for asbestos using
polarized light microscopy and transmission electron microscopy by a qualified
laboratory shall be conducted. Samples of soil shall be collected from multiple
locations across the site, and bedrock samples shall be collected from locations
where excavation into bedrock is anticipated. If NOA is detected, appropriate
regulations pertaining to excavation, removal, transportation, and disposal of
NOA shall be followed. The sampling strategy shall take into account the locations
of potential source areas, and the anticipated lateral and vertical distribution of
contaminants in soil and/or groundwater. The results of the investigation shall be
documented in a report that is signed by a California Professional Geologist. The
report shall include recommendations based upon the findings for additional
investigation/remediation if contaminants are detected above applicable
screening levels (e.g., excavate and dispose, groundwater and/or soil vapor
extraction, or in situ bioremediation).
c. During earthwork activities, appropriate procedures shall be incorporated in the
event that NOA is detected in soil or bedrock beneath the project site. These
procedures shall be followed to eliminate or minimize construction worker or
general public exposure to potential contaminants in soil. Procedures shall include
efforts to control fugitive dust, contain and cover excavation debris piles,
appropriate laboratory analysis of soil for waste characterization, and segregation
of contaminated soil from uncontaminated soil. The applicable regulations
associated with excavation, removal, transportation, and disposal of contaminated
soil shall be followed (e.g., tarping of trucks and waste manifesting). These
procedures may be subject to San Luis Obispo APCD requirements under the
Packet Pg 298
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
39
California ARB ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining
Operations.
b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR.
G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1. Impact HWQ-1: During project construction, the surface soil would be subject to erosion and
the downstream watershed would be subject to pollution. Implementation of Mitigation
Measures HWQ-1(a) through HWQ-1(c), which require preparation of and compliance with
a Stormwater Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a Concept Grading Plan and
Master Drainage Plan, and compliance with existing regulations would ensure that the
potentially significant construction runoff and associated impacts to water quality would be
reduced to a less than significant level. (Refer to page 4.8-22 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: Section 7.3 of the Specific Plan requires development in the Plan Area to be
designed to conform to stormwater management requirements of the City of San Luis
Obispo, including standards for LID set forth by SWRCB, and construction of retention
and detention systems that would be adequate to meet the needs of future development
and consistent with State and local requirements. Preparation of the required SWPPP and
compliance with applicable State and local regulations would reduce potential impacts to
water quality due to polluted runoff from construction activities. In order to ensure
implementation of SWPPP requirements, incorporation of the following mitigation
measures is required to reduce impacts to water quality due to due to polluted runoff
from construction activities.
— Mitigation Measure HWQ-1(a) Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. All required
actions shall be implemented pursuant to a SWPPP and SWMP to be prepared by the
project applicant and submitted by the City to the Regional Water Quality Control
Board under the NPDES Phase II program. At a minimum, the SWPPP/SWMP shall
including the following BMPs:
• The use of sandbags, straw bales, and temporary de-silting basins during project
grading and construction during the rainy season to prevent discharge of
sediment-laden runoff into stormwater facilities;
• Revegetation as soon as practicable after completion of grading to reduce sediment
transport during storms;
• Installation of straw bales, wattles, or silt fencing at the base of bare slopes before
the onset of the rainy season (October 15th through April 15th);
• Installation of straw bales, wattles, or silt fencing at the project perimeter and in
front of storm drains before the onset of the rainy season (October 15th through
April 15th); and/or
• Alternative BMPs as approved by the RWQCB as part of the SWPPP submittal.
Packet Pg 299
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
40
— Mitigation Measure HWQ-1(b) Berms and Basins. As specified in the SWPPP, the
applicant shall be required to manage and control runoff by constructing temporary
berms, sediment basins, runoff diversions, or alternative BMP’s as approved by the
RWQCB as part of the SWPPP submittal, in order to avoid unnecessary siltation into
local streams during construction activities where grading and construction shall
occur in the vicinity of such streams.
• Berms and basins shall be constructed when grading commences and be
periodically inspected and maintained. The project applicant shall sufficiently
document, to the CCRWQCB satisfaction, the proper installation of such berms
and basins during grading.
— Mitigation Measure HWQ-1(c) Concept Grading Plan and Master Drainage Plan. As
specified in the SWPPP and the City’s Floodplain Management Regulations, the
applicant shall be required to submit a Grading Plan and Master Drainage Plan to the
Planning Division and City Public Works Director for approval prior to approval of
the VTTM. The grading and drainage plans shall be designed to minimize erosion and
water quality impacts, to the extent feasible, and shall be consistent with the project’s
SWPPP. The plans shall include the following:
a. Graded areas shall be revegetated with deep-rooted, native, non-invasive
drought-tolerant species to minimize slope failure and erosion potential.
Geotextile fabrics shall be used if necessary to hold slope soils until vegetation is
established;
b. Temporary storage of construction equipment shall be limited to a minimum of
100 feet away from drainages on the project site; and
c. Erosion control structures shall be installed.
d. Demonstrate peak flows and runoff for each phase of construction.
e. Be coordinated with habitat restoration efforts, including measures to minimize
removal of riparian and wetland habitats and trees (Mitigation Measures BIO-2[a]
and BIO-2[b]).
Grading and drainage plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning
Division. The applicant shall ensure installation of erosion control structures prior to
beginning of construction of any structures, subject to review and approval by the City.
b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR.
2. Impact HWQ-3: During operation, the proposed residential and commercial uses would
increase the quantities of pollutants associated with runoff and sedimentation.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures HWQ-3(a) through HWQ-3(c), which require
stormwater quality treatment controls, preparation of and compliance with a Stormwater
BMP Maintenance Manual, and preparation of a semi-annual stormwater BMP maintenance
report, and compliance with existing regulations would ensure that the potentially significant
Packet Pg 300
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
41
impacts to water quality resulting from runoff during operation of the project would be
reduced to a less than significant level. (Refer to page 4.8-26 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: The Specific Plan includes retention and detention structures and LID
measures intended to minimize pollutants associated with runoff and sedimentation,
consistent with State and local requirements, including new standards for LID set forth
by SWRCB. Compliance with the CCRWQCB’s Post Construction Requirements, NPDES
discharge permits, the City’s SWMP, Engineering Standards, General Plan, and City
Ordinance requirements would reduce potential impacts to water quality due to polluted
runoff during operation of the project. However, the following mitigation is required to
ensure the inclusion of locally-appropriate stormwater best management practices in the
final design of the stormwater quality system, and to ensure that the stormwater quality
system is maintained in order to ensure continued to ensure long-term operation.
— Mitigation Measure HWQ-3(a) Stormwater Quality Treatment Controls. BMP
devices shall be incorporated into the stormwater quality system depicted in the
Master Drainage Plan (refer to Mitigation Measure HWQ-1[c]). The final design of the
stormwater quality system shall be reviewed and approved by the City.
The Master Drainage Plan shall contain the following relevant BMPs:
• Vegetated bioswales to reduce sediment and particulate forms of metals and other
pollutants along corridors of planted grasses.
• Vegetated buffer strips to reduce sediment and particulate forms of metals and
nutrients.
— Mitigation Measure HWQ-3(b) Stormwater BMP Maintenance Manual. The project
applicant shall prepare a development maintenance manual for the stormwater
quality system BMPs (refer to Mitigation Measure HWQ-3[a]). The maintenance
manual shall include detailed procedures for maintenance and operations of all
stormwater facilities to ensure long-term operation and maintenance of post-
construction stormwater controls. The maintenance manual shall require that
stormwater BMP devices be inspected, cleaned, and maintained in accordance with
the manufacturer’s maintenance specifications. The manual shall require that devices
be cleaned prior to the onset of the rainy season (i.e., October 15th) and immediately
after the end of the rainy season (i.e., May 15th). The manual shall also require that all
devices be checked after major storm events.
— Mitigation Measure HWQ-3(c) Stormwater BMP Semi-Annual Maintenance Report.
The property manager(s) or acceptable maintenance organization shall submit to the
City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department a detailed report prepared by a
licensed Civil Engineer addressing the condition of all private stormwater facilities,
BMPs, and any necessary maintenance activities on a semi-annual basis (October 15th
and May 15th of each year). The requirement for maintenance and report submittal
shall be recorded against the property.
Packet Pg 301
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
42
b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR.
3. Impact HWQ-4: Approximately 98 acres of the project site is within the existing 100-year
flood zone. However, proposed grading and elevation modifications would ensure that the
project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area or expose people or
structures downstream of the Specific Plan Area to flood hazards due to increased runoff or
loss of floodplain storage. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HWQ-4, Conditional Letter
of Map Revision/Letter of Map Revision, and compliance with existing regulations would
ensure that this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. (Refer to page 4.8-29
of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: The Specific Plan includes a preliminary grading plan that would raise the
elevation of the central portion of the project site above the post-development 100-year
floodplain. The project includes a conditional letter of map revision (CLOMR) application1
requesting that the FEMA 100-year floodplain boundary be redefined consistent with the
proposed site development, creek improvements and bridge, Prado Road Overpass, site
and floodplain grading, and proposed detention facilities. Compliance with required City
Flood Damage Prevention Regulations Code 17.84.050 and flood management measures
including Special Floodplain Management Zone Regulation and the City Waterways
Management Plan would reduce the risk of significant loss or injury as a result of flooding.
In addition, the Specific Plan includes a preliminary drainage plan and retention and
detention structures intended to ensure that that proposed development would not
substantially increase runoff from the project site. Compliance with these State and local
regulations would ensure that downstream flooding impacts would remain less than
significant. The Specific Plan includes excavation and fill in the floodplain, peak flow
management, and channel capacity enhancements for Prefumo Creek and Cerro San Luis
Channel, and would satisfy City flow requirements with the proposed development. With
the implementation of these measures, the project is in compliance with FEMA and City
floodplain regulations and potential floodplain elevation increases affecting other
properties would be avoided. However, the following mitigation is required to ensure the
final grading plan and resulting post-development floodplain would exclude areas
proposed for housing, and confirm that the CLOMR application to redefine the FEMA
100-year floodplain boundary is approved and an official letter of map revision (LOMR)2
is issued by FEMA.
— Mitigation Measure HWQ-4 Conditional Letter of Map Revision/Letter of Map
Revision. The applicant, in conjunction with the City of San Luis Obispo, shall prepare
the CLOMR application and obtain a LOMR from FEMA.
1 A CLOMR is based on proposed conditions and does not change the FIRMs. A CLOMR is the method used by
FEMA to let people know that if projects are constructed per the design submitted to and approved by FEMA, revision
of the FIRM panel with an official letter of map revision (LOMR) is likely.
2 A LOMR is an official revision to the FIRMs issued by FEMA. LOMRs reflect changes to the 100 -year floodplains or
Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) shown on the FIRMs.
Packet Pg 302
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
43
b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR.
H. LAND USE
1. Impact LU-2: The Specific Plan would be potentially consistent with LAFCO policies for
annexation and agricultural resources, with implementation of Mitigation Measures AG-1
and AG-3. (Refer to page 4.9-40 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: Mitigation Measures AG-1 and AG-3 would ensure that the Specific Plan
would not result in conflicts between the Specific Plan and San Luis Obispo LAFCO
agricultural Policies 5, 6, 9, 10, and 12. No further mitigation is required in order to reduce
this impact to a less than significant level.
b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR.
2. Cumulative Land Use Impacts: The proposed uses are consistent with the intent of the goals
and policies established within the City’s General Plan and Zoning Regulations after
implementation of mitigation required in the Final EIR for this project, and would not
cumulatively contribute to the loss of open space or agricultural land beyond that already
anticipated in the City’s LUCE Update and EIR. Furthermore, the Specific Plan is not expected
to contribute cumulatively to potential airport noise and/or safety issues because it has been
found consistent with the ALUP. As such, cumulative land use impacts would be less than
significant with incorporation of the mitigation listed in the Final EIR for this project. (Refer
to page 4.9-47 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measures are required.
• Section 4.2, Agricultural Resources: AG-1, AG-3
• Section 4.4, Biological Resources: BIO-1(a) through BIO-1(h) and BIO-2(a) through
BIO-2(c)
• Section 4.5, Cultural Resources: CR-1(a) through CR-1(c)
• Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials: HAZ-4, and HAZ-6
• Section 4.10, Noise: N-1(a) through N-1(g), N-4(a), N-4(b), N-5(a) through N-5(d)
• Section 4.12, Transportation and Circulation: T-1(a) through T-1(i), T-2(a) through T-
2(j), T-3(a) through T-3(d), T-4, T-5, T-6, T-7, T-8(a) through T-8(g), T-9(a) through
T-9(m), T-10(a) through T-10(c)
• Section 4.14, Issues Addressed in the Initial Study: GEO-1, GEO-3
b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR.
Packet Pg 303
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
44
I. NOISE
1. Impact N-4: Future development on the project site would generate operational noise
typically associated with residential, commercial, office, and hotel development. Noise from
the project would not exceed acceptable levels at existing off-site sensitive receptors.
However, noise from new on-site commercial uses may exceed applicable City standards at
proposed on-site residences. Mitigation Measures N-4(a), HVAC Equipment, and N-4(b),
Parking Lot/Loading Dock Orientation and Noise Barrier, would ensure that noise levels at
residences on the project site would not exceed the City’s standards for intermittent noise.
(Refer to page 4.10-24 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: The Specific Plan orients proposed residential development adjacent to
existing residences and proposed commercial development adjacent to existing
commercial uses. As such, the project’s proposed uses would be compatible with the
existing noise environment of adjacent uses, and this impact would be less than
significant. However, the Specific Plan does not include standards that would ensure that
noise levels at on-site residences located adjacent to proposed retail uses would remain
below applicable City standards. Therefore, the following mitigation measures are
required to ensure that noise levels from proposed new retail uses at residences on the
project site would remain below City standards.
— Mitigation Measure N-4(a) HVAC Equipment. Retail HVAC equipment shall be
shielded and located on building rooftops, or a minimum of 100 feet from the nearest
residential property line.
— Mitigation Measure N-4(b) Parking Lot/Loading Dock Orientation and Noise Barrier.
If parking areas or loading docks would be located within 250 feet of the residential
properties to the west, a masonry noise barrier shall be installed along the eastern
boundary of the proposed residences adjacent to the commercial land use area on the
eastern portion of the project site. The noise barrier shall be constructed of any
masonry material with a surface density of at least three pounds per square foot, and
shall have no openings or gaps.
b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR.
2. Impact N-5: Existing noise sources near the project site include vehicles on local roadways
and U.S. 101. Development of the project would expose future residents on the project site to
traffic noise from local roadways and U.S. 101. With mitigation, traffic noise levels on the
project site would not exceed City standards. Mitigation Measures N-5(a), Interior Noise
Reduction, N-5(b), Residential Outdoor Activity Area Noise Attenuation, N-5(c), Froom
Ranch Way Noise Barrier, and N-5(d), U.S. Highway 101 Noise Barrier at Hotel, Parking
Lot/Loading Dock Orientation and Noise Barrier, would ensure that traffic noise levels
would not exceed City standards. (Refer to page 4.10-28 of the Final EIR.)
Packet Pg 304
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
45
a. Mitigation: Section 3.8.2 of the Specific Plan (Commercial, Office, Hotel Design
Guidelines) requires future development on the project site to include screen walls and
fences around storage areas, open work areas, or refuse collection areas on the project site
to be of sufficient height and material to protect adjacent properties and public streets
from visual and noise impacts.
In addition, Section 2.6, Airport Compatibility Performance Standards, of the Specific Plan
would require that all interior space of residential dwellings, as well as offices, meeting
rooms, public reception areas, worker break rooms, and research, development, and
production areas, meet the interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL and 60 dBA Lmax.
However, the Specific Plan does not identify specific measures to achieve the interior
noise standards identified in Section 2.6. Similarly, the Specific Plan does not include
specific mitigative components that would reduce future on-site traffic noise below the
City’s exterior noise standard of 60 dBA CNEL (see Table 4.10-3). Therefore, the following
mitigation measures would be required to reduce interior and exterior noise levels in
outdoor activity areas of proposed residential, hotel, and office uses to a less than
significant level.
— Mitigation Measure N-5(a) Interior Noise Reduction. The project applicant shall
implement the following measures, or similar combination of measures, which
demonstrate that interior noise levels in proposed residences adjacent to Froom Ranch
Way and Madonna Road, hotel, and offices would be reduced below the City’s 45 dBA
CNEL interior noise standard. The required interior noise reduction shall be achieved
through a combination of standard interior noise reduction techniques, which may
include (but are not limited to):
• In order for windows and doors to remain closed, mechanical ventilation such as
air conditioning shall be provided for all units (Passive ventilation may be
provided, if mechanical ventilation is not necessary to achieve interior noise
standards, as demonstrated by a qualified acoustical consultant).
• All exterior walls shall be constructed with a minimum STC rating of 50, consisting
of construction of 2 inch by 4 inch wood studs with one layer of 5/8 inch Type “X”
gypsum board on each side of resilient channels on 24 inch centers and 3 ½ inch
fiberglass insulation.
• All windows and glass doors shall be rated STC 39 or higher such that the noise
reduction provided will satisfy the interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL.
• An acoustical test report of all the sound-rated windows and doors shall be
provided to the City for review by a qualified acoustical consultant to ensure that
the selected windows and doors in combination with wall assemblies would
reduce interior noise levels sufficiently to meet the City’s interior noise standard.
• All vent ducts connecting interior spaces to the exterior (i.e., bathroom exhaust,
etc.) shall have at least two 90 degree turns in the duct.
• All windows and doors shall be installed in an acoustically-effective manner.
Sliding window panels shall form an air-tight seal when in the closed position and
the window frames shall be caulked to the wall opening around the perimeter with
Packet Pg 305
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
46
a non-hardening caulking compound to prevent sound infiltration. Exterior doors
shall seal air-tight around the full perimeter when in the closed position.
The applicant shall submit a report to the Community Development Department by a
qualified acoustical consultant certifying that the specific interior noise reduction
techniques included in residential, hotel, and office components of the project would
achieve interior noise levels that would not exceed 45 dBA CNEL.
— Mitigation Measure N-5(b) Residential Outdoor Activity Area Noise Attenuation.
Outdoor activity areas (e.g., patios and hotel pool areas) associated with shared
multifamily residential recreational spaces, hotel, commercial, and office uses shall be
protected from sound intrusion so that they meet the City’s exterior standard of 60
dBA CNEL. Outdoor activity areas shall be oriented away from traffic noise such that
intervening buildings reduce traffic noise or shall include noise barriers capable of
reducing traffic noise levels to meet the City’s exterior standard. Hotel pool areas shall
be located a minimum of 500 feet from the U.S. 101 right-of-way. Noise barriers may
be constructed of a material such as tempered glass, acrylic glass, or masonry material
with a surface density of at least three pounds per square foot, and shall have no
openings or gaps. The applicant shall submit a report to the Community Development
Department by a qualified acoustic consultant certifying that the specific outdoor
noise reduction techniques in combination with the orientation of outdoor activity
areas of shared multifamily residential recreational spaces, hotel, commercial, and
offices would achieve exterior noise levels that would not exceed 60 dBA CNEL.
— Mitigation Measure N-5(c) Froom Ranch Way Noise Barrier. A masonry noise barrier
or alternative barrier, such as a landscaped berm, shall be installed along the southern
property line of residential lots that abut Froom Ranch Way to protect outdoor activity
areas (patios and pools) at these residences from sound intrusion from traffic along
Froom Ranch Way. The noise barrier or berm shall provide, at minimum, a 6 foot high
barrier between Froom Ranch Way and the neighboring residences from the final
grade of whichever use (i.e., Froom Ranch Way or residences) has a higher final
elevation. If a masonry noise barrier is implemented, the noise barrier shall be
constructed of any masonry material with a surface density of at least three pounds
per square foot, and shall have no openings or gaps. If an alternative material is used,
the developer shall submit a report to the Community Development Department by a
qualified acoustical consultant certifying that the specific exterior noise reduction
techniques included would achieve exterior noise levels that would not exceed 60 dBA
CNEL.
— Mitigation Measure N-5(d) U.S. Highway 101 Noise Barrier at Hotel. If the hotel
includes an outdoor activity area (such as a patio or pool) a masonry noise barrier or
alternative barrier, such as berms, landscaping, or glass, must be installed along the
eastern property line of the hotel where it abuts the U.S. 101 right of way to protect
these outdoor activity areas from sound intrusion from traffic along U.S. 101. If a
masonry noise barrier is implemented, the noise barrier shall provide, at minimum,
an 8 foot high barrier between U.S. 101 and the hotel from the final grade of whichever
Packet Pg 306
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
47
use (i.e., U.S. 101 or hotel) has a higher final elevation. Such a noise barrier shall be
constructed of any masonry material with a surface density of at least three pounds
per square foot, and shall have no openings or gaps. If an alternative material is used,
the developer shall submit a report to the Community Development Department by a
qualified acoustical consultant demonstrating that the specific exterior noise reduction
techniques included in the hotel component of the project would achieve exterior
noise levels that would not exceed 60 dBA CNEL.
b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR.
J. RECREATION
1. Impact REC-1: The project would accommodate new residents in the City of San Luis Obispo
who will use existing and planned parks and recreation facilities. Provision of on-site parks
and recreation facilities would not meet the adopted City parkland standard for the San Luis
Ranch Specific Plan Area. Mitigation Measure REC-1, which requires payment of the City’s
required parkland in-lieu fees, would ensure compliance with the policies and performance
standards in the City’s General Plan as part of the project. (Refer to page 4.11-7 of the Final
EIR.)
a. Mitigation: The Specific Plan includes requirements intended to protect open space and
recreation areas. Specific Plan Policies 1.5, 4.1, 4.4, and 5.4 require the promotion and
integration of parks and recreational space throughout the plan area and development
components. Although the project includes development of 3.4 acres of parkland it would
result in a 2.4-acre shortfall in parkland standard for the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
Area. Therefore, the following mitigation measure would be required to reduce impacts
to parks and recreational facilities
— Mitigation Measure REC-1 Parkland In-lieu Fees. The project applicant shall pay
parkland in-lieu fees in accordance with the City’s parkland in-lieu fee program for
the parkland shortage. The project’s specific fee shall be determined by the City at the
time of project approval, after accounting for parkland provided within the San Luis
Ranch Specific Plan Area. The in-lieu fees collected from the project shall be directed
to new projects or improvements to existing parks and recreation facilities within the
City of San Luis Obispo parks system.
b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR.
2. Cumulative Recreation Impacts: The project would not meet the Citywide parkland
standards and would exacerbate the exiting shortfall of parks and recreational facilities within
the City. With payment of the City’s required parkland in-lieu fees to ensure compliance with
the policies and performance standards in the City’s General Plan as part of the project,
Packet Pg 307
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
48
required by Mitigation Measure REC-1, the project contribution to cumulative impacts
associated with parks and recreational facilities would be reduced to a less than significant
level. (Refer to page 4.11-8 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: Mitigation Measure REC-1 would be required to reduce the project
contribution to cumulative impacts associated with parks and recreational facilities.
b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR.
K. TRANSPORTATION
1. Impact T-4: Project construction activities would create traffic impacts due to construction
vehicles causing congestion and deteriorating pavement conditions. Mitigation would reduce
these impacts to an acceptable level. Implementation of Mitigation Measure T-4, Construction
Traffic Management Plan, would ensure that impacts associated with construction traffic
would be less than significant after mitigation. (Refer to page 4.12-81 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: The following mitigation is required to reduce potentially significant
construction traffic impacts.
— Mitigation Measure T-4 Construction Traffic Management Plan. Prior to
construction, a traffic management plan shall be prepared for review and approval by
the City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department. The traffic management plan
shall be based on the type of roadway traffic conditions, duration of construction,
physical constraints, nearness of the work zone to traffic and other facilities (bicycle,
pedestrian, driveway access, etc.). The traffic management plan shall include:
• Advertisement. The project developer shall prepare an advertisement campaign
informing the public of the proposed construction activities. Advertisements shall
occur prior to beginning work and periodically during the course of the project
construction. The advertising shall include notification of changes to bus
schedules and potential changes to bus stop locations, potential impacts during
school drop-off and pick-up times, and major intersections that may be impacted
during construction.
• Property Access. Access to parcels along the construction area shall be maintained
to the greatest extent feasible. Affected property owners shall receive advance
notice of work adjacent to their property access and when driveways would be
potentially closed.
• Schools. Any construction adjacent to schools shall ensure that access is maintained
for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists, particularly at the beginning and end of
the school day.
• Buses, Bicycles, and Pedestrians. The work zone shall provide for passage by buses,
bicyclists, and pedestrians, particularly in the vicinity of schools.
Packet Pg 308
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
49
• Intersections. Traffic control (i.e., use of flag persons) shall be used at intersections
that are determined to be unacceptably congested based on the City’s most
recently adopted traffic impact thresholds due to construction traffic.
b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR.
2. Impact T-5: Construction of the proposed Froom Ranch Way bridge during phase 3 of the
Specific Plan buildout would result in significant level of service and queuing impacts at
study area intersections and roadway segments. Mitigation Measure T-5, Froom Ranch Way
Bridge Phasing, would ensure that LOS and queuing impacts associated with the project’s
proposed infrastructure phasing would be less than significant after mitigation. (Refer to page
4.12-83 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: The following mitigation is required to reduce potentially significant LOS and
queuing impacts that would result from the project’s proposed infrastructure phasing.
— Mitigation Measure T-5 Froom Ranch Way Bridge Phasing. The Froom Ranch Way
bridge connection shall be completed prior to occupancy of Phase 1 of the Specific
Plan buildout.
b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR.
3. Impact T-6: The project site plan would result in and contribute to increased access conflicts.
Proposed access controls are not consistent with General Plan policy. Mitigation Measure T-
6, Project Site Intersection Roundabout Control, would ensure that the project would be
consistent with General Plan Circulation Element Policy 7.1.2, and would ensure that
transportation impacts due to access conflicts would be reduced to a less than significant level
after mitigation. (Refer to page 4.12-84 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: Specific Plan Policies 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 are intended to integrate the proposed
new development and associated circulation into the City’s existing circulation system by
ensuring a multimodal approach to the transportation networks for the Specific Plan Area,
development of a circulation system that interfaces with existing adjacent streets and
paths, and development of a safe and efficient circulation system that successfully
interfaces with adjacent streets and paths. The project proposes signalized control at
various intersections. However, General Plan Circulation Element Policy 7.1.2 requires
roundabout control, unless otherwise physically infeasible. Therefore, the following
mitigation is required to ensure that the project would be consistent with General Plan
Circulation Element Policy 7.1.2.
— Mitigation Measure T-6 Project Site Intersection Roundabout Control. New roadway
intersections within the Specific Plan Area shall be controlled using roundabout
Packet Pg 309
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
50
design, unless the City Public Works Department determines that roundabout control
is physically infeasible.
b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR.
4. Impact T-7: The project site plan would result in on-site traffic volumes and speeds that may
exceed General Plan policy thresholds, resulting potential traffic hazards within the project
site. Mitigation Measure T-7, Traffic Calming Features, would ensure that potential traffic
hazards within the Specific Plan area would be reduced to a less than significant level after
mitigation. (Refer to page 4.12-85 of the Final EIR.)
c. Mitigation: San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Policies 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 are intended to integrate
the proposed new development and associated circulation into the City’s existing
circulation system by ensuring a multimodal approach to the transportation networks for
the Specific Plan Area, development of a circulation system that interfaces with existing
adjacent streets and paths. The proposed layout of San Luis Ranch Road and other
roadways internal to the Specific Plan area would result in on-site traffic speeds that
would exceed General Plan thresholds, which may result in potential traffic hazards
within the Specific Plan area. Therefore, the following mitigation is required to ensure that
on-site traffic volumes and speeds would not exceed General Plan policy thresholds, and
potential traffic hazards along on-site collector and residential streets would be reduced.
— Mitigation Measure T-7 Traffic Calming Features. New roadway intersections along
San Luis Ranch Road shall include neighborhood traffic circles at key intersections,
and traffic-calming features, such as diverters, along longer uninterrupted segments.
d. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR.
Packet Pg 310
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
51
SECTION 6. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT FOR WHICH SUFFICIENT
MITIGATION IS NOT AVAILABLE
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...".
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 to avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects 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 that agency; or
• Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations, including provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make the mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the Final EIR infeasible.
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 Final EIR. The impacts identified in this section
are considered in the same sequence in which they appear in the 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.
A. AIR QUALITY
1. Impact AQ-1: The project would be inconsistent with the SLOAPCD 2001 Clean Air Plan
because it would result in an increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) that would exceed the
rate of population growth. (Refer to page 4.3-9 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: The incorporation of Mitigation Measures AQ-3(a) through AQ-3(b) are
recommended to improve consistency with the CAP. The following additional measure is
also required:
• Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Encourage Telecommuting. The project applicant or
developers of individual projects within the Specific Plan Area shall include
Packet Pg 311
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
52
provisions to encourage employers within the proposed office components of the
project to implement telecommuting programs and include teleconferencing
capabilities, such as web cams or satellite linkage, which will allow employees to
attend meetings remotely without requiring them to travel out of the area.
b. Finding: The City finds that specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other
considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final
EIR infeasible. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 is feasible and has been adopted. However,
mitigation is not available that would reduce projected VMT such that the project’s vehicle
trip rate increase would not exceed population growth in the region. Therefore, impacts
related to consistency with the 2001 CAP would remain significant and unavoidable. A
statement of overriding considerations for this impact is made in Section 8.
2. Cumulative Air Quality Impacts: The project is inconsistent with the 2001 CAP and would
exceed SLOAPCD construction and operational thresholds. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would
reduce this cumulative impact to the maximum extent feasible. However, no additional
mitigation is available to address cumulative air quality impacts. As such, cumulative impacts
on air quality would remain significant and unavoidable. (Refer to page 4.3-30 of the Final
EIR.)
a. Mitigation: Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce this cumulative impact to the
maximum extent feasible. No other feasible mitigation is available that would meet the
project objectives.
b. Finding: The City finds that specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other
considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final
EIR infeasible. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 is feasible and has been adopted. However, 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.
B. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Impact CR-1: The project would result in the relocation, demolition, and removal of structures
on the San Luis Ranch property which are individually identified as historic resources. In
addition, the project would eliminate the San Luis Ranch Complex, which is eligible for listing
as a historic resource. Relocation, demolition, and/or removal of these historic resources
would permanently alter the historic context of the project site and on-site structures.
Required Mitigation Measures CR-1(a) through CR-1(c), which require a relocation and
reconstruction plan for the former spectator’s barn/viewing stand, main residence, and main
barn, archival documentation of historic buildings, and informational displays of historic
resources, would reduce this impact to the maximum extent feasible. However, mitigation
would not avoid the removal of the main barn, despite the proposed reuse of salvageable
materials from the structure to the greatest extent possible in the construction of a new barn
in the project’s proposed Agricultural Heritage and Learning Center. Therefore, the potential
impact to the San Luis Ranch Complex and the main barn individuall y would remain
Packet Pg 312
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
53
significant and unavoidable despite implementation of the required mitigation. (Refer to page
4.5-20 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: The San Luis Ranch Specific Plan proposes programs and policies intended to
reduce impacts to historical resources to the maximum extent practicable. The following
additional measures are also required:
• Mitigation Measure CR-1(a). Historical Structure Relocation and Reconstruction
Plan. In order to implement Specific Plan Policy 2.5, a relocation and reconstruction
plan for the former spectator’s barn/viewing stand, main residence, and main barn
shall be developed by a qualified historic architect. The plan shall include a
structural/architectural report documenting existing integrity and conditions and
include detailed treatment methods and measures to ensure that historic integrity is
retained and that all identified character defining features will be preserved.
• Mitigation Measure CR-1(b). Archival Documentation of Historic Buildings. The
applicant shall provide archival documentation of the San Luis Ranch Complex in as-
built and as-found condition in the form of a Historic American Building Survey
(HABS) Level II documentation. The documentation shall comply with the Secretary
of the Interior’s Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation (NPS
1990), and shall include large-format photographic recordation, detailed historic
narrative report, and compilation of historic research. The documentation shall be
completed by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary
of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for History and/or Architectural
History (NPS 1983). The original archival-quality documentation shall be offered as
donated material to the History Center of San Luis Obispo County. Archival copies of
the documentation shall also be submitted to the San Luis Obispo County Library.
• Mitigation Measure CR-1(c). Informational Display of Historic Resources. A
retrospective interpretive display detailing the history of the San Luis Ranch Complex
and the project site, its significance, and its important details and features shall be
developed by the applicant. The information should be incorporated into a publicly-
accessed building on the project site, such as the proposed Agricultural Heritage
Facilities and Learning Center, or a publicly-accessed outdoor location. The display
shall include images and details from the HABS documentation described in
Mitigation Measure CR-1(b) and any collected research pertaining to the historic
property. The content shall be prepared by a qualified architectural historian or
historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification
Standards for History and/or Architectural History (NPS 1983).
b. Finding: The City finds that specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other
considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final
EIR infeasible. Mitigation Measures CR-1(a) through CR-1(c) are feasible and have been
adopted. Mitigation Measure CR-1(a) would mitigate impacts to the main residence and
barn/viewing stand to the maximum extent feasible, and that Mitigation Measures CR-
1(b) and CR-1(c) would reduce significant direct impacts to the remainder of the
Packet Pg 313
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
54
historically significant San Luis Ranch Complex, including the individually significant
historic main barn, to the maximum extent feasible. However, the removal and/or
demolition of the historically significant main barn and the relocation, demolition, and
removal of other structures in the San Luis Ranch Complex would change the historic
context of the San Luis Ranch property. Furthermore, mitigation would not avoid the
removal of the main barn, despite the proposed reuse of salvageable materials from the
structure to the greatest extent possible in the construction of a new barn in the project’s
proposed Agricultural Heritage and Learning Center. Therefore, the potential impact to
the San Luis Ranch Complex and the main barn individually would remain significant
and unavoidable despite implementation of the required mitigation. A statement of
overriding considerations for this impact is made in Section 8.
2. Cumulative Cultural Resources Impacts: The project would result in a significant and
unavoidable impact associated with the removal, relocation, or reconstruction of individually
historic structures that are part of the historically significant San Luis Ranch Complex. As
such, the project would contribute to the cumulative loss of historic resources in the City.
Required Mitigation Measures CR-1(a) through CR-1(c) would reduce this cumulative impact
to historical resources to the maximum extent feasible. However, no additional mitigation is
available to address this cumulative impact. Therefore, cumulative cultural resources impacts
would remain significant and unavoidable. (Refer to page 4.5-26 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: The Specific Plan contains goals and policies which would reduce cumulative
impacts to historic and cultural resources. In addition, implementation of Mitigation
Measures CR-1(a) through CR-1(c) would further reduce cumulative impacts to historic
resources. No other feasible mitigation is available that would meet the project objectives.
b. Finding: The City finds that specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other
considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final
EIR infeasible. Mitigation Measures CR-1(a) through CR-1(c) are feasible and have been
adopted. No additional feasible mitigation is available for the cumulative loss of historic
resources in the City, which would remain a significant and unavoidable impact. A
statement of overriding considerations for this impact is made in Section 8.
C. LAND USE
1. Impact LU-1: The Specific Plan would be potentially consistent with the majority of adopted
City policies in the General Plan, with implementation of Mitigation Measures throughout
the Final EIR. The project would be potentially inconsistent with adopted General Plan
policies designed to protect historical resources. Required Mitigation Measures in the EIR
would reduce inconsistencies with General Plan policies to the maximum extent feasible.
However, Specific Plan conflicts with Land Use Element Policy 1.10.4 (Design Standards) and
Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 3.3.2 (Demolitions) would remain potentially
inconsistent. The City acknowledges the importance and breadth of the potential
inconsistencies associated with the Specific Plan by finding them to be significant and
unavoidable impacts. (Refer to page 4.9-9 of the Final EIR.)
Packet Pg 314
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
55
a. Mitigation: The incorporation of Mitigation Measures AG-1, AG-3, BIO-1(a) through BIO-
1(h), BIO-2(a) through BIO-2(c), CR-1(a) through CR-1(c), GEO-1, GEO-3, HAZ-4, HAZ-6,
N-1(a) through N-1(g), N-4(a), N-4(b), N-5(a) through N-5(d), and T-1(a) through T-1(i),
T-2(a) through T-2(j), T-3(a) through T-3(d), T-4, T-5, T-6, T-7, T-8(a) through T-8(g), T-9(a)
through T-9(m), T-10(a) through T-10(c), would ensure that the majority of potential
conflicts between the San Luis Obispo City General Plan and the Specific Plan would be
reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures CR-1(a) through CR-1(c)
would reduce potential conflicts with Land Use Element Policy 1.10.4 (Design Standards)
and Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 3.3.2 (Demolitions) to the maximum
extent feasible.
b. Finding: The City finds that specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other
considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final
EIR infeasible. The mitigation measures are feasible and have been adopted. However,
Specific Plan conflicts with Land Use Element Policy 1.10.4 (Design Standards) and
Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 3.3.2 (Demolitions) were identified in the
Final EIR as potentially inconsistent. A statement of overriding considerations for this
impact is made in Section 8.
D. NOISE
1. Impact N-1: Temporary construction activity would create noise that could exceed City of San
Luis Obispo Municipal Code regulations. Required Mitigation Measures N-1(a) through N-
1(g) require implementation of noise reduction devices and techniques during construction,
and would reduce noise associated with on- and off-site construction activity to the maximum
extent feasible. Although Mitigation Measure N-1(a) would reduce impacts from haul trucks
by requiring the haul route to avoid residential areas and noise sensitive uses where possible,
haul truck noise would continue to exceed the 75 dBA threshold for intermittent noise.
Therefore, noise impacts from haul trucks would be minimized, but not eliminated. As a
result, temporary noise impacts associated with off-site construction activity would be
significant and unavoidable. (Refer to page 4.10-15 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: Implementation of the following measures would reduce noise impacts to the
maximum extent feasible and are required.
• N-1(a). Construction Vehicle Travel Route. Construction vehicles and haul trucks
shall utilize roadways which avoid residential neighborhoods and sensitive receptors
where possible. The applicant shall submit a proposed construction vehicle and
hauling route for City review and approval prior to grading/building permit
issuance. The approved construction vehicle and hauling route shall be used for soil
hauling trips prior to construction as well as for the duration of construction.
• N-1(b). Construction Activity Timing. Except for emergency repair of public service
utilities, or where an exception is issued by the Community Development
Department, no operation of tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair,
alteration, or demolition work shall occur daily between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00
Packet Pg 315
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
56
AM, or any time on Sundays, holidays, or after sunset, such that the sound creates a
noise disturbance that exceeds 75 dBA for single family residential, 80 dBA for multi-
family residential, and 85 dBA for mixed residential/commercial land uses across a
residential or commercial property line.
• N-1(c). Construction Equipment Best Management Practices (BMPs). For all
construction activity at the project site, noise attenuation techniques shall be employed
to ensure that noise levels are maintained within levels allowed by the City of San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code, Title 9, Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control). Such techniques shall
include:
o Sound blankets on noise-generating equipment.
o Stationary construction equipment that generates noise levels above 65
dBA at the project boundaries shall be shielded with barriers that meet a
sound transmission class (a rating of how well noise barriers attenuate
sound) of 25.
o All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall
be equipped with factory-recommended mufflers.
o For stationary equipment, the applicant shall designate equipment areas
with appropriate acoustic shielding on building and grading plans.
Equipment and shielding shall be installed prior to construction and
remain in the designated location throughout construction activities.
o Electrical power shall be used to power air compressors and similar power
tools.
o The movement of construction-related vehicles, with the exception of
passenger vehicles, along roadways adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be
limited to the hours between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, Monday through
Saturday. No movement of heavy equipment shall occur on Sundays or
official holidays (e.g., Thanksgiving, Labor Day).
o Temporary sound barriers shall be constructed between construction sites
and affected uses.
• N-1(d). Neighboring Property Owner Notification and Construction Noise
Complaints. The contractor shall inform residents and business operators at
properties within 300 feet of the project site of proposed construction timelines and
noise complaint procedures to minimize potential annoyance related to construction
noise. Proof of mailing the notices shall be provided to the Community Development
Department before the City issues a zoning clearance. Signs shall be in place before
beginning of and throughout grading and construction activities. Noise-related
complaints shall be directed to the City’s Community Development Department.
b. Finding: The City finds that specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other
considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final
EIR infeasible. Mitigation Measures N-1(a) through N-1(d) are feasible and have been
adopted. Available mitigation would not reduce the noise below the applicable City
standards for relatively long term construction activity. Therefore temporary noise
impacts associated with on-site construction activity would be significant and
Packet Pg 316
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
57
unavoidable. A statement of overriding considerations for this impact is made in Section
8.
E. TRANSPORTATION
1. Impact T-1: Under Existing and Near-Term Plus Project conditions nine study area
intersections would operate at unacceptable automobile, bicycle, or pedestrian LOS based on
adopted multimodal level of service standards during AM and PM peak hours. (Refer to page
4.12-43 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: Mitigation Measures T-1(a) through T-1(i) identify improvements at study
area facilities that are required to reduce potentially significant project-specific impacts at
study area intersections under Existing and Near-Term Plus Project Conditions. The
project’s equitable share of these improvements will be calculated using the method for
calculating equitable mitigation measures outlined in the Caltrans Guide for the
Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (Caltrans, December 2002). Costs above and beyond
the project’s equitable share can be addressed through such options as fee credits,
reimbursement agreements, or development agreements, based on City requirements.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures T-1(a) through T-1(i) would reduce impacts to
multimodal level of service at study area intersections under Existing and Near-Term Plus
Project conditions to a feasible extent.
• T-1(a). Intersection #1: Madonna Road & Los Osos Valley Road.
o City optimize signal timing to accommodate increased project volumes
(ongoing)
• T-1(b). Intersection #3: Madonna Road & Dalidio Drive/Prado Road.
o Extend existing westbound left turn lane on Madonna Road to Dalidio
Drive/Prado Road to 310’ (Phase 1)
o Install 2nd westbound 310’ left turn lane on Madonna Road to Dalidio
Drive/Prado Road (Phase 1)
o Install eastbound 250’ right turn pocket on Madonna Road to Dalidio
Drive/Prado Road (Phase 1)
o Install 2nd northbound left shared with through-lane on Prado
Road/Dalidio Drive to Madonna Road (Phase 1)
o Prohibit westbound U-turns on Madonna Road (Phase 1)
o Provide split phase operations & optimize signal timing (Phase 1)
• T-1(c). Intersection #5: Madonna Road & U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps.
o Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass-Only, Phase 2)
• T-1(d). Intersection #8: Higuera Street & South Street.
o Optimize Signal Timing
Packet Pg 317
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
58
• T-1(e). Intersection #9: Los Osos Valley Road & Froom Ranch Way.
o Install dedicated 230’ right turn lane on northbound Froom Ranch Way
approach to Los Osos Valley Road (with Froom Ranch Way bridge
construction)
o Extend right turn lane on southbound Froom Ranch Way approach to Los
Osos Valley Road to 110’ (with Froom Ranch Way bridge construction)
o Install 2nd southbound left turn lane on Froom Ranch Way approach to
eastbound Los Osos Valley Road (with Froom Ranch Way bridge
construction)
• T-1(f). Intersection #10: Los Osos Valley Road & Auto Park Way.
o Signalization (Phase 1)
o Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass Only, Phase 2)
• T-1(g). Intersection #16: S. Higuera Street & Tank Farm Road.
o Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass Only Phase 2)
o Extend northbound right turn pocket to 230’ and channelize movement
(Phase 1)
• T-1(h). Intersection #21: Prado Road/Dalidio Drive & Froom Ranch Way.
o Install multilane roundabout control (when connection is constructed)
• T-1(i). Intersection #25: Prado Road/Dalidio Drive & SC Project Driveway.
o Install multilane roundabout control or restricted access (when
connection is constructed)
b. Finding: The City finds that specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other
considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final
EIR infeasible. Mitigation Measures T-1(a), T-1(c) through T-1(d), and T-1(f) through T-
1(i) are feasible and have been adopted. Potential right-of-way constraints at the Madonna
Road & Dalidio Drive and Los Osos Valley Road & Froom Ranch Way intersections may
reduce the feasibility of Mitigation Measures T-1(b) and T-1(e). Accordingly, the potential
impacts associated with multimodal level of service standards identified for Existing and
Near-Term Plus Project conditions at the Madonna Road & Dalidio Drive and Los Osos
Valley Road & Froom Ranch Way intersections may not be feasibly mitigated to a less
than significant level. Therefore, the potential impacts to multimodal level of service at
the Madonna Road & Dalidio Drive and Los Osos Valley Road & Froom Ranch Way
intersections under Existing and Near-Term Plus Project conditions would remain
significant and unavoidable. A statement of overriding considerations for this impact is
made in Section 8.
2. Impact T-2: Under Existing and Near-Term Plus Project conditions, the volume of traffic at
19 study area intersections would exceed lane capacities. (Refer to page 4.12-58 of the Final
EIR.)
a. Mitigation: Mitigation Measures T-2(a) through T-2(j) identify improvements at study
area facilities that are required to reduce potentially significant project-specific impacts at
Packet Pg 318
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
59
study area intersections under Existing and Near-Term Plus Project Conditions. The
project’s equitable share of these improvements will be calculated using the method for
calculating equitable mitigation measures outlined in the Caltrans Guide for the
Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (Caltrans, December 2002). Costs above and beyond
the project’s equitable share can be addressed through such options as fee credits,
reimbursement agreements, or development agreements, based on City requirements.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures T-2(a) through T-2(j) would reduce impacts
associated with lane capacities identified for Existing and Near-Term Plus Project
conditions to a feasible extent.
• T-2(a). Intersection #1: Madonna Road & Los Osos Valley Road.
o Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass Only, Phase 2)
• T-2(b). Intersection #2: Madonna Road & Oceanaire Drive.
o Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass Only, Phase 2)
• T-2(c). Intersection #5: Madonna Road & U.S. 101 S.B Ramps.
o Extend northbound Madonna Road left turn lane to 150’ (Phase 1)
• T-2(d). Intersection #6: Madonna Road & U.S. 101 Northbound Ramps.
o Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass Only, Phase 2)
• T-2(e). Intersection #7: Madonna Road & Higuera Street.
o Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass Plus U.S. 101 northbound
ramps, Phase 2)
• T-2(f). Intersection #9: Los Osos Valley Road & Froom Ranch Way.
o Install dedicated 230’ right turn lane on Los Osos Valley Road approach
to northbound Froom Ranch Way (with Froom Ranch Way bridge
construction)
o Extend right turn lane on Los Osos Valley Road approach to southbound
Froom Ranch Way to 110’ (with Froom Ranch Way Bridge construction)
o Install 2nd southbound left turn lane on Froom Ranch Way approach to
eastbound Los Osos Valley Road (with Froom Ranch Way bridge
construction)
• T-2(g). Intersection #12: Los Osos Valley Road & U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps.
o Extend off-ramp left turn pocket to 320’ (Phase 1)
• T-2(h). Intersection #13: Los Osos Valley Road & U.S. 101 Northbound Ramps.
o Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass Only, Phase 2)
• T-2(i). Intersection #14: Los Osos Valley Road & Higuera Street.
o Extend eastbound right turn lane to 180’ (Phase 1)
Packet Pg 319
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
60
• T-2(j). Intersection #18: Prado Road & Higuera Street.
o Install 2nd U.S. 101 northbound left turn lane (Phase 1)
o Extend westbound right turn pocket to 400’ (Phase 1)
b. Finding: The City finds that specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other
considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final
EIR infeasible. Mitigation Measures T-2(a) through T-2(e) and T-2(g) through T-2(j) are
feasible and have been adopted. Potential right-of-way constraints at the Los Osos Valley
Road & Froom Ranch Way intersection may reduce the feasibility Mitigation Measure T-
2(f). Accordingly, the potential impacts associated with lane capacities identified for
Existing and Near-Term Plus Project conditions at the Los Osos Valley Road & Froom
Ranch Way intersection may not be feasibly mitigated to a less than significant level. As a
result, impacts to lane capacities at the Los Osos Valley Road & Froom Ranch Way
intersection under Existing and Near-Term Plus Project conditions would remain
significant and unavoidable. A statement of overriding considerations for this impact is
made in Section 8.
3. Impact T-3: Under Existing and Near-Term conditions four study area segment groups would
operate at unacceptable automobile, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit LOS based on adopted
multimodal level of service standards during AM and PM peak hours. (Refer to page 4.12-63
of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: Mitigation Measures T-3(a) through T-3(d) identify improvements at study
area facilities that are required to reduce potentially significant project-specific impacts at
study area roadway segments under Existing and Near-Term Plus Project Conditions. The
project’s equitable share of these improvements will be calculated using the method for
calculating equitable mitigation measures outlined in the Caltrans Guide for the
Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (Caltrans, December 2002). Costs above and beyond
the project’s equitable share can be addressed through such options as fee credits,
reimbursement agreements, or development agreements, based on City requirements.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures T-3(a) through T-3(d) would reduce impacts
associated with multimodal level of service standards at study area roadway segments
identified for Existing and Near-Term Plus Project conditions to a feasible extent.
• T-3(a). Segments #1 - #6: Madonna Road (Los Osos Valley Road to Higuera Street)
o Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass Only, Phase 2)
o Fund assessment of decreasing transit headways to 25 min
o Construct parallel Class I multiuse paths or bike boulevard (Phase 1)
• T-3(b). Segments #7 - #8: Higuera Street (Madonna Road to Prado Road)
o Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass and U.S. 101 northbound
ramps, Phase 2)
o Construct parallel Class I multiuse paths or bike boulevard (Phase 1)
Packet Pg 320
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
61
• T-3(c). Segments #13 - #17: Los Osos Valley Road (Madonna Road to Higuera Street)
o Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass and U.S. 101 northbound
ramps, Phase 2)
o Construct parallel Class I multiuse paths or bike boulevard (Phase 3)
• T-3(d). Segments #18 - #20: Dalidio Drive/Prado Road (Froom Ranch Way to Higuera
Street)
o Construct parallel Class I multiuse paths or bike boulevard (when Prado
Road is constructed/improved)
b. Finding: The City finds that specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other
considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final
EIR infeasible. Mitigation Measures T-3(a) through T-3(c) are feasible and have been
adopted. Potential right-of-way constraints along the Higuera Street segments (Segments
#7 and #8) may reduce the feasibility of (Mitigation Measure T-3(b). Accordingly, the
potential impacts associated with multimodal level of service standards identified for
Existing and Near-Term Plus Project conditions along the Higuera Street segments
(Segments #7 and #8) may not be feasibly mitigated to a less than significant level. As a
result, impacts associated with multimodal level of service standards at the Higuera Street
segments (Segments #7 and #8) under Existing and Near-Term Plus Project conditions
would remain significant and unavoidable. A statement of overriding considerations for
this impact is made in Section 8.
4. Impact T-8: Under Cumulative Plus Project conditions nine study area intersections would
operate at unacceptable automobile, bicycle, or pedestrian LOS based on adopted multimodal
level of service standards during AM and PM peak hours. (Refer to page 4.12-87 of the Final
EIR.)
a. Mitigation: Mitigation Measures T-8(a) through T-8(g) identify improvements at study
area facilities that are required to reduce potentially significant project-specific impacts at
study area intersections under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. The project’s
equitable share of these improvements will be calculated using the method for calculating
equitable mitigation measures outlined in the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic
Impact Studies (Caltrans, December 2002). Costs above and beyond the project’s equitable
share can be addressed through such options as fee credits, reimbursement agreements,
or development agreements, based on City requirements. Implementation of Mitigation
Measures T-8(a) through T-8(g) would reduce impacts to multimodal level of service at
study area intersections under Cumulative Plus Project conditions to a feasible extent.
• T-8(a). Intersection #3: Madonna Road & Dalidio Drive/Prado Road.
o Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measure T-
1[b])
Packet Pg 321
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
62
• T-8(b). Intersection #9: Los Osos Valley Road & Froom Ranch Way.
o Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measure T-
1[e]/Mitigation Measure T-2[f])
• T-8(c). Intersection #10: Los Osos Valley Road & Auto Park Way.
▪ Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation
Measure T-1[f])
• T-8(d). Intersection #12: Los Osos Valley Road & U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps.
o Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and
southbound ramps)
• T-8(e). Intersection #13: Los Osos Valley Road & U.S. 101 Northbound Ramps.
o Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and
southbound ramps)
• T-8(f). Intersection #14: Los Osos Valley Road & S. Higuera Street.
o Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and
southbound ramps)
• T-8(g). Intersection #16: S. Higuera Street & Tank Farm Road.
o Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measure T-
1[f])
b. Finding: The City finds that specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other
considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final
EIR infeasible. Mitigation Measures T-8(c) through T-8(g) are feasible and have been
adopted. Potential right-of-way constraints at the Madonna Road & Dalidio Drive and
Los Osos Valley Road & Froom Ranch Way intersections may reduce the feasibility of
Mitigation Measures T-8(a) and T-8(b). Accordingly, the potential impacts associated with
multimodal level of service standards identified for Cumulative Plus Project conditions at
the Madonna Road & Dalidio Drive and Los Osos Valley Road & Froom Ranch Way
intersections may not be feasibly mitigated to a less than significant level. Therefore, the
potential impacts to multimodal levels of service at the Madonna Road & Dalidio Drive
and Los Osos Valley Road & Froom Ranch Way intersections under Cumulative Plus
Project conditions would remain significant and unavoidable. A statement of overriding
considerations for this impact is made in Section 8.
5. Impact T-9: Under Cumulative Plus Project conditions, the volume of traffic at 18 study area
intersections would exceed lane capacities. (Refer to page 4.12-97 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: Mitigation Measures T-9(a) through T-9(m) identify improvements at study
area facilities that are required to reduce potentially significant project-specific impacts at
study area intersections under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. The project’s
equitable share of these improvements will be calculated using the method for calculating
equitable mitigation measures outlined in the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic
Impact Studies (Caltrans, December 2002). Costs above and beyond the project’s equitable
Packet Pg 322
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
63
share can be addressed through such options as fee credits, reimbursement agreements,
or development agreements, based on City requirements. Implementation of Mitigation
Measures T-9(a) through T-9(m) would reduce impacts associated with lane capacities
identified for Existing and Near-Term Plus Project conditions to a feasible extent.
• T-9(a). Intersection #1: Madonna Road & Los Osos Valley Road.
o Extend northbound right turn pocket on Los Osos Valley Road to 295’
o Extend southbound left turn pocket on Madonna Road to 395’
• T-9(b). Intersection #2: Madonna Road & Oceanaire Drive.
o Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measure T-
1[b])
o Extend westbound right turn land on Madonna Road to 200’
• T-9(c). Intersection #3: Madonna Road & Dalidio Drive.
o Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measure T-
1[b])
• T-9(d). Intersection #4: Madonna Road & El Mercado.
o Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measures T-
1[b])
• T-9(e). Intersection #5: Madonna Road & U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps.
o Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and
southbound ramps)
• T-9(f). Intersection #6: Madonna Road & U.S. 101 Northbound Ramps.
o Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and
southbound ramps)
• T-9(g). Intersection #8: Higuera Street & South Street.
o Extend northbound Higuera Street left turn pocket to 120’
o Extend eastbound South Street right turn pocket to 100’
• T-9(h). Intersection #9: Los Osos Valley Road & Froom Ranch Way.
o Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measure T-
1[d]/Mitigation Measure T-2[f])
• T-9(i). Intersection #11: Los Osos Valley Road & Calle Joaquin.
o Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and
southbound ramps)
• T-9(j). Intersection #12: Los Osos Valley Road & U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps.
o Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and
southbound ramps)
• T-9(k). Intersection #14: Los Osos Valley Road & S. Higuera Street.
Packet Pg 323
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
64
o Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and
southbound ramps)
• T-9(l). Intersection #16: S. Higuera Street & Tank Farm Road.
o Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measure T-
1[g])
• T-9(m). Intersection #18: Higuera Street & Prado Road.
o Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measure T-
2[j])
b. Finding: The City finds that specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other
considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final
EIR infeasible. Mitigation Measures T-9(a) through T-9(b), T-9(d) through T-9(g), and T-
9(i) through T-9(m) are feasible and have been adopted. Potential right-of-way constraints
at the Madonna Road & Dalidio Drive and Los Osos Valley Road & Froom Ranch Way
intersections may reduce the feasibility of Mitigation Measures T-9(c) and T-9(h).
Accordingly, the potential impacts associated with lane capacities identified for
Cumulative Plus Project conditions at the Madonna Road & Dalidio Drive and Los Osos
Valley Road & Froom Ranch Way intersections may not be feasibly mitigated to a less
than significant level. As a result, impacts to lane capacities at the Madonna Road &
Dalidio Drive and Los Osos Valley Road & Froom Ranch Way intersections under
Cumulative Plus Project conditions would remain significant and unavoidable. A
statement of overriding considerations for this impact is made in Section 8.
6. Impact T-10: Under Cumulative Plus Project conditions five study area segment groups, as
well as mainline segments of U.S. 101, would operate at unacceptable automobile, bicycle,
pedestrian, and transit LOS based on adopted multimodal level of service standards during
AM and PM peak hours. (Refer to page 4.12-101 of the Final EIR.)
a. Mitigation: Mitigation Measures T-10(a) through T-10(c) identify improvements at study
area facilities that are required to reduce potentially significant project-specific impacts at
study area roadway segments under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. The project’s
equitable share of these improvements will be calculated using the method for calculating
equitable mitigation measures outlined in the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic
Impact Studies (Caltrans, December 2002). Costs above and beyond the project’s equitable
share can be addressed through such options as fee credits, reimbursement agreements,
or development agreements, based on City requirements. Implementation of Mitigation
Measures T-10(a) through T-10(c) would reduce impacts associated with multimodal level
of service standards at study area roadway segments identified for Cumulative Plus
Project conditions to a feasible extent.
• T-10(a). Segments #1 - #6: Madonna Road (Higuera Street to Los Osos Valley Road).
o Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and
southbound ramps)
Packet Pg 324
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
65
• T-10(b). Segments #15 - #16: Los Osos Valley Road (Calle Joaquin to U.S. 101
Northbound Ramps).
o Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and
southbound ramps)
• T-10(c). Segment #24: Prado Road/Dalidio Drive (Project Driveway to Froom Ranch
Way).
o Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and
southbound ramps)
b. Finding: The City finds that specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other
considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final
EIR infeasible. Mitigation Measures T-10(a) through T-10(c) are feasible and have been
adopted. However, potential impacts identified for the northbound and southbound lanes
of the mainline segments of U.S. 101 at Los Osos Valley Road and Madonna Road under
Cumulative Plus Project conditions would not be mitigated to a less than significant level.
No additional mitigation measures are feasible due to economic and physical constraints.
As a result, impacts under Cumulative Plus Project conditions would remain significant
and unavoidable. A statement of overriding considerations for this impact is made in
Section 8.
Packet Pg 325
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
66
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 AQ-1: Clean Air Plan (CAP) consistency
• Cumulative air quality impact
• Impact CR-1: Removal of historic resources
• Cumulative cultural resource impact
• Impact LU-1: Potential City policy inconsistency
• Impact N-1: Temporary construction activity noise
• Impact T-1: Unacceptable multimodal level of service at study area intersections under
Existing and Near-Term Plus Project conditions
• Impact T-2: Traffic volumes exceeding lane capacities under Existing and Near-Term Plus
Project conditions
• Impact T-3: Unacceptable multimodal level of service at study area roadway segments
under Existing and Near-Term Plus Project conditions
• Impact T-8: Unacceptable multimodal level of service at study area intersections under
Cumulative Plus Project conditions
• Impact T-9: Traffic volumes exceeding lane capacities under Cumulative Plus Project
conditions
• Impact T-10: Unacceptable multimodal level of service at study area roadway segments,
including mainline segments of U.S. 101, under Cumulative Plus Project conditions
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 Final EIR for the project evaluates the following four alternatives to the project: (1) a no
project, no development alternative; (2) a no project, existing entitlements alternative; (3) an
alternative that would retain the San Luis Ranch Farm Complex; and (4) an alternative that would
retain 50 percent of the net site acreage as on-site agricultural and open space.
1. Alternative 1: No Project, No Development. As required by CEQA, this EIR evaluates the
environmental consequences of not proceeding with the project. This alternative assumes that
Packet Pg 326
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
67
the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan is not adopted, that none of the proposed entitlements are
implemented, including annexation to the City, and that no further development would occur
on the project site. The project site would continue to support existing agricultural land uses,
and the existing structures on the site would remain.
2. Alternative 2: No Project, Measure J Entitlements. This alternative assumes that the San Luis
Ranch Specific Plan is not adopted and that none of the proposed entitlements are
implemented, including annexation to the City. Therefore, this alternative represents a project
that would be processed by San Luis Obispo County, and considers what would be
reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future based on current plans and consistency
with available infrastructure and community services. There are existing entitlements on the
project site for development in the County from the voter-approved initiative known as
“Measure J,” which was passed in 2006 and upheld in 2009. The Measure J entitlements
include 60 multi-family dwelling units, 560,000 square feet of regional commercial and
outdoor sales areas, 198,000 square feet of office space, and a 150-room hotel and ancillary
facilities. Because the Measure J entitlements would leave the project site under the
jurisdiction of the County, but surrounded entirely by the City limit, these entitlements would
also require the use of private water from onsite wells and an onsite wastewater treatment
facility. Figure 6-1 of the Final EIR depicts the Measure J site plan and approximate
development area of this alternative.
3. Alternative 3: Historical Resource Preservation. This alternative assumes that the San Luis
Ranch Farm Complex, as well as associated eucalyptus trees, located in the northwest portion
of the project site would be retained, and that the proposed multi-family residential
development would be relocated and integrated into the proposed single-family residential
development area on the central portion of the project site. This configuration would likely
result in fewer single-family homes and a corresponding increase in the number of multi-
family or cluster-style residential development in order to preserve the total residential unit
count on the project site. Figure 6-2 of the Final EIR depicts the approximate development
area of this alternative.
4. Alternative 4: 50% On-Site Agriculture/Open Space. This alternative would retain 50 percent
of the net site acreage as on-site agricultural and open space uses to be consistent on-site with
the City’s General Plan Land Use Element Policy 8.1.4.f. This alternative would retain the
portion of land designated for commercial uses (NC) southeast of Froom Ranch Way and
southwest of Prado Road in agriculture. This alternative would reduce the portion of the site
available for residential and commercial development on the project site.
C. EFFECTIVENESS OF ALTERNATIVES IN AVOIDING SIGNIFICANT PROJECT
IMPACTS
This section evaluates the effectiveness of the alternatives in reducing the significant and
unavoidable impacts of the proposed project.
1. Significant and Unavoidable Air Quality Impacts. The proposed project would result in
significant and unavoidable project-level and cumulative impacts related to Clean Air Plan
Packet Pg 327
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
68
(CAP) inconsistency. Under Alternative 1 (No Project, No Development), no development
would occur, and no additional vehicle trips would be generated; therefore air quality
impacts would be substantially reduced. Under Alternative 2 (No Project, Measure J
Entitlements), additional vehicle trips would result in increased emissions compared to the
proposed project, which would cumulatively impact air quality; therefore air quality impacts
would remain significant and unavoidable. Alternative 3 (Historical Resource Preservation)
would provide denser residential development, incrementally reducing vehicle miles
traveled and associated air pollutant emissions; therefore, air quality impacts would be
incrementally reduced, but would remain significant and unavoidable. Alternative 4 (50%
On-Site Agriculture/Open Space) would also result in fewer trips and emissions, as a result
of the reduced total number of dwelling units and expected population compared to the
proposed project; however, the significant cumulative air quality impacts would not be
avoided.
2. Significant and Unavoidable Cultural Resources Impacts. The proposed project would
result in significant and unavoidable project-level and cumulative impacts to historic
resources as a result of the removal of the San Luis Ranch Complex. Alternative 1 and
Alternative 3 would not remove the San Luis Ranch Complex; therefore, the project-level and
cumulative impact to historic resources would not occur. Alternative 2 would remove the San
Luis Ranch Complex, but would not relocate, reconstruct, or otherwise preserve or document
the historic San Luis Ranch Complex or its individually historic structures; therefore, impacts
to historic resources would be greater in comparison to the project Alternative 4 would
remove the San Luis Ranch Complex, similar to the proposed project; therefore, the project-
level and cumulative impact to historic resources would remain significant and unavoidable.
3. Significant and Unavoidable Land Use/Policy Consistency Impact. The proposed project
would result in significant and unavoidable land use impacts due to potential inconsistencies
with adopted City policies in the General Plan designed to protect historical resources and
ensure adequate multimodal transportation levels of service. Under Alternative 1, no
development would occur; therefore, the significant and unavoidable land use impact would
be avoided. Alternative 2 would result in a project developed by San Luis Obispo County,
rather than the City, which would not be required to be consistent with the City’s General
Plan, making it impossible for the City to achieve the goals established for this area in the
General Plan, as well as overall General Plan goals related to housing, agricultural protection,
minimizing impacts to creeks, and circulation; therefore, this alternative would result in
greater inconsistencies with the General Plan, and this impact would remain significant and
unavoidable. Alternative 3 would not remove the San Luis Ranch Complex; therefore, this
alternative would not conflict with adopted City policies in the General Plan designed to
protect historical resources; therefore, this alternative would reduce inconsistencies with the
General Plan, but this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Alternative 4 would
dedicate one half of the total project site for agriculture and open space, achieving on-site
consistency with General Plan Land Use Element Policy 8.1.4.f. However, Alternative 4 would
remain potentially inconsistent with General Plan policies designed to protect historical
resources and ensure adequate multimodal transportation levels of service; therefore, impacts
to land use would remain significant and unavoidable.
Packet Pg 328
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
69
4. Significant and Unavoidable Temporary Noise Impacts. The proposed project would cause
temporary noise impacts as a result of construction activity associated with project
development. Under Alternative 1, no development would occur; therefore, the significant
and unavoidable construction noise impact would be avoided. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would
result in a similar level of overall construction activity on the project site, and would therefore
result in similar significant and unavoidable impacts associated with temporary construction
noise.
5. Significant and Unavoidable Transportation Impacts. The proposed project would result in
project-level transportation impacts associated with potentially infeasible transportation
mitigation measures at the Madonna Road & Dalidio Drive and Los Osos Valley Road &
Froom Ranch Way intersections and cumulative transportation impacts along the mainline
segments of U.S. 101 at Los Osos Valley Road and Madonna Road due to increased vehicle
use of these facilities. Under Alternative 1, no development would occur; therefore, the
significant and unavoidable transportation impacts would be avoided. Alternative 2 would
result in an incrementally higher number of vehicle trips to and from the project site;
therefore, this alternative would result in greater transportation impacts that would remain
significant and unavoidable. Alternatives 3 and 4 would incrementally reduce the number of
vehicle trips to and from the project site. However, project-generated vehicle traffic would
still exceed the capacity and LOS thresholds for area intersections and roadways; therefore,
impacts to transportation under these alternatives would remain significant and unavoidable.
D. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE AND FEASIBILITY OF
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
1. Finding: Alternative 1 (No Project, No Development) is environmentally superior overall,
since no development would occur under the City jurisdiction. However, the existing Land
Use Element establishes the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan 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 as well as any of the project objectives. As a
result, the City finds that Alternative 1 would be infeasible to implement.
2. Finding: Alternative 2 (No Project, Measure J Entitlements) would result in increased physical
environmental impacts when compared to the proposed San Luis Ranch Specific Plan. With
a higher density, commercially-focused design, this alternative requires more disturbed area,
resulting in less of the site being retained in agriculture and open space. This alternative
would also require the use of private water from onsite wells and an onsite wastewater
treatment facility. Alternative 2 does not avoid any of the Class I impacts associated with the
proposed project, and would not meet the project objectives to provide infill growth, preserve
agricultural land and open space, create significant entry-level, workforce housing
opportunities, implement a walkable-bikeable neighborhood design, create new commercial
office and hotel opportunities, develop an agricultural heritage facilities & learning center,
establish a link in the Bob Jones Regional Trail, and provide a fair-share financial contribution
toward public circulation improvements. As a result, the City finds that Alternative 2 is not
environmentally superior to the proposed project, and would not satisfy the project
objectives.
Packet Pg 329
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
70
3. Finding: Among the development scenarios, Alternative 3 (Historical Resource Preservation)
would be considered environmentally superior. This alternative is considered
environmentally superior to the proposed San Luis Ranch Specific Plan for each issue except
for aesthetics, agricultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, recreation,
transportation, utilities and service systems, and water resources. Alternative 3 avoids the
Class I impact related to historical resources by avoiding development on the northwest
portion of the project site near Madonna Road, where the San Luis Ranch Complex is located.
However, this alternative would result in greater impacts to transportation, because the
proposed roadway connection through the northwestern portion of the project site near
Madonna Road would not be constructed. This would result in increased traffic loading on
other access roadways into the Specific Plan area, including Froom Ranch Way, Dalidio Drive,
and the proposed Prado Road extension. Alternative 3 would not meet the project objectives
to implement a walkable-bikeable neighborhood design integrated with public transit and
open space amenities and develop an agriculture heritage facilities & learning center.
Alternative 3 would not develop the northwest portion of the project site near Madonna Road,
and without the associated pedestrian and bicycle connections to Madonna Road, would be
inferior to the proposed project in terms of its ability to provide pedestrian and bicycle
connections to off-site amenities, such as Laguna Lake Park, commercial uses in the project
site vicinity, and off-site transit connections, which is a project objective and City priority.
Alternative 3 would not relocate and preserve historically important structures from the San
Luis Ranch Complex, which is a project objective. As a result, the City finds that Alternative
3 would not satisfy the project objectives.
4. Finding: Alternative 4 (50% On-Site Agriculture/Open Space) is environmentally superior to
the proposed Specific Plan because there would be fewer residential units on the site and a
reduced overall site footprint. The impacts from this alternative are similar to the proposed
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan in the areas of biological resources, cultural resources, hazards
and hazardous materials, land use/policy consistency, noise, and recreation. Alternative 4
would not reduce any of the project’s Class I impacts to a level below significance thresholds.
However, Alternative 4 would result in incrementally reduced impacts to several issue areas,
including air quality, GHG emissions, transportation, aesthetics, and agricultural resources.
Alternative 4 would not meet the project objectives to develop infill growth for the City and
create significant entry-level, workforce housing opportunities within the City. Alternative 4
would result in fewer total residential units than the proposed project (536 vs. 580), and with
less housing overall, would be inferior to the proposed project in terms of its ability to provide
infill growth and create a variety of housing types, including affordable housing, which the
City has identified as a priority. Alternative 4 would also provide approximately one-third
less commercial square footage than the project, and would be inferior to the proposed project
in terms of its ability to provide new commercial office opportunities that will compliment
existing businesses in downtown San Luis Obispo, which is a project objective. As a result,
the City finds that Alternative 4 would not satisfy the project objectives.
Packet Pg 330
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
71
SECTION 8. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
A. INTRODUCTION
The Final EIR for the project identifies the following significant and unavoidable impacts of the
project:
1. The project would be inconsistent with the SLOAPCD 2001 Clean Air Plan because it
would result in an increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) that would exceed the rate of
population growth.
2. The project is inconsistent with the 2001 Clean Air Plan, which SLOAPCD guidance states
is a cumulative air quality impact.
3. The project would result in the relocation, demolition, and removal of structures on the
San Luis Ranch property which are individually identified as historic resources. In
addition, the project would eliminate the San Luis Ranch Complex, which is eligible for
listing as a historic resource. Relocation, demolition, and/or removal of these historic
resources would permanently alter the historic context of the project site and on-site
structures.
4. Removal of the San Luis Ranch Complex would contribute to the cumulative loss of
historic resources in the City.
5. The project would be potentially inconsistent with adopted City policies in the General
Plan designed to protect historical resources and ensure adequate multimodal
transportation levels of service.
6. Temporary construction activity would create noise that could exceed City of San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code regulations, and mitigation may not be feasible to reduce the
impact to less than the applicable threshold.
7. Under Existing and Near-Term Plus Project conditions nine study area intersections
would operate at unacceptable automobile, bicycle, or pedestrian LOS based on adopted
multimodal level of service standards during AM and PM peak hours. Mitigation would
reduce impacts at seven of these intersections to an acceptable level. However, impacts at
the Madonna Road & Dalidio Drive and Los Osos Valley Road & Froom Ranch Way
intersections would be significant and unavoidable.
8. Under Existing and Near-Term Plus Project conditions, the volume of traffic at 19 study
area intersections would exceed lane capacities. Mitigation would reduce impacts at 18 of
these intersections to an acceptable level. However, impacts at the Los Osos Valley Road
& Froom Ranch Way intersection would be significant and unavoidable.
9. Under Existing and Near-Term conditions four study area segment groups would operate
at unacceptable automobile, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit LOS based on adopted
multimodal level of service standards during AM and PM peak hours. Mitigation would
reduce impacts at three of these segment groups to an acceptable level. However, impacts
at Higuera Street roadway segments would be significant and unavoidable.
10. Under Cumulative Plus Project conditions nine study area intersections would operate at
unacceptable automobile, bicycle, or pedestrian LOS based on adopted multimodal level
of service standards during AM and PM peak hours. Mitigation would reduce impacts at
seven of these intersections to an acceptable level. However, impacts at the Madonna
Packet Pg 331
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
72
Road & Dalidio Drive and Los Osos Valley Road & Froom Ranch Way intersections would
be significant and unavoidable.
11. Under Cumulative Plus Project conditions, the volume of traffic at 18 study area
intersections would exceed lane capacities. Mitigation would reduce impacts at 17 of these
intersections to an acceptable level. However, impacts at the Madonna Road & Dalidio
Drive and Los Osos Valley Road & Froom Ranch Way intersections would be significant
and unavoidable.
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 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 determined
that none of these alternatives is feasible, environmentally superior, and would satisfy the project
objectives to the same or greater extent as the project.
Alternative 1 would avoid all of the significant impacts of the project, but would not achieve the
City’s objectives for the project and is not considered feasible. Alternative 2 is considered to be
environmentally inferior to the proposed project. Alternative 3 would be environmentally
superior to the project in some aspects, but would result in greater impacts to transportation, and
would not achieve City objectives for the project, including implementing a walkable-bikeable
neighborhood design integrated with public transit and open space amenities and developing an
agriculture heritage facilities & learning center. Alternative 4 is superior to the proposed project
in that it incrementally reduces impacts to air quality, GHG emissions, transportation, aesthetics,
and agricultural resources. However, Alternative 4 is inferior to the proposed project in terms of
its ability to achieve City objectives for the project, including developing infill growth for the City
and creating significant entry-level, workforce housing opportunities within the City.
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 San Luis Ranch Specific Plan will
develop a new residential neighborhood that fulfills a portion of the City’s unmet housing
Packet Pg 332
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
73
needs and that designates sufficient land for neighborhood serving commercial uses to
provide for the convenience of area residents, consistent with Land Use Element Policies 2.3.6,
3.3.1, and 8.1.4.
2. Provision of a Variety of Housing Types for all Income Levels. The San Luis Ranch 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, consistent with General Plan Land Use Element
Goal 2, Affordability.
3. Open Space and Agricultural Protection: Implementation of the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
would preserve approximately 53 acres of the site in agriculture adjacent to the San Luis
Obispo City Farm, including development of the agricultural heritage facilities & learning
center, which would relocate and preserve historically important structures from the San Luis
Ranch Complex and integrate them into an enhanced and inter-connected, working
agricultural setting. The project would also preserve approximately 7.4 acres of the site in
open space.
4. Provision of Park and Recreational Facilities. The San Luis Ranch Specific Plan will provide
a variety of park and recreational facilities for residents of the City, such as parks, trails and
other recreational facilities, and passive recreational opportunities within open space, both by
constructing facilities on site and providing needed funding for enhancement of existing
offsite City park and recreational facilities.
5. Well-Planned Neighborhood Would Reduce Per-Capita Vehicle Trips: The San Luis Ranch
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 San Luis
Ranch Specific Plan encourages the use of bicycles and walking within the Plan Area by
including specific policies and development standards that will result in subdivision and
building designs that facilitate bike use and pedestrian access and incorporating multiple
classes of bike lanes and including bike and pedestrian paths through the parks and open
space areas.
6. Provision of New Jobs: The project would create new construction-related and permanent
jobs in the project area. Planned commercial development would provide jobs in close
proximity to housing, consistent with Community Goal 34 in the General Plan Land Use
Element and Land Use Element Policy 1.5, which states that the gap between housing demand
and supply should not increase.
7. Transient Occupancy Tax: Development of commercial hotel uses would contribute
Transient Occupancy Tax revenues that help fund needed City services.
8. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and the Community Rating System (CRS)
Rating Improvement: The proposed significant dedication of acreage for designated Natural
Beneficial Functions (CRS Activity 420) would improve the City’s point total with the CRS
point system. The City has improved its CRS rating steadily from a Class 10 community to a
Packet Pg 333
12
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
City of San Luis Obispo July 2017
74
Class 6 community. The improvement in class is directly related to a reduction in flood
insurance premiums citywide.
9. Implementation of the General Plan: As required by the City General Plan, the San Luis
Ranch Specific Plan contains policies and standards that will facilitate appropriate
development of land, protection of open space, and provision of adequate public facilities
consistent with the City’s recent LUCE update and the housing and transportation objectives.
Accordingly, the City finds that the project’s adverse, unavoidable environmental impacts are
outweighed by these considerable benefits.
Dated: __________________, 2017
Heidi Harmon
Mayor, City of San Luis Obispo
Packet Pg 334
12
Advisory Body Review Summary and Project Responses
The proposed Specific Plan now includes revisions from the version of the Plan that formed the
basis of the Project Description in the Draft EIR. The revisions are in response to advisory body
input and incorporates EIR mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts. The updated
Plan includes more refined details, including additional environmental protections, provisions
and regulations to reduce environmental impacts identified in the EIR for the Project.
The changes associated with the updated Specific Plan that respond to EIR mitigation measures
are included in Appendix B of the Specific Plan. The most substantial of these address the
following issues:
• Relocation of historical structures
• Construction vehicle access and activities
• Transportation improvements, primarily to City streets
• Agricultural conservation, including offsite mitigation
• Dust control measures
• Biological resource mitigation, including for habitat restoration and tree replacement
• Storm water pollution prevention, and approaches to onsite grading practices
• Noise reduction and mitigation through design
Below, staff has provided a brief summary of the main points discussed in each advisory body
meeting and the resulting main project changes, along with a summary of each meeting:
Planning Commission (PC)
• In order to have a broader mix of densities so there can be a greater variety of product
and affordability, the plan was revised from NG-1 (which encompassed the single family
and small lot areas) to NG 10 and NG 23, which are now separate zones. The NG-23
zone reflects a higher density to allow a variety of very small lot products. The SP
illustrates front and rear yard loaded units, both attached and detached.
• Cul-de-sacs have been avoided to the extent possible. The plan has been revised to have
only 2 cul-de-sacs in the single family, each with a connection to Froom Ranch. There is
one cul-de-sac in the multifamily, with a pedestrian connection to the rest of the project.
• Road and infrastructure phasing and timing specifically the overpass and interchange has
been updated.
The Planning Commission has previously considered the project on eight occasions, once during
the pre-application process, twice to review a preliminary version of the Specific Plan, twice
during the Draft EIR public review period, and three times to consider the project now before the
City Council. On June 7, 2017, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the
City Council certify the Final EIR and approve all project entitlements, included the Vesting
Tentative Tract Map as conditioned. As part of its Resolution, the Planning Commission
recommended additional modifications to the Specific Plan which are included in the City
Packet Pg 335
12
Council Resolution.
Previous Planning Commission meetings, hearings, and workshops are summarized below:
• February 12, 2014. The Planning Commission held a pre-application review of materials
related to the project, providing direction to the project applicant that became the basis
for the August 2015 Draft Specific Plan, which was examined in the EIR for the project.
• February 10, 2016. The Planning Commission received a presentation regarding an
overview of a Specific Plan, and provided conceptual input to the applicant regarding the
first four chapters of the plan, focusing on land use, neighborhood form, agriculture, open
space and parks. No formal action was taken at that time.
• March 23, 2016. The Planning Commission received a presentation regarding an
overview of a Specific Plan, and provided conceptual input to the applicant regarding the
remaining chapters of the plan, focusing on circulation and infrastructure issues. No
formal action was taken at that time.
• January 11, 2017. The Planning Commission held a public workshop on the Draft EIR,
taking public testimony on the document, and providing input for considerati on in the
Final EIR.
• January 25, 2017. The Planning Commission held a second public workshop on the
Draft EIR, taking public testimony on the document, and providing input for
consideration in the Final EIR.
• May 24, 2017. The Planning Commission considered the proposed project and related
entitlements, and took public testimony.
• May 25, 2017. The Planning Commission considered the proposed project and related
entitlements, took further public testimony, and provided input to staff and the applicant
regarding the project. The Commission was primarily focused on the Final EIR, Specific
Plan, and General Plan Amendment.
• June 7, 2017. The Planning Commission considered the proposed project and related
entitlements, primarily focused on the Vesting Tentative Tract Map and related
conditions. After taking further public testimony, the Commission unanimously
recommended that the City Council certify the Final EIR and approve all project
entitlements, included the Vesting Tentative Tract Map as conditioned. As part of the
Resolution, the Planning Commission recommended additional modifications to the
Specific Plan.
Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC)
• The committee preferred the development of a crossing of Highway 101 at Prado Road
even if it is for bicycle only for overall bicycling facility network connectivity. The
Prado Road overcrossing will contain bike paths on both sides of the bridge.
Previous Bicycle Advisory Committee meetings are summarized below:
Packet Pg 336
12
• November 19, 2015. The BAC reviewed a preliminary version of the Specific Plan, and
provided comments on the bicycle planning provisions included in the document.
• January 19, 2017. The BAC provided comments on the updated bicycle planning
aspects of the Specific Plan that responded to previous input received in November
2015. The BAC conceptually concurred with the Specific Plan as presented. This
review occurred during the public comment period of the Draft EIR, but the BAC did
not have any substantive comment that related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis.
Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC)
• In order to incorporate additional passive recreational opportunities (i.e. trails) on-site,
the site contains a 6’ wide trail that follows the San Luis Channel and Perfumo Creek. It
winds through sections of preserved area for monarch butterflies.
• The Specific Plan has been revised from a Park/Open Space zoning designation to just
Open Space. As a result, the Open Space area will have a less manicured and more
natural look and feel.
The previous Parks and Recreation Commission meeting is summarized below:
• February 3, 2016. The PRC reviewed the proposed parks and recreation components of
the draft Specific Plan, and provided comments on these aspects of the project. As a
result of this review, the Specific Plan was modified to more clearly differentiate and
describe the various park facilities included in the project. The PRC also determined
that any shortfall in required onsite parks acreage would be most effectively addressed
through payment of in-lieu fees, which could be applied to areas that might more
appropriately serve the greater community.
Cultural Heritage Committee
• The conceptual Agricultural Heritage Center site plan revised to more accurately convey
the number and location of buildings.
• The updated plan provides more detail with regards to the relocation and rehabilitation
of historic structures.
• Three major buildings will be preserved through relocation and rehabilitation, not two as
originally proposed. Following CHC comments on the Draft EIR, the plan was revised
to include the preservation of the Main Barn, which was one of the individually
significant buildings in the historic complex.
January 23, 2017. The CHC conducted a public hearing to review the cultural resource
evaluation in the Draft EIR. The hearing provided an opportunity for members of the Committee
and the public to receive a summary presentation of the project as well as the major findings of
Packet Pg 337
12
the Draft EIR related to cultural and historical resources. As a result of CHC input, and b ecause
the project already proposed to construct a new barn in the project’s proposed Agricultural Heritage
and Learning Center using salvageable materials from the historically significant main barn,
Mitigation Measure CR-1(a) was modified for the Final EIR to incorporate the main barn.
May 15, 2017. The CHC considered the applicant’s revised and updated approach to addressing
impacts to the historic San Luis Ranch complex, based on previous CHC input and direction from
the Final EIR. The CHC found the project consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation
Ordinance and historic preservation policies of the General Plan.
Architectural Review Commission (ARC)
• Revisions to design guidelines based on Commission input have been made to address
internal inconsistencies, clarify design standards, provide better illustrations, and make
the document more user-friendly.
November 16, 2015. The Draft Specific Plan Guidelines (Chapter 3 of the Specific Plan) were
reviewed by the ARC. At that time, the ARC provided the applicant direction on the structure
and content of the design guidelines, architectural styles, and neighborhood form.
May 1, 2017. The applicant team addressed ARC concerns raised in November 2015 in an
updated version of the Design Guidelines. ARC provided additional comments to ensure internal
consistency of the text and photographic examples provided, as well as other key direction to
improve the long-term utility of the Design Guidelines. The applicant team is revising the
document, which is Chapter 3 of the Specific Plan, to address these concerns. This chapter will
be conceptually considered at an ARC workshop on May 22, then again on June 5 , when it will
make a formal recommendation on this information to the City Council.
May 22, 2017. The applicant team conceptually addressed ARC concerns raised on May 1, and
took further input from the ARC in a workshop format.
June 5, 2017. The ARC reviewed the revised Design Guidelines, which incorporated input
received at previous meetings. The ARC unanimously recommended approval of the project
Design Guidelines (Chapter 3 of the Specific Plan) to the City Council.
Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) (to ensure consistency with safety, density, overflight,
and noise policies):
• Delineation of 200’ no build zone affecting commercial areas
• A change of approximately 3 acres of residential NG-23 zoning to General Commercial
• 27 units removed from Sb-1 zone with 8 units relocated to the S-2 zone
• ALUC findings of consistency have been incorporated into Appendix C of the Specific
Plan
February 15, 2017. The ALUC continued the consideration of the item to its March 29, 2017
meeting, in order to allow the applicant to update the airport safety provisions of the Specific
Plan to achieve consistency with the ALUP.
March 29, 2017. The ALUC reviewed the project as updated, and provided additional direction
to the applicant to address potential ALUP inconsistency issues.
Packet Pg 338
12
April 19, 2017. The ALUC reviewed the project, and determined that the project was consistent
with the ALUP, with conditions related to relocating 27 dwelling units that would have
otherwise been in a more restrictive airport safety zone, and by requiring a portion of the
designated commercial area be restricted from having developed structures). The applicant
subsequently updated the Specific Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract map to address these
changes, which is the version of the project currently being considered by the City Council.
These changes did not affect the analysis or conclusions of the Final EIR.
Packet Pg 339
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This section summarizes the characteristics of the proposed San Luis Ranch Project, alternatives
to the project, as well as environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and residual impacts
associated with the project.
PROJECT SYNOPSIS
Lead Agency
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Contact:
Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
John Rickenbach, AICP, Project Manager
Project Proponent
Coastal Community Builders
c/o Marshall Ochylski (Project Representative)
979 Osos, Suite F7
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
P.O. Box 13
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
Project Description
The San Luis Ranch Project consists of a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment/Pre-Zoning,
and Development Plan/Vesting Tentative Tract Map for a 131-acre project site, including
annexation of the site into the City of San Luis Obispo. It would also address a Development
Agreement/Memorandum of Understanding, which provides a mechanism for project
implementation. The project is intended to be consistent with the development parameters
described in the City’s Land Use and Circulation Element (adopted in December 2014). The
project includes construction of up to 580 residential units, 150,000 square feet of commercial
development, 100,000 square feet of office development, and a 200-room hotel, with a portion of
the site preserved for agriculture and open space uses. The project is planned to be constructed
in six phases, beginning in 2017.
The specific location and characteristics of the project are described in greater detail in Section
2.0, Project Description.
ALTERNATIVES
As required by Section 15126(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, this EIR examines a range of
reasonable alternatives to the project that could feasibly achieve similar objectives. This
includes the following four alternatives:
Packet Pg 340
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-2
• Alternative 1: No Project, No Development
• Alternative 2: No Project, Measure J Entitlements
• Alternative 3: Historical Resource Preservation
• Alternative 4: 50% On-Site Agriculture/Open Space
Alternative 1 assumes that the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan is not adopted, that none of the
proposed entitlements are implemented, including annexation to the City, and that no further
development would occur on the project site.
Alternative 2 also assumes that the Specific Plan is not adopted and that none of the proposed
entitlements are implemented, including annexation to the City. However, this alternative
represents a project that would be processed by San Luis Obispo County, and considers what
would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future based on current plans and
consistency with available infrastructure and community services. There are existing
entitlements on the project site for development in the County from the voter-approved
initiative known as “Measure J,” which include 60 multi-family dwelling units, 560,000 square
feet of regional commercial and outdoor sales areas, 198,000 square feet of office space, a 150-
room hotel and ancillary facilities. Because the Measure J entitlements would leave the project
site under the jurisdiction of the County, but surrounded entirely by the City limit, these
entitlements would also require the use of private water from onsite wells and an onsite
wastewater treatment facility. Since this alternative (Alternative 2) assumes that the project site
would be developed under an existing entitlement, this alternative would not require
environmental review under CEQA.
Alternative 3 would preserve the San Luis Ranch Complex, as well as associated eucalyptus
trees, located in the northwest portion of the project site would be retained, and assumes that
the proposed multi-family residential development would be relocated and integrated into the
proposed single-family residential development area on the central portion of the project site.
By preserving the San Luis Ranch Complex, this alternative would avoid the project’s
significant and unavoidable impact to historic resources. In addition, this alternative would
also reduce other potential environmental impacts to air quality, GHG emissions, noise,
biological resources, land use/policy consistency, and hydrology and water quality, while
resulting in slightly increased impacts to transportation.
Alternative 4 would retain 50 percent of the net site acreage as on-site agricultural and open
space uses to be consistent on-site with the City’s General Plan Land Use Element Policy 8.1.4.f.
This alternative would retain the portion of land designated for commercial uses (NC)
southeast of Froom Ranch Way and southwest of Prado Road in agriculture. This alternative
would reduce the portion of the site available for residential and commercial development on
the project site.
The No Project, No Development Alternative (Alternative 1) would have the fewest
environmental impacts. However, since this is a “No Project” alternative, CEQA requires that a
separate alternative also be identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Because
Alternative 3 would avoid the significant and unavoidable impact to historic resources
identified for the project, as well as reducing other potential environmental effects due to the
preservation of the eucalyptus grove in the northwest portion of the project site along Madonna
Road, and due to the reduced overall development footprint this alternative is identified as the
environmentally superior alternative over other alternatives.
Packet Pg 341
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-3
The complete alternatives analysis is included in Section 6.0, Alternatives.
AREAS OF CONCERN
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15123(b)(2), this EIR acknowledges the areas of
controversy and issues to be resolved which are known to the City of San Luis Obispo or were
raised during the scoping process. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was prepared and circulated
for a 30-day public review period that began on October 26, 2015 and ended November 24,
2015. Several comment letters from public agencies and members of the public were received in
response to the NOP. The NOP and Initial Study, and NOP comment letters are included in
Appendix A of this EIR.
Primary environmental areas of concern raised by the commenting agencies and public include:
AREA OF CONCERN EIR SECTION
Access to U.S. Highway 101 Section 4.12: Transportation
Drainage characteristics, hydrology, flooding, and other impacts
associated with the area floodplain
Section 4.8: Hydrology and Water
Quality
Aviation Safety and airport/aviation hazards Section 4.7: Hazards,
Section 4.9: Land Use/Policy
Consistency
Construction equipment regulation and permit requirements associated
with air pollution emissions
Section 4.3: Air Quality
Existing structure demolition and potential to encounter asbestos
containing materials
Section 4.7: Hazards
Naturally occurring asbestos exposure Section 4.3: Air Quality
Operational permit requirements associated with air pollutant emissions Section 4.3: Air Quality
Long-term and short-term air quality impacts Section 4.3: Air Quality
Impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions Section 4.6: Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Alternatives to the project Section 6.0: Alternatives
Routing plans relative to access to site and nearby land uses Section 4.12: Transportation
Residential displacement Section 4.9: Land Use/Policy
Consistency,
Section 4.14: Issues Addressed in
the Initial Study
FINAL EIR ERRATA
In accordance with Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines, Draft EIR was circulated for a
52-day public review period that began December 9, 2016 and concluded on January 31, 2017.
Each written and verbal comment that the City received is included in Section 8.0, Responses to
Comments. Responses to these comments have been prepared to address the environmental
concerns raised by the commenters and to indicate where and how the Draft EIR addresses
pertinent environmental issues. The Draft EIR and responses to comments collectively comprise
the Final EIR for the project.
The responses to comments summarize the comment and direct the commenter to the section of
the Draft EIR that addresses their comment. In some cases, revisions have been made to the
Packet Pg 342
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-4
Draft EIR to clarify information, data, or intent, or to make minor typographical corrections or
minor working changes. Any changes made to the text of the Draft EIR to are noted in the Final
EIR as changes from the Draft EIR. Where a comment results in a change to the Draft EIR text, a
notation is made in the response indicating that the text is revised. Changes in the Draft EIR
text are signified by strikeouts where text is removed and by underline font where text is
added. If text is added where the font is already bold or underlined, additions are noted using
underlined bold font. Mitigation measures in the Draft EIR that were revised as part of the
responses to comments are listed below. Revisions to these mitigation measures are also shown
in Table ES-1, applicable sections of the Draft EIR, and in Section 8.0, Responses to Comments.
• AG-1. Agricultural Conservation.
• AQ-2(a). Fugitive Dust Control Measures.
• AQ-2(b). Standard Control Measures for Construction Equipment.
• AQ-2(e). Construction Activity Management Plan.
• AQ-3(a). Standard Operational Mitigation Measures.
• BIO-1(e). Steelhead Impact Avoidance and Minimization.
• BIO-1(f). Great Blue Heron and Monarch Butterfly Impact Avoidance and Minimization.
• BIO-2(b). Tree Replacement.
• CR-1(a). Historical Structure Relocation and Reconstruction Plan.
• HAZ-5(a). Groundwater Assessment for Contamination at Untested Wells.
• HAZ-5(b). Groundwater Remediation.
• HWQ-3(a). Stormwater Quality Treatment Controls.
• N-4(b). Parking Lot/Loading Dock Orientation and Noise Barrier.
• N-5(a). Interior Noise Reduction.
• N-5(c). Froom Ranch Way Noise Barrier.
• N-5(d). U.S. Highway 101 Noise Barrier at Hotel.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Tables ES-1 through ES-3 provide a summary of the potential environmental impacts of the
project. The mitigation measures associated with each impact, which are to be implemented in
order to reduce the environmental impacts to the maximum extent feasible, are also
summarized therein. In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, the tables identify the
following types of potential impacts associated with the project:
Packet Pg 343
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-5
• Class I, Significant and Unavoidable: An impact that cannot be reduced to below the
threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an
impact requires a ‘Statement of Overriding Considerations’ to be issued if the project is
approved per §15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
• Class II, Significant but Mitigable: An impact that can be reduced to below the threshold
level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact
requires ‘Findings’ to be made under §15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
• Class III, Not Significant: An impact that may be adverse, but does not exceed the
threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation
measures that could further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily
available and easily achievable.
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The project would result in twelve significant and unavoidable (Class I) impacts. Issue areas
with Class I impacts include air quality (Clean Air Plan consistency and cumulative air quality
impacts), cultural resources (historic resources and cumulative historic resources), land
use/policy consistency (General Plan policy consistency), noise (construction noise), and
transportation (existing and near-term intersection operations, existing and near-term lane
capacities, existing and near-term segment operations, cumulative intersection operations,
cumulative lane capacities, and cumulative segment operations).
Packet Pg 344
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-6
Table ES-1
Class I, Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
AIR QUALITY
Impact AQ-1. The project would
be inconsistent with the
SLOAPCD 2001 Clean Air Plan
because it would result in an
increase in vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) that would
exceed the rate of population
growth. This impact would be
Class I, significant and
unavoidable.
AQ-1. Encourage Telecommuting. The project applicant or developers of
individual projects within the Specific Plan Area shall include provisions to
encourage employers within the proposed commercial, office, and hotel
components of the project to implement telecommuting programs and include
teleconferencing capabilities, such as web cams or satellite linkage, which will allow
employees to attend meetings remotely without requiring them to travel out of the
area.
Mitigation is not available that
would reduce projected VMT such
that the project’s vehicle trip rate
increase would not exceed
population growth in the region.
Therefore, impacts related to
consistency with the 2001 CAP
would remain significant and
unavoidable.
Cumulative Air Quality
Impacts. The project is
inconsistent with the 2001 CAP
and would exceed SLOAPCD
construction and operational
thresholds. As such, cumulative
impacts on air quality would be
Class I, significant and
unavoidable.
No additional mitigation is available to address cumulative air quality impacts. Cumulative air quality impacts
would remain significant and
unavoidable.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact CR-1. The project would
result in the relocation,
demolition, and removal of
structures on the San Luis
Ranch property which are
individually identified as historic
resources. In addition, the
project would eliminate the San
Luis Ranch Complex, which is
eligible for listing as a historic
resource. Relocation,
demolition, and/or removal of
these historic resources would
permanently alter the historic
context of the project site and
on-site structures. This impact
CR-1(a). Historical Structure Relocation and Reconstruction Plan. In order to
implement Specific Plan Policy 2.5, a relocation and reconstruction plan for the
former spectator’s barn/viewing stand, and main residence, and main barn shall be
developed by a qualified historic architect. The plan shall include a
structural/architectural report documenting existing integrity and conditions and
include detailed treatment methods and measures to ensure that historic integrity is
retained and that all identified character defining features will be preserved.
CR-1(b). Archival Documentation of Historic Buildings. The applicant shall
provide archival documentation of the San Luis Ranch Complex in as-built and as-
found condition in the form of an Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Level II
documentation. The documentation shall comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation (NPS 1990), and shall
include large-format photographic recordation, detailed historic narrative report, and
compilation of historic research. The documentation shall be completed by a
qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s
The removal and/or demolition of
the historically significant main barn
and the relocation, demolition, and
removal of other structures in the
San Luis Ranch Complex would
change the historic context of the
San Luis Ranch property.
Furthermore, mitigation would not
avoid the removal of the main barn,
despite the proposed reuse of
salvageable materials from the
structure to the greatest extent
possible in the construction of a
new barn in the project’s proposed
Agricultural Heritage and Learning
Center. Therefore, the potential
Packet Pg 345
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-7
Table ES-1
Class I, Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
would be Class I, significant and
unavoidable.
Professional Qualification Standards for History and/or Architectural History (NPS
1983). The original archival-quality documentation shall be offered as donated
material to the History Center of San Luis Obispo County. Archival copies of the
documentation shall also be submitted to the San Luis Obispo County Library.
CR-1(c). Informational Display of Historic Resources. A retrospective interpretive
display detailing the history of the San Luis Ranch Complex and the project site, its
significance, and its important details and features shall be developed by the
applicant. The information should be incorporated into a publicly-accessed building
on the project site, such as the proposed Agricultural Heritage Facilities and
Learning Center, or a publicly-accessed outdoor location. The display shall include
images and details from the HABS documentation described in Mitigation Measure
CR-1(b) and any collected research pertaining to the historic property. The content
shall be prepared by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for History and/or
Architectural History (NPS 1983).
impact to the San Luis Ranch
Complex and the main barn
individually would remain significant
and unavoidable despite
implementation of the required
mitigation.
Cumulative Cultural
Resources Impacts. The
project would result in a
significant and unavoidable
impact associated with the
removal, relocation, or
reconstruction of individually
historic structures that are part
of the historically significant San
Luis Ranch Complex. As such,
the project would contribute to
the cumulative loss of historic
resources in the City. Therefore,
the project would result in a
Class I, significant and
unavoidable, cumulative impact
to historical resources.
No additional mitigation is available to address cumulative cultural resources
impacts.
Cumulative cultural resources
impacts would remain significant
and unavoidable.
LAND USE
Impact LU-1. The project would
be potentially inconsistent with
adopted City policies in the
General Plan designed to
The following Mitigation Measures would apply to this impact:
• Section 4.1, Aesthetics: AES-1(a) and AES-1(b)
• Section 4.2, Agricultural Resources: AG-1, AG-3
• Section 4.4, Biological Resources: BIO-1(a) through BIO-1(h) and BIO-2(a)
Specific Plan conflicts with Land
Use Element Policy 1.10.4 (Design
Standards), Land Use Element
Policy 8.1.4 (SP-2, San Luis Ranch
Packet Pg 346
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-8
Table ES-1
Class I, Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
protect historical resources, and
ensure provision of parkland.
This would be a Class I,
significant and unavoidable,
impact.
through BIO-2(c)
• Section 4.5, Cultural Resources: CR-1(a) through CR-1(c)
• Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials: HAZ-4, HAZ-5(a), HAZ-5(b),
HAZ-6
• Section 4.10, Noise: N-1(a) through N-1(g), N-4(a), N-4(b), N-5(a) through N-
5(d)
• Section 4.12, Transportation and Circulation: T-1(a) through T-1(i), T-2(a)
through T-2(j), T-3(a) through T-3(d), T-4, T-5, T-6, T-7, T-8(a) through T-8(g),
T-9(a) through T-9(m), T-10(a) through T-10(c)
• Section 4.14, Issues Addressed in the Initial Study: GEO-1, GEO-3
(Dalidio) Specific Plan Area), and
Conservation and Open Space
Element Policy 3.3.2 (Demolitions)
would remain potentially
inconsistent. The City
acknowledges the importance and
breadth of the potential
inconsistencies associated with the
Specific Plan by finding them to be
Class I, significant and unavoidable
impacts.
NOISE
Impact N-1. Temporary
construction activity would
create noise that could exceed
City of San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code regulations.
Mitigation is available to address
construction noise, but it may
not be feasible to reduce the
impact to less than the
applicable threshold. Impacts
would be Class I, significant and
unavoidable.
N-1(a). Construction Vehicle Travel Route. Construction vehicles and haul trucks
shall utilize roadways which avoid residential neighborhoods and sensitive
receptors where possible. The applicant shall submit a proposed construction
vehicle and hauling route for City review and approval prior to grading/building
permit issuance. The approved construction vehicle and hauling route shall be used
for soil hauling trips prior to construction as well as for the duration of construction.
N-1(b). Construction Activity Timing. Except for emergency repair of public
service utilities, or where an exception is issued by the Community Development
Department, no operation of tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair,
alteration, or demolition work shall occur daily between the hours of 7:00 PM and
7:00 AM, or any time on Sundays, holidays, or after sunset, such that the sound
creates a noise disturbance that exceeds 75 dBA for single family residential, 80
dBA for multi-family residential, and 85 dBA for mixed residential/commercial land
uses across a residential or commercial property line.
N-1(c). Construction Equipment Best Management Practices (BMPs). For all
construction activity at the project site, noise attenuation techniques shall be
employed to ensure that noise levels are maintained within levels allowed by the
City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Title 9, Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control). Such
techniques shall include:
• Sound blankets on noise-generating equipment.
• Stationary construction equipment that generates noise levels above 65 dBA at
the project boundaries shall be shielded with barriers that meet a sound
transmission class (a rating of how well noise barriers attenuate sound) of 25.
• All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be
Mitigation Measures N-1(a) through
N-1(g) require implementation of
noise reduction devices and
techniques during construction, and
would reduce noise associated with
on- and off-site construction activity
to the maximum extent feasible.
Noise from trucks can reach up to
88 dBA at 50 feet from the source.
Although Mitigation Measure N-1(a)
would reduce impacts from haul
trucks by requiring the haul route to
avoid residential areas and noise
sensitive uses where possible, haul
truck noise would continue to
exceed the 75 dBA threshold for
intermittent noise. Therefore, noise
impacts from haul trucks would be
minimized, but not eliminated. As a
result, temporary noise impacts
associated with off-site construction
activity would be significant and
unavoidable.
Packet Pg 347
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-9
Table ES-1
Class I, Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
equipped with factory-recommended mufflers.
• For stationary equipment, the applicant shall designate equipment areas with
appropriate acoustic shielding on building and grading plans. Equipment and
shielding shall be installed prior to construction and remain in the designated
location throughout construction activities.
• Electrical power shall be used to power air compressors and similar power
tools.
• The movement of construction-related vehicles, with the exception of
passenger vehicles, along roadways adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be
limited to the hours between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday.
No movement of heavy equipment shall occur on Sundays or official holidays
(e.g., Thanksgiving, Labor Day).
• Temporary sound barriers shall be constructed between construction sites and
affected uses.
TRANSPORTATION
Impact T-1. Under Existing and
Near-Term Plus Project
conditions nine study area
intersections would operate at
unacceptable automobile,
bicycle, or pedestrian LOS
based on adopted multimodal
level of service standards during
AM and PM peak hours.
Mitigation would reduce impacts
at seven of these intersections
to an acceptable level. However,
impacts at the Madonna Road &
Dalidio Drive and Los Osos
Valley Road & Froom Ranch
Way intersections would be
Class I, significant and
unavoidable.
T-1(a) Intersection #1: Madonna Road & Los Osos Valley Road.
• City optimize signal timing to accommodate increased project volumes
(ongoing)
T-1(b) Intersection #3: Madonna Road & Dalidio Drive/Prado Road.
• Extend existing westbound left turn lane on Madonna Road to Dalidio
Drive/Prado Road to 310’ (Phase 1)
• Install 2nd westbound 310’ left turn lane on Madonna Road to Dalidio
Drive/Prado Road (Phase 1)
• Install eastbound 250’ right turn pocket on Madonna Road to Dalidio
Drive/Prado Road (Phase 1)
• Install 2nd northbound left shared with through-lane on Prado Road/Dalidio
Drive to Madonna Road (Phase 1)
• Prohibit westbound U-turns on Madonna Road (Phase 1)
• Provide split phase operations & optimize signal timing (Phase 1)
T-1(c) Intersection #5: Madonna Road & U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps.
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass-Only, Phase 2)
T-1(d) Intersection #8: Higuera Street & South Street.
• Optimize Signal Timing
Potential right-of-way constraints at
Madonna Road & Dalidio Drive and
Los Osos Valley Road & Froom
Ranch Way may reduce the
feasibility of mitigation at these
intersections. Accordingly, some of
the potential impacts associated
with multimodal level of service
standards identified for Existing and
Near-Term Plus Project conditions
may not be feasibly mitigated to a
less than significant level. As a
result, impacts associated with
multimodal level of service
standards at these intersections
under Existing and Near-Term Plus
Project conditions would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Implementation of mitigation
measures that require off-site
improvements would generally not
result in significant residual
Packet Pg 348
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-10
Table ES-1
Class I, Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
T-1(e) Intersection #9: Los Osos Valley Road & Froom Ranch Way.
• Install dedicated 230’ right turn lane on Los Osos Valley Road northbound
Froom Ranch Way approach to northbound Froom Ranch Way Los Osos
Valley Road (with Froom Ranch Way bridge construction)
• Extend right turn lane on Los Osos Valley Road southbound Froom Ranch Way
approach to southbound Froom Ranch Way Los Osos Valley Road to 110’
(with Froom Ranch Way bridge construction)
• Install 2nd southbound left turn lane on Froom Ranch Way approach to
eastbound Los Osos Valley Road (with Froom Ranch Way bridge construction)
T-1(f) Intersection #10: Los Osos Valley Road & Auto Park Way.
• Signalization (Phase 1)
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass Only, Phase 2)
T-1(g) Intersection #16: S. Higuera Street & Tank Farm Road.
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass Only Phase 2)
• Extend northbound right turn pocket to 230’ and channelize movement (Phase
1)
T-1(h) Intersection #21: Prado Road/Dalidio Drive & Froom Ranch Way.
• Install multilane roundabout control (when connection is constructed)
T-1(i) Intersection #25: Prado Road/Dalidio Drive & SC Project Driveway.
• Install multilane roundabout control or restricted access (when connection is
constructed)
impacts, as these improvements
would occur within existing roadway
rights-of-way, or within urbanized
paved/landscaped areas
immediately adjacent to existing
roadway rights-of-way. The primary
exception to this is the Prado
Road/U.S 101
overpass/interchange. During
construction of the overpass,
northbound ramps, and southbound
ramps, potential issue areas that
may be temporarily affected would
include air quality, cultural
resources, hazards and hazardous
materials, water quality, noise and
transportation. Construction-related
environmental impacts would be
mitigated through compliance with
City and Caltrans permitting and
construction monitoring
requirements and standard
SLOAPCD dust and diesel
emission control measures. Long-
term impacts of the Prado
Road/U.S. 101
overpass/interchange would include
potential obstruction of scenic
views, loss of prime agricultural
land west of U.S. 101, and land use
impacts associated with acquisition
of additional right-of-way.
Impact T-2. Under Existing and
Near-Term Plus Project
conditions, the volume of traffic
at 19 study area intersections
would exceed lane capacities.
Mitigation would reduce impacts
at 18 of these intersections to an
T-2(a) Intersection #1: Madonna Road & Los Osos Valley Road.
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass Only, Phase 2)
T-2(b) Intersection #2: Madonna Road & Oceanaire Drive.
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass Only, Phase 2)
T-2(c) Intersection #5: Madonna Road & U.S. 101 S.B Ramps.
Potential right-of-way constraints at
Los Osos Valley Road & Froom
Ranch Way may reduce the
feasibility of mitigation at this
intersection. Accordingly, some of
the potential impacts associated
with lane capacities identified for
Packet Pg 349
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-11
Table ES-1
Class I, Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
acceptable level. However,
impacts at the Los Osos Valley
Road & Froom Ranch Way
intersection would be Class I,
significant and unavoidable.
• Extend northbound Madonna Road left turn lane to 150’ (Phase 1)
T-2(d) Intersection #6: Madonna Road & U.S. 101 Northbound Ramps.
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass Only, Phase 2)
T-2(e) Intersection #7: Madonna Road & Higuera Street.
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass Plus U.S. 101 northbound ramps,
Phase 2)
T-2(f) Intersection #9: Los Osos Valley Road & Froom Ranch Way.
• Install dedicated 230’ right turn lane on Los Osos Valley Road approach to
northbound Froom Ranch Way (with Froom Ranch Way bridge construction)
• Extend right turn lane on Los Osos Valley Road approach to southbound
Froom Ranch Way to 110’ (with Froom Ranch Way Bridge construction)
• Install 2nd southbound left turn lane on Froom Ranch Way approach to
eastbound Los Osos Valley Road (with Froom Ranch Way bridge construction)
T-2(g) Intersection #12: Los Osos Valley Road & U.S. 101 Southbound
Ramps.
• Extend off-ramp left turn pocket to 320’ (Phase 1)
T-2(h) Intersection #13: Los Osos Valley Road & U.S. 101 Northbound
Ramps.
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass Only, Phase 2)
T-2(i) Intersection #14: Los Osos Valley Road & Higuera Street.
• Extend eastbound right turn lane to 180’ (Phase 1)
T-2(j) Intersection #18: Prado Road & Higuera Street.
• Install 2nd U.S. 101 northbound left turn lane (Phase 1)
• Extend westbound right turn pocket to 400’ (Phase 1)
Existing and Near-Term Plus
Project conditions may not be
feasibly mitigated to a less than
significant level. As a result,
impacts to lane capacities at this
intersection under Existing and
Near-Term Plus Project conditions
would remain significant and
unavoidable.
Implementation of mitigation
measures that require off-site
improvements would generally not
result in significant residual
impacts, as these improvements
would occur within existing roadway
rights-of-way, or within urbanized
paved/landscaped areas
immediately adjacent to existing
roadway rights-of-way. The primary
exception to this is the Prado
Road/U.S 101
overpass/interchange. During
construction of the overpass,
northbound ramps, and southbound
ramps, potential issue areas that
may be temporarily affected would
include air quality, cultural
resources, hazards and hazardous
materials, water quality, noise and
transportation. Construction-related
environmental impacts would be
mitigated through compliance with
City and Caltrans permitting and
construction monitoring
requirements and standard
SLOAPCD dust and diesel
emission control measures. Long-
term impacts of the Prado
Road/U.S. 101
Packet Pg 350
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-12
Table ES-1
Class I, Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
overpass/interchange would include
potential obstruction of scenic
views, loss of prime agricultural
land west of U.S. 101, and land use
impacts associated with acquisition
of additional right-of-way.
Impact T-3. Under Existing and
Near-Term conditions four study
area segment groups would
operate at unacceptable
automobile, bicycle, pedestrian,
and transit LOS based on
adopted multimodal level of
service standards during AM
and PM peak hours. Mitigation
would reduce impacts at three of
these segment groups to an
acceptable level. However,
impacts at Higuera Street
roadway segments would be
Class I, significant and
unavoidable
T-3(a) Segments #1 - #6: Madonna Road (Los Osos Valley Road to Higuera
Street)
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass Only, Phase 2)
• Fund assessment of decreasing transit headways to 25 min
• Construct parallel Class I multiuse paths or bike boulevard (Phase 1)
T-3(b) Segments #7 - #8: Higuera Street (Madonna Road to Prado Road)
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass and U.S. 101 northbound ramps,
Phase 2)
• Construct parallel Class I multiuse paths or bike boulevard (Phase 1)
T-3(c) Segments #13 - #17: Los Osos Valley Road (Madonna Road to
Higuera Street)
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass and U.S. 101 northbound ramps,
Phase 2)
• Construct parallel Class I multiuse paths or bike boulevard (Phase 3)
T-3(d) Segments #18 - #20: Dalidio Drive/Prado Road (Froom Ranch Way to
Higuera Street)
• Construct parallel Class I multiuse paths or bike boulevard (when Prado Road
is constructed/improved)
Implementation of the identified
mitigation measures would improve
LOS at all impacted study area
roadway segments to acceptable
levels, and impacts on these
facilities under Existing and Near-
Term Plus Project conditions would
be less than significant after
mitigation. However, potential right-
of-way constraints along Higuera
Street (Segments #7 and #8) may
reduce the feasibility of mitigation
along these segments. Accordingly,
some of the potential impacts
associated with multimodal level of
service standards identified for
Existing and Near-Term Plus
Project conditions may not be
feasibly mitigated to a less than
significant level. As a result,
impacts associated with multimodal
level of service standards at these
roadway segments under Existing
and Near-Term Plus Project
conditions would remain significant
and unavoidable.
Implementation of mitigation
measures that require off-site
improvements would generally not
result in significant residual
impacts, as these improvements
would occur within existing roadway
Packet Pg 351
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-13
Table ES-1
Class I, Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
rights-of-way, or within urbanized
paved/landscaped areas
immediately adjacent to existing
roadway rights-of-way. The primary
exception to this is the Prado
Road/U.S 101
overpass/interchange. During
construction of the overpass,
northbound ramps, and southbound
ramps, potential issue areas that
may be temporarily affected would
include air quality, cultural
resources, hazards and hazardous
materials, water quality, noise and
transportation. Construction-related
environmental impacts would be
mitigated through compliance with
City and Caltrans permitting and
construction monitoring
requirements and standard
SLOAPCD dust and diesel
emission control measures. Long-
term impacts of the Prado
Road/U.S. 101
overpass/interchange would include
potential obstruction of scenic
views, loss of prime agricultural
land west of U.S. 101, and land use
impacts associated with acquisition
of additional right-of-way.
Impact T-8. Under Cumulative
Plus Project conditions nine
study area intersections would
operate at unacceptable
automobile, bicycle, or
pedestrian LOS based on
adopted multimodal level of
service standards during AM
and PM peak hours. Mitigation
T-8(a). Intersection #3: Madonna Road & Dalidio Drive/Prado Road.
• Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measure T-1[b])
T-8(b). Intersection #9: Los Osos Valley Road & Froom Ranch Way.
• Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measure T-
1[e]/Mitigation Measure T-2[f])
T-8(c). Intersection #10: Los Osos Valley Road & Auto Park Way.
• Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measure T-1[f])
Potential right-of-way constraints at
Madonna Road & Dalidio Drive and
Los Osos Valley Road & Froom
Ranch Way may reduce the
feasibility of mitigation at these
intersections. Accordingly, some of
the potential impacts associated
with multimodal level of service
standards identified for Cumulative
Packet Pg 352
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-14
Table ES-1
Class I, Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
would reduce impacts at seven
of these intersections to an
acceptable level. However,
impacts at the Madonna Road &
Dalidio Drive and Los Osos
Valley Road & Froom Ranch
Way intersections would be
Class I, significant and
unavoidable.
T-8(d). Intersection #12: Los Osos Valley Road & U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps.
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and
southbound ramps)
T-8(e). Intersection #13: Los Osos Valley Road & U.S. 101 Northbound Ramps.
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and
southbound ramps)
T-8(f). Intersection #14: Los Osos Valley Road & S. Higuera Street.
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and
southbound ramps)
T-8(g). Intersection #16: S. Higuera Street & Tank Farm Road.
• Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measure T-1[f])
Plus Project conditions may not be
feasibly mitigated to a less than
significant level. As a result,
impacts associated with multimodal
level of service standards at these
intersections under Cumulative
Plus Project conditions would
remain significant and unavoidable.
Implementation of mitigation
measures that require off-site
improvements would generally not
result in significant residual
impacts, as these improvements
would occur within existing roadway
rights-of-way, or within urbanized
paved/landscaped areas
immediately adjacent to existing
roadway rights-of-way. The primary
exception to this is the Prado
Road/U.S 101
overpass/interchange. During
construction of the overpass,
northbound ramps, and southbound
ramps, potential issue areas that
may be temporarily affected would
include air quality, cultural
resources, hazards and hazardous
materials, water quality, noise and
transportation. Construction-related
environmental impacts would be
mitigated through compliance with
City and Caltrans permitting and
construction monitoring
requirements and standard
SLOAPCD dust and diesel
emission control measures. Long-
term impacts of the Prado
Road/U.S. 101
overpass/interchange would include
Packet Pg 353
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-15
Table ES-1
Class I, Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
potential obstruction of scenic
views, loss of prime agricultural
land west of U.S. 101, and land use
impacts associated with acquisition
of additional right-of-way.
Impact T-9. Under Cumulative
Plus Project conditions, the
volume of traffic at 18 study area
intersections would exceed lane
capacities. Mitigation would
reduce impacts at 18 of these
intersections to an acceptable
level. Mitigation would reduce
impacts at 17 of these
intersections to an acceptable
level. However, impacts at the
Madonna Road & Dalidio Drive
and Los Osos Valley Road &
Froom Ranch Way intersections
would be Class I, significant and
unavoidable.
T-9(a). Intersection #1: Madonna Road & Los Osos Valley Road.
• Extend northbound right turn pocket on Los Osos Valley Road to 295’
• Extend southbound left turn pocket on Madonna Road to 395’
T-9(b). Intersection #2: Madonna Road & Oceanaire Drive.
• Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measure T-1[b])
• Extend westbound right turn land on Madonna Road to 200’
T-9(c). Intersection #3: Madonna Road & Dalidio Drive.
• Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measure T-1[b])
T-9(d). Intersection #4: Madonna Road & El Mercado.
• Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measures T-1[b])
T-9(e). Intersection #5: Madonna Road & U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps.
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and
southbound ramps)
T-9(f). Intersection #6: Madonna Road & U.S. 101 Northbound Ramps.
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and
southbound ramps)
T-9(g). Intersection #8: Higuera Street & South Street.
• Extend northbound Higuera Street left turn pocket to 120’
• Extend eastbound South Street right turn pocket to 100’
T-9(h). Intersection #9: Los Osos Valley Road & Froom Ranch Way.
• Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measure T-
1[d]/Mitigation Measure T-2[f])
T-9(i). Intersection #11: Los Osos Valley Road & Calle Joaquin.
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and
Potential right-of-way constraints at
Madonna Road & Dalidio Drive and
Los Osos Valley Road & Froom
Ranch Way may reduce the
feasibility of mitigation at these
intersections. Accordingly, some of
the potential impacts associated
with lane capacities identified for
Cumulative Plus Project conditions
may not be feasibly mitigated to a
less than significant level. As a
result, impacts to lane capacities at
these intersections under
Cumulative Plus Project conditions
would remain significant and
unavoidable.
Implementation of mitigation
measures that require off-site
improvements would generally not
result in significant residual
impacts, as these improvements
would occur within existing roadway
rights-of-way, or within urbanized
paved/landscaped areas
immediately adjacent to existing
roadway rights-of-way. The primary
exception to this is the Prado
Road/U.S 101
overpass/interchange. During
construction of the overpass,
northbound ramps, and southbound
ramps, potential issue areas that
may be temporarily affected would
Packet Pg 354
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-16
Table ES-1
Class I, Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
southbound ramps)
T-9(j). Intersection #12: Los Osos Valley Road & U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps.
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and
southbound ramps)
T-9(k). Intersection #14: Los Osos Valley Road & S. Higuera Street.
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and
southbound ramps)
T-9(l). Intersection #16: S. Higuera Street & Tank Farm Road.
• Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measure T-1[g])
T-9(m). Intersection #18: Higuera Street & Prado Road.
• Existing & Near-Term Plus Project Mitigation (Mitigation Measure T-2[j])
include air quality, cultural
resources, hazards and hazardous
materials, water quality, noise and
transportation. Construction-related
environmental impacts would be
mitigated through compliance with
City and Caltrans permitting and
construction monitoring
requirements and standard
SLOAPCD dust and diesel
emission control measures. Long-
term impacts of the Prado
Road/U.S. 101
overpass/interchange would include
potential obstruction of scenic
views, loss of prime agricultural
land west of U.S. 101, and land use
impacts associated with acquisition
of additional right-of-way.
Impact T-10. Under Cumulative
Plus Project conditions five
study area segment groups, as
well as mainline segments of
U.S. 101, would operate at
unacceptable automobile,
bicycle, pedestrian, and transit
LOS based on adopted
multimodal level of service
standards during AM and PM
peak hours. Mitigation would
reduce impacts at each of the
five study area segment groups
to an acceptable level. However,
impacts at the mainline
segments of U.S. 101 at Los
Osos Valley Road and Madonna
Road would be Class I,
significant and unavoidable.
T-10(a). Segments #1 - #6: Madonna Road (Higuera Street to Los Osos Valley
Road).
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and
southbound ramps)
T-10(b). Segments #15 - #16: Los Osos Valley Road (Calle Joaquin to U.S. 101
Northbound Ramps).
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and
southbound ramps)
T-10(c). Segment #24: Prado Road/Dalidio Drive (Project Driveway to Froom
Ranch Way).
• Construct Prado Road Overpass (Overpass with U.S. 101 northbound and
southbound ramps)
Potential impacts identified for the
northbound and southbound lanes
of the mainline segments of U.S.
101 at Los Osos Valley Road and
Madonna Road under Cumulative
Plus Project conditions would not
be mitigated to a less than
significant level. As a result,
impacts under Cumulative Plus
Project conditions would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Implementation of mitigation
measures that require off-site
improvements would generally not
result in significant residual
impacts, as these improvements
would occur within existing roadway
rights-of-way, or within urbanized
paved/landscaped areas
Packet Pg 355
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-17
Table ES-1
Class I, Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
immediately adjacent to existing
roadway rights-of-way. The primary
exception to this is the Prado
Road/U.S 101
overpass/interchange. During
construction of the overpass,
northbound ramps, and southbound
ramps, potential issue areas that
may be temporarily affected would
include air quality, cultural
resources, hazards and hazardous
materials, water quality, noise and
transportation. Construction-related
environmental impacts would be
mitigated through compliance with
City and Caltrans permitting and
construction monitoring
requirements and standard
SLOAPCD dust and diesel
emission control measures. Long-
term impacts of the Prado
Road/U.S. 101
overpass/interchange would include
potential obstruction of scenic
views, loss of prime agricultural
land west of U.S. 101, and land use
impacts associated with acquisition
of additional right-of-way.
Packet Pg 356
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-18
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact AG-1. The project would
result in the direct conversion of
59.356 acres of Prime
Farmland, as mapped by the
FMMP, to non-agricultural uses.
Therefore, impacts would be
Class II, significant but
mitigable.
AG-1. Agricultural Conservation. Prior to issuance of any grading permits the
project proponent shall provide that for every one (1) acre of Important Farmland
(Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland) on the
site that is permanently converted to non-agricultural use as a result of project
development, one (1) acre of land of comparable agricultural productivity shall be
preserved in perpetuity. The land dedicated to agriculture pursuant to this measure
shall be of size, location and configuration appropriate to maintain a viable, working
agricultural operation. The acreage required to meet the 1:1 ratio may be met by the
off-site agricultural conservation easement/deed restriction proposed by the project
applicant, as long as this land meets the conditions outlined in this measure. Said
mitigation shall be satisfied by the applicant through:
1) Granting a perpetual conservation easement(s), deed restriction(s), or
other farmland conservation mechanism(s) to the City or qualifying entity
which has been approved by the City, such as the Land Conservancy of
San Luis Obispo, for the purpose of permanently preserving agricultural
land. The required easement(s) area or deed restriction(s) shall therefore
total a minimum of 59.356 acres of Prime Farmland. The land covered by
said on- and/or off-site easement(s) or deed restriction(s) shall be located
within or contiguous to the City’s Urban Reserve Line or Greenbelt subject
to review and approval of the City’s Natural Resources Manager; or
2) Making an in-lieu payment to a qualifying entity which has been approved
by the City, such as the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo, to be
applied toward the future purchase of a minimum of 59.356 acres of Prime
Farmland in San Luis Obispo County, together with an endowment amount
as may be required. The payment amount shall be determined by the
qualifying entity or a licensed appraiser; or
3) Making an in-lieu payment to a qualifying entity which has been approved
by the City and that is organized for conservation purposes, to be applied
toward a future perpetual conservation easement, deed restriction, or other
farmland conservation mechanism to preserve a minimum of 59.356 acres
of Prime Farmland in San Luis Obispo County. The amount of the payment
shall be determined by the qualifying entity or a licensed appraiser; or
4) Any combination of the above.
W ith implementation of Mitigation
Measure AG-1, this impact would
be reduced to a less than
significant level.
Impact AG-3. The project would
include development of
commercial and residential uses
adjacent to agricultural uses on
AG-3(a). Agricultural Conflict Avoidance Measures. The following language shall
be added to Section 4.2.1, Agricultural Buffer, of the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan:
Agricultural buffers will include City-approved measures to reduce availability of
W ith implementation of Mitigation
Measures AG-3(a) through AG-3(c)
this impact would be reduced to a
less than significant level.
Packet Pg 357
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-19
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
the project site. This may result
in conflict with existing or future
urban and agricultural zoning
and uses and adversely affect
the long-term viability of the
remaining agricultural uses
onsite and at the adjacent SLO
City Farm. However, with
implementation of agricultural
buffers, and compliance with
standard APCD dust control
measures and City policies, this
impact would be Class II,
significant but mitigable.
public access to agricultural cultivation areas adjacent to the project site (e.g.,
fencing, signs, etc.). Future residents will be notified of agricultural buffers as
part of purchase or lease agreements.
AG-3(b). Agricultural Fencing. The project applicant shall coordinate with the City
to fund installation of fencing and signs along Froom Ranch Way and Dalidio
Drive/Prado Road to minimize potential for increases in trespass and vandalism of
adjacent agricultural areas.
AG-3(c). Buffer Landscaping. To reduce the potential for noise, dust, and
pesticide drift to affect future residents on the project site, the project applicant shall
ensure that project landscape plans include planting of a windrow of trees and
shrubs within the agricultural buffer along Froom Ranch Way at a sufficient density
to buffer the site from surrounding agricultural operations.
AIR QUALITY
Impact AQ-2. Construction of
the project would generate
temporary increases in localized
air pollutant emissions.
Construction emissions of ROG,
NOX, and DPM would exceed
SLOAPCD construction
thresholds. Impacts would be
Class II, less than significant
with mitigation incorporated.
AQ-2(a). Fugitive Dust Control Measures. Construction projects shall implement
the following dust control measures so as to reduce PM10 emissions in accordance
with SLOAPCD requirements.
• Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible;
• Water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used during construction in sufficient
quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering
frequency shall be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed
(non-potable) water or a SLOAPCD-approved dust suppressant shall be used
whenever possible;, to reduce the amount of potable water used for dust
control;
• All dirt stock pile areas shall be sprayed daily as needed;
• Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project
revegetation and landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible
following completion of any soil disturbing activities;
• Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than
one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-
invasive grass seed and watered until vegetation is established;
• All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using
approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in
advance by the SLOAPCD;
• All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as
soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used;
According to the SLOAPCD CEQA
Air Quality Handbook, if estimated
construction emissions are
expected to exceed either of the
SLOAPCD Quarterly Tier 2
thresholds of significance after the
standard and BACT measures are
factored into the estimation, then an
SLOAPCD approved Construction
Activity Management Plan (CAMP)
and offsite mitigation need to be
implemented in order to reduce
potential air quality impacts to a
less than significant level. If
construction emissions do not
exceed Tier 2 thresholds with
implementation of standard and
BACT measures, SLOAPCD
considers emissions less than
significant, even if Tier 1 thresholds
continue to be exceeded. Table
4.3-7 shows mitigated construction
emissions with implementation of
Packet Pg 358
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-20
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
• Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any
unpaved surface at the construction site;
• All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or
shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance
between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle
Code Section 23114;
• Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto
streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site;
• Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto
adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water shall be used
where feasible;
• All of these fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and
building plans; and
• The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the
fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as
necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below 20
percent opacity, and to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall
include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The
name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the
SLOAPCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or
demolition.
AQ-2(b). Standard Control Measures for Construction Equipment. The following
standard air quality mitigation measures shall be implemented during construction
activities at the project site:
• Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer’s
specifications;
• Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment with ARB certified
motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for sue off-road);
• Use diesel construction equipment meeting ARB’s Tier 2 certified engines or
cleaner off-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State Off-Road
Regulation;
• Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the ARB’s 2007 or cleaner
certification standard for on-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with
the State On-Road Regulation;
• Construction or trucking companies with fleets that do not have engines in their
fleet that meet the engine standards identified in the above two measures (e.g.
captive or NOX exempt area fleets) may be eligible by proving alternative
compliance;
Tier 3 off-road engine compliance
and level 2 diesel particulate filters
required by Mitigation Measure AQ-
2(c), as well as low VOC-emission
paint required by Mitigation
Measure AQ-2(d). As shown
therein, with implementation of
Mitigation Measures AQ-2(c) and
AQ-2(d) construction emissions
would not exceed either of the
SLOAPCD Quarterly Tier 2
thresholds of significance.
Therefore, implementation of a
CAMP and offsite mitigation is not
required and impacts would be less
than significant with mitigation.
Packet Pg 359
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-21
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
• On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the
California Code of Regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled
commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than
10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California
and non-California based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that
drivers of said vehicles:
1. Shall not idle the vehicle's primary diesel engine for greater than 5-minutes
at any location, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and,
2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a
heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during
sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any
location when within 1,000 feet of a restricted area, except as noted in
Subsection (d) of the regulation.
• Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5-minute idling restriction
identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board's In-Use
Off-Road Diesel regulation.
• All on and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than 5 minutes.
Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and or job sites to
remind drivers and operators of the 5 minute idling limit;
• In addition to the state required diesel idling requirements, the project applicant
shall comply with these more restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to
nearby sensitive receptors:
1. Signs that specify the no idling areas shall be posted and enforced at the
site.
2. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted;
3. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of
sensitive receptors;
4. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended;
• Electrify equipment when feasible;
• Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where
feasible; and
• Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible, such as
compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane or
biodiesel.
AQ-2(c). Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for Construction
Equipment. The following BACT for diesel-fueled construction equipment shall be
implemented during construction activities at the project site, where feasible:
• Further reducing emissions by expanding use of Tier 3 and Tier 4 off-road and
Packet Pg 360
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-22
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
2010 on-road compliant engines where feasible;
• Repowering equipment with the cleanest engines available; and
• Installing California Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies, such as level 2
diesel particulate filters. These strategies are listed at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm
AQ-2(d). Architectural Coating. To reduce ROG and NOX levels during the
architectural coating phase, low or no VOC-emission paint shall be used with levels
of 50 g/L or less.
AQ-2(e). Construction Activity Management Plan. Emissions reduction measures
and construction practices required to comply with Mitigation Measures AQ-2(a)
through AQ-2(d) shall be documented in a Construction Activity Management Plan
(CAMP) and submitted to SLOAPCD for review and approval at least three months
before the start of construction. The CAMP shall include a Dust Control
Management Plan, tabulation of on and off-road construction equipment (age,
horse-power and miles and/or hours of operation), construction truck trip schedule,
construction work-day period, and construction phasing. If implementation of the
Standard Mitigation and Best Available Control Technology measures cannot bring
the project below the Tier 1 threshold (2.5 tons of NOX+ROG per quarter), off-site
mitigation shall be implemented in coordination with SLOAPCD to reduce NOX and
ROG emissions to below the Tier 1 threshold.
Impact AQ-3. Operation of the
project would generate air
pollutant emissions on an
ongoing daily and annual basis.
The project’s daily emissions
would exceed SLOAPCD daily
emissions thresholds, but would
not exceed annual thresholds.
Implementation of SLOAPCD’s
standard mitigation measures
and off-site mitigation would
reduce emissions to a less than
significant level. Impacts would
be Class II, less than significant
with mitigation incorporated.
AQ-3(a). Standard Operational Mitigation Measures. Prior to issuance of grading
permits, the applicant shall define and incorporate into the San Luis Ranch Specific
Plan standard emission reduction measures from the SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality
Handbook to reduce emissions to below daily threshold levels. Emission reduction
measures may shall include, but would not be limited to:
• Prohibit residential wood burning appliances;
• Install a ‘Park and Ride’ lot with bike lockers in a location of need defined by
SLOCOG;
• Trusses for south-facing portions of roofs shall be designed to handle dead
weight loads of standard solar-heated water and photovoltaic panels. Roof
design shall include sufficient south facing roof surface, based on structures
size and use, to accommodate adequate solar panels. For south facing roof
pitches, the closest standard roof pitch to the ideal average solar exposure
shall be used;
• Increase the building energy rating by 20 percent above 2013 Title 24
requirements (used in the California Emissions Estimator Model) or consistent
Implementation of the measures
identified in Mitigation Measure AQ-
3(a) and AQ-3(b) would reduce
impacts to regional air quality. For
informational purposes, Table 4.3-
11 and Table 4.3-12 show
anticipated project emissions with
incorporation of measures
achieving a 20 percent exceedance
of Title 24 requirements and a
prohibition on residential wood
burning devices, which are
quantifiable in CalEEMod. As
shown in Table 4.3-11 and Table
4.3-12, implementation of these
measures alone would not reduce
daily operational emissions of
Packet Pg 361
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-23
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
with 2016 Title 24 requirements, whichever is stricter. Measures used to reach
the 20 percent rating cannot be double counted;
• Design building to include roof overhangs that are sufficient to block the high
summer sun, but not the lower winter sun, from penetrating south facing
windows (passive solar design);
• Utilize high efficiency gas or solar water heaters;
• Install door sweeps and weather stripping (if more efficient doors and windows
are not available);
• Install energy-reducing programmable thermostats;
• Participate in and implement available energy-efficient rebate programs
including air conditioning, gas heating, refrigeration, and lighting programs;
• Use roofing material with a solar reflectance values meeting the U.S. EPA/DOE
Energy Star® rating to reduce summer cooling needs.
• Utilize onsite renewable energy systems (e.g., solar, wind, geothermal, low-
impact hydro, biomass and bio-gas); and
• Provide and require the use of battery powered or electric landscape
maintenance equipment for new development;
• Provide a display case or kiosk displaying transportation information in a
prominent area accessible to employees or residents;
• Provide neighborhood electric vehicles/ car share program;
• Provide bicycle-share program;.
• Provide bicycle lockers for ‘Park and Ride’ lots;
• Provide vanpool, shuttle, mini bus service (alternative fueled preferred);
• Provide free-access telework terminals and/or wi-fi access in multi-family
projects.
In addition, the proposed hotel component of the Specific Plan shall participate in
the SLO Car Free Program, provide incentives to car-free travelers, and promote
the program in their communication tools.
AQ-3(b). Off-Site Mitigation. If implementation of standard emission reduction
measures from the SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook described in Mitigation
Measure AQ-3(a) is insufficient to reduce emissions to below daily threshold levels,
then the applicant shall coordinate with SLOAPCD to provide funding for off-site
emission reduction measures to reduce emissions to below daily threshold levels. In
accordance with SLOAPCD methodology, the excess emissions shall be multiplied
by the cost effectiveness of mitigation as defined in the State’s current Carl Moyer
Incentive Program Guidelines to determine the annual off-site mitigation amount.
This amount shall then be extrapolated over the life of the project to determine total
ROG, NOX, DPM, or dust to below
SLOAPCD’s daily significance
thresholds. However, with
implementation of Mitigation
Measures AQ-3(a), Standard
Operational Mitigation Measures,
and AQ-3(b), Off-Site Mitigation,
annual emissions would be reduced
below SLOAPCD’s annual
operational thresholds. Therefore,
long-term operational impacts
would be less than significant.
Packet Pg 362
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-24
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
off-site mitigation. Off-site emission reduction measures may include, but would not
be limited to:
• Developing or improving park-and-ride lots;
• Retrofitting existing homes in the project area with SLOAPCD-approved wood
combustion devices;
• Retrofitting existing homes in the project area with energy-efficient devices;
• Constructing satellite worksites;
• Funding a program to buy and scrap older, higher emission passenger and
heavy-duty vehicles;
• Replacing/re-powering transit buses;
• Replacing/re-powering heavy-duty diesel school vehicles (i.e. bus, passenger
or maintenance vehicles);
• Funding an electric lawn and garden equipment exchange program;
• Retrofitting or re-powering heavy-duty construction equipment, or on-road
vehicles;
• Re-powering marine vessels;
• Re-powering or contributing to funding clean diesel locomotive main or auxiliary
engines;
• Installing bicycle racks on transit buses;
• Purchasing particulate filters or oxidation catalysts for local school buses,
transit buses or construction fleets;
• Installing or contributing to funding alternative fueling infrastructure (i.e. fueling
stations for CNG, LPG, conductive and inductive electric vehicle charging, etc.);
• Funding expansion of existing transit services;
• Funding public transit bus shelters;
• Subsidizing vanpool programs;
• Subsidizing transportation alternative incentive programs;
• Contributing to funding of new bike lanes;
• Installing bicycle storage facilities; and
• Providing assistance in the implementation of projects that are identified in City
or County Bicycle Master Plans.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact BIO-1. Implementation
of the project could have a
substantial adverse effect on
candidate, sensitive, or special
status species that may occur
BIO-1(a). Best Management Practices. The applicant shall ensure the following
general wildlife Best Management Practices (BMPs) are required for construction
activity within the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Area:
• No pets or firearms shall be allowed at the project site during construction
activities.
Implementation of BIO-1(a) through
BIO-1(h) would reduce impacts to
listed, candidate or special-status
plant and wildlife species to a less
than significant level and ensure
Packet Pg 363
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-25
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
on the project site. Impacts
would be Class II, potentially
significant but mitigable.
• All trash that may attract predators must be properly contained and removed
from the work site. All such debris and waste shall be picked up daily and
properly disposed of at an appropriate site.
• All refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles shall occur
at least 100 feet from Prefumo Creek and in a location where a spill would not
drain toward aquatic habitat. A plan must be in place for prompt and effective
response to any accidental spills prior to the onset of work activities. All
workers shall be informed of the appropriate measures to take should an
accidental spill occur.
• Pallets or secondary containment areas for chemicals, drums, or bagged
materials shall be provided. Should material spills occur, materials and/or
contaminants shall be cleaned from the project site and recycled or disposed of
to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
• Prior to construction activities in areas adjacent to Prefumo Creek and Cerro
San Luis Channel, the drainage features shall be fenced with orange
construction fencing and signed to prohibit entry of construction equipment and
personnel unless authorized by the City. Fencing should be located a minimum
of 20 feet from the edge of the riparian canopy or top of bank and shall be
maintained throughout the construction period for each phase of development.
Once all phases of construction in this area are complete, the fencing may be
removed.
• To control sedimentation during and after project implementation, appropriate
erosion control BMPs (e.g., use of coir rolls, jute netting, etc.) shall be
implemented to minimize adverse effects on Prefumo Creek. No plastic
monofilament netting shall be utilized on site.
• Construction equipment shall be inspected at the beginning of each day to
ensure that wildlife species have not climbed into wheel wells or under tracks
since the equipment was last parked. Any sensitive wildlife species found
during inspections shall be gently encouraged to leave the area by a qualified
biological monitor or otherwise trained personnel.
• All vehicles and equipment shall be in good working condition and free of leaks.
• Environmentally Sensitive Areas shall be delineated by a qualified biologist
prior to construction to confine access routes and construction areas.
• Construction work shall be restricted to daylight hours (7:00 AM to 7:00 PM) to
avoid impacts to nocturnal and crepuscular (dawn and dusk activity period)
species. No construction night lighting shall be permitted within 100 yards of
the top of the Prefumo Creek bank.
• Concrete truck and tool washout shall be limited to locations designated by a
qualified biologist such that no runoff will reach Prefumo Creek or Cerro San
that the project would comply with
COSE Policies 7.3.1, Protect Listed
Species, and 7.3.2, Species of
Local Concern.
Packet Pg 364
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-26
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
Luis Channel.
• All open trenches shall be constructed with appropriate exit ramps to allow
species that accidentally fall into a trench to escape. Trenches will remain open
for the shortest period necessary to complete required work.
• Existing facilities and disturbed areas shall be used to the extent possible to
minimize the amount of disturbance and all new access roads other than the
Froom Ranch Way Bridge shall be cited to avoid high quality habitat and
minimize habitat fragmentation.
• In the event that construction must occur within the creek or creek setback, a
biological monitor shall be present during all such activities with the authority to
stop or redirect work as needed to protect biological resources.
BIO-1(b). Worker Environmental Awareness Program Training. Prior to the
initiation of construction activities (including staging and mobilization), the applicant
shall ensure all personnel associated with project construction attend a Worker
Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training.
• The training shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, to aid workers in
recognizing special status resources that may occur in the project area. The
specifics of this program shall include identification of the sensitive species and
habitats, a description of the regulatory status and general ecological
characteristics of sensitive resources, and review of the limits of construction
and avoidance measures required to reduce impacts to biological resources
within the work area. A fact sheet conveying this information shall also be
prepared for distribution to all contractors, their employers, and other personnel
involved with construction of the project. All employees shall sign a form
provided by the trainer documenting they have attended the WEAP and
understand the information presented to them.
BIO-1(c) . Western Pond Turtle and Two-Striped Garter Snake Impact
Avoidance and Minimization. The applicant shall ensure the following actions are
implemented to avoid and minimize potential impacts to western pond turtle and
two-striped garter snake (these reptiles utilize similar habitats; therefore,
implementation of the proposed measures for western pond turtle are also suitable
and appropriate for two-striped garter snake):
• A qualified biologist(s) shall conduct a pre-construction survey within 24 hours
prior to the onset of work activities within and around areas that may serve as
potential western pond turtle habitat. If this species is found and the individuals
are likely to be injured or killed by work activities, the approved biologist shall
be allowed sufficient time to move them from the project site before work
Packet Pg 365
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-27
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
activities begin. The biologist(s) must relocate the any western pond turtle the
shortest distance possible to a location that contains suitable habitat that is not
likely to be affected by activities associated with the project.
• Access routes, staging, and construction areas shall be limited to the minimum
area necessary to achieve the project goal and minimize potential impacts to
western pond turtle habitat including locating access routes and construction
staging areas outside of wetlands and riparian areas to the maximum extent
practicable.
BIO-1(d) . California Red-legged Frog, Western spadefoot, and Coast Range Newt
Impact Avoidance and Minimization. The applicant shall implement the following to
avoid and minimize potential impacts to CRLF. Because coast range newt and
western spadefoot are amphibians that utilize similar habitats to CRLF,
implementation of the following measures provided for CRLF shall be implemented
for these species as well.
• Only USFWS-approved biologists shall participate in activities associated with
the capture, handling, and monitoring of CRLF.
• Ground disturbance shall not begin until written approval is received from the
USFWS that the biologist is qualified to conduct the work. If the USFWS does
not authorize the relocation of CRLF occurring within the project site, CRLF
found within the project site shall be avoided with a 100-foot buffer and no
activities shall occur within that buffer until the CRLF has left the project site on
its own.
• Areas of the project site that lie within 100 feet upland from riparian or
jurisdictional areas shall be surrounded by a solid temporary exclusion fence
(such as silt fencing) that shall extend at least three feet above the ground and
be buried into the ground at least 6 inches to exclude CRLF from the project
site. Plastic monofilament netting or other similar material will not be used. The
location of the fencing shall be determined by a qualified biologist. The fence
shall remain in place throughout construction activities. Installation of the
exclusion fencing shall be monitored by a qualified biologist to ensure that it is
installed correctly.
• During new grading activities in habitats within 100 feet upland from riparian or
jurisdictional areas, a qualified biologist shall be on-site to recover any
spadefoot toads that may be excavated/unearthed with native material or found
under vegetation. If the animals are in good health, they shall be immediately
relocated to a designated release area. If they are injured, the animals shall be
turned over to an approved wildlife rehabilitator until they are in a condition to
be released into the designated release area.
Packet Pg 366
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-28
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
• To ensure that diseases are not conveyed between work sites by the approved
biologist, the fieldwork code of practice developed by the Declining Amphibian
Populations Task Force shall be followed at all times.
BIO-1(e) . Steelhead Impact Avoidance and Minimization. The applicant shall
ensure the following actions are undertaken to avoid and minimize potential impacts
to steelhead:
• Before any activities begin on the project, a qualified biologist will conduct a
training session for all construction personnel. At a minimum, the training will
include a description of the steelhead and its habitat, the specific measures
that are being implemented to conserve this species for the project, and the
boundaries within which the project may be accomplished. Brochures, books,
and briefings may be used in the training session, provided that a qualified
person is on hand to answer any questions.
• During the duration of project activities, all trash that may attract predators will
be properly contained and secured, promptly removed from the work site, and
disposed of regularly. Following construction, all trash and construction debris
will be removed from the work areas.
• All refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles will occur at
least 100 feet from riparian habitat or bodies of water and in a location where a
potential spill would not drain directly toward aquatic habitat (e.g., on a slope
that drains away from the water source). The monitor shall ensure that
contamination of suitable habitat does not occur during such operations. Prior
to the onset of work activities, a plan must be in place for prompt and effective
response to any accidental spills. All workers shall be informed of the
importance of preventing spills and of the appropriate measures to take should
an accidental spill occur.
• The number of access routes, size of staging areas, and the total area used for
construction activities shall be limited to the minimum area necessary to
achieve the project goals.
• The City will only permit work within the immediate vicinity of Prefumo Creek for
times of the year when potential impacts to steelhead would be minimal. Work
shall be restricted during the wet season (October 15 through April 30) and
should ideally occur during the late summer and early fall during the driest
portion of the year; however, water may still be present during construction. If
work is proposed in the streambed and water is present during construction, a
diversion will be required to dewater the work area and the following avoidance
and minimization measures will apply:
(1) Upstream and downstream passage for fish, including juvenile
Packet Pg 367
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-29
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
steelhead, shall be provided through or around the construction site at
all times construction is occurring within the Prefumo Creek streambed.
(2) A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey and be
present onsite during the diversion installation and dewatering process
to capture and relocate any trapped steelhead and/or other fish. Upon
approval from the NMFS, the biologist(s) must relocate these individuals
the shortest distance possible to a location that contains suitable habitat
that is not likely to be affected by activities associated with the project.
(3) Dewatering operations shall employ a five millimeter mesh screen
fastened to the intake hose to exclude fish and other wildlife species
from the pump.
(4) Steelhead shall be excluded from the construction zone with block nets
installed upstream and downstream the of the bridge construction zone.
The distance upstream and downstream for block net installation will
depend on the type of construction activities occurring in the streambed.
• To control sedimentation during and after project implementation, the following
BMPs shall be implemented. If the BMPs are somehow ineffective, consultation
with the City and appropriate resource agencies will be undertaken, and all
attempts to remedy the situation will commence immediately.
(1) It shall be the owner’s/contractor’s responsibility to maintain control of
the entire construction operations and to keep the entire site in
compliance.
(2) The owner/contractor shall be responsible for monitoring erosion and
sediment control measures (including but not limited to fiber rolls, inlet
protections, silt fences, and gravel bags) prior, during and after storm
events, monitoring includes maintaining a file documenting onsite
inspections, problems encountered, corrective actions, and notes and a
map of remedial implementation measures.
(3) Erosion shall be controlled by covering stockpiled construction materials
(i.e. soil, spoils, aggregate, fly-ash, stucco, hydrated lime, etc.) All earth
stockpiles over 2.0 cubic yards that are not actively being used, shall be
covered with a tarp consistent with the applicable construction general
permit, or through other means of erosion control approved by the City
(e.g., and ringedsurrounding with straw bales or silt fencing). The site
shall be maintained to minimize sediment-laden runoff to any storm
drainage system including existing drainage swales and/or sand
watercourses.
(a) Construction operations shall be carried out in such a manner that
erosion and water pollution will be minimized.
Packet Pg 368
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-30
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
(b) State and local laws concerning pollution abatement shall be
complied with.
(c) If grading operations are expected to denude slopes, the slopes
shall be protected with erosion control measures immediately
following grading on the slopes.
(4) Specifically, in order to prevent sedimentation and debris from entering
Prefumo Creek during construction, silt fencing shall be installed along
the top of the banks on the west side of the channel prior to the onset of
construction activities.
• The project biologist will monitor construction activities, in stream habitat, and
overall performance of BMPs and sediment controls for the purpose of
identifying and reconciling any condition that could adversely affect steelhead
or their habitat. The biologist will halt work if necessary and will recommend
site-specific measures to avoid adverse effects to steelhead and their habitat.
• Equipment will be checked daily for leaks prior to the initiation of construction
activities. A spill kit will be placed near the creek and will remain readily
available during construction in the event that any contaminant is accidentally
released.
• In addition to these avoidance and minimization measures, Mitigation Measure
BIO-2(a) would also ensure that potential temporary and permanent indirect
impacts to steelhead from the project are reduced as much as practicable.
BIO-1(f). Great Blue Heron and Monarch Butterfly Impact Avoidance and
Minimization. The applicant shall ensure the following actions are undertaken to
avoid and minimize potential impacts to overwintering monarch butterflies and
nesting great blue herons.
• Tree trimming/removal and construction activities that affect eucalyptus trees
near or within the monarch overwintering grove or active great blue heron nests
identified in the San Luis Ranch Monarch Trees Inspection Memo, Results of
2015 and 2016 San Luis Ranch Heron Rookery Surveys Memo, and San Luis
Ranch – Prefumo Creek Widening Biological Constraints Memo prepared by
Althouse and Meade (Appendix F), shall not be conducted during the monarch
butterfly overwintering season from October 1 through March 31 if monarch
butterflies are present, or while great blue heron nests are active from February
1 to August 31. If construction activities must be conducted during these
periods, a qualified biologist shall conduct overwintering monarch surveys
and/or nesting great blue heron surveys within one week of habitat disturbance.
If surveys do not locate clustering monarchs or nesting great blue herons,
construction activities may be conducted. If clustering monarchs and/or nesting
Packet Pg 369
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-31
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
great blue herons are located, no construction activities shall occur within 100
feet of the edge of the overwintering grove and/or active nest(s) until the
qualified biologist determines that no more monarchs are overwintering in the
grove or the nest(s) are no longer active.
• A qualified biologist shall prepare and implement a habitat enhancement plan
prior to issuance of grading permits to enhance and restore overwintering and
nesting habitat that is to be preserved. The habitat enhancement plan shall
include native shrubs and trees such as Monterey Cypress (Hesperocyparis
macrocarpa) that may support heron roosting and monarch butterfly
overwintering. As eucalyptus trees senesce, they shall be replaced with native
species. Native trees and shrubs shall also be used to supplement gaps in
canopy or act as windbreaks.
• Create new offsite nesting habitat for great blue herons to mitigate for removal
of onsite nesting habitat. With a qualified biologist present, the current rookery
may be moved to a suitable offsite location where the same great blue herons
can resume nesting, following methods detailed in Crouch et al. (2002). It
should be noted that creating offsite nesting habitat for great blue herons is
experimental and that the relocation techniques described in Crouch et al.
(2002) were used to relocate black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax
nycticorax). In addition, an agreement with the City will be required prior to
implementation of the offsite strategy on their property. The methods detailed in
Crouch et al. (2002) include:
(a) This entails at least one year of pre-construction monitoring of the
rookery, where the timing of rookery activities will be noted: arrival of
breeding adults, egg laying, hatching, and fledging. During this time,
audio recordings of adults and juveniles shall be made.
(b) Following the completion of the nesting season in late summer, a
certified arborist specializing in the translocation of trees will examine
the mature trees onsite and work with the City’s Natural Resources
Manager to determine whether or not it is feasible to relocate the mature
trees containing nests the mature trees containing nests shall be boxed
and moved across Madonna Road to a suitable location at Laguna Lake
Open Space.
(c) Prior to the start of the next nesting season (based on timing of adult
arrival in previous years), nesting adults will be recruited to the new
location via decoys and playback of vocalizations. The new location will
be monitored regularly by a qualified biologist for the following three
breeding seasons.
BIO-1(g). Nesting Birds Impact Avoidance and Minimization. The applicant shall
Packet Pg 370
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-32
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
ensure the following actions are undertaken to avoid and minimize potential impacts
to nesting birds:
• For construction activities occurring during the nesting season (generally
February 1 to September 15), surveys for nesting birds covered by the
California Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to vegetation
removal. The surveys shall include the disturbance area plus a 500-foot buffer
around the site. If active nests are located, all construction work shall be
conducted outside a buffer zone from the nest to be determined by the qualified
biologist. The buffer shall be a minimum of 50 feet for non-raptor bird species
and at least 300 feet for raptor species. Larger buffers may be required
depending upon the status of the nest and the construction activities occurring
in the vicinity of the nest. The buffer area(s) shall be closed to all construction
personnel and equipment until the adults and young are no longer reliant on the
nest site. A qualified biologist shall confirm that breeding/nesting is completed
and young have fledged the nest prior to removal of the buffer.
• If feasible, removal of vegetation within suitable nesting bird habitats will be
scheduled to occur in the fall and winter (between September 1 and February
14), after fledging and before the initiation of the nesting season.
BIO-1(h) . Roosting Bats Impact Avoidance and Minimization. The applicant
shall ensure the following actions are undertaken to avoid and minimize potential
impacts to roosting bats:
• Prior to issuance of grading permits, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey
of existing structures within the project site to determine if roosting bats are
present. The survey shall be conducted during the non-breeding season
(November through March). The biologist shall have access to all interior attics,
as needed. If a colony of bats is found roosting in any structure, further surveys
shall be conducted sufficient to determine the species present and the type of
roost (day, night, maternity, etc.) If the bats are not part of an active maternity
colony, passive exclusion measures may be implemented in close coordination
with CDFW. These exclusion measures must include one-way valves that allow
bats to exit the structure but are designed so that the bats may not re-enter the
structure.
• If a bat colony is excluded from the project site, appropriate alternate bat
habitat as determined by a qualified biologist shall be installed on the project
site or at an approved location offsite.
• Prior to removal of any trees over 20 inches diameter-at-breast-height (DBH), a
survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if any of the
Packet Pg 371
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-33
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
trees proposed for removal or trimming harbor sensitive bat species or
maternal bat colonies. If a non-maternal roost is found, the qualified biologist, in
close coordination with CDFW shall install one-way valves or other appropriate
passive relocation method. For each occupied roost removed, one bat box shall
be installed in similar habitat and should have similar cavity or crevices
properties to those which are removed, including access, ventilation,
dimensions, height above ground, and thermal conditions. Maternal bat
colonies may not be disturbed.
Impact BIO-2. Implementation
of the project would have a
substantial adverse effect on
sensitive habitats, including
riparian areas. Impacts would be
Class II, potentially significant
but mitigable.
BIO-2(a). Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. A Habitat Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan (HMMP) shall be prepared which will provide a minimum 2:1 ratio
(replaced: removed) for temporary and permanent impacts to riparian habitat. The
HMMP will identify the specific mitigation sites and it will be implemented
immediately following project completion. The HMMP shall include, at a minimum,
the following components:
• Description of the project/impact site (i.e. location, responsible parties, areas to
be impacted by habitat type);
• Goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation project [type(s) and area(s) of habitat to
be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved; specific functions and
values of habitat type(s) to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or
preserved];
• Description of the proposed compensatory mitigation site (location and size,
ownership status, existing functions and values of the compensatory mitigation
site);
• Implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation site (rationale for
expecting implementation success, responsible parties, schedule, site
preparation, planting plan [including plant species to be used, container sizes,
seeding rates, etc.]);
• Maintenance activities during the monitoring period, including weed removal
and irrigation as appropriate (activities, responsible parties, schedule);
• Monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation site, including no less than
quarterly monitoring for the first year (performance standards, target functions
and values, target acreages to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or
preserved, annual monitoring reports);
• Success criteria based on the goals and measurable objectives; said criteria to
be, at a minimum, at least 80 percent survival of container plants and 80
percent relative cover by vegetation type;
• An adaptive management program and remedial measures to address negative
impacts to restoration efforts;
Implementation of Mitigation
Measures BIO-1(a), BIO-2(a), BIO-
2(b), BIO-2(c), and BIO-3 would
reduce direct impacts to sensitive
habitats, including riparian areas,
by implementing construction
BMPs, including containing
construction activities, debris, and
sediment in appropriate locations
outside of sensitive habitat to the
maximum extent practicable, and
by providing compensatory
mitigation for permanently impacted
riparian habitat. In addition
Mitigation Measures HWQ-1(a) and
HWQ-1(b) include construction
management practices that would
reduce construction related impacts
to water quality. When combined
with standard regulatory measures
(including required permitting from
USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB), and
regulatory oversight during
construction by the Environmental
Monitor, implementation of required
mitigation measures would reduce
impacts to a less than significant
level and ensure that the project
would comply with applicable
General Plan policies for the
protection of habitat and other
Packet Pg 372
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-34
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
• Notification of completion of compensatory mitigation and agency confirmation;
and
• Contingency measures (initiating procedures, alternative locations for
contingency compensatory mitigation, funding mechanism).
BIO-2(b) . Tree Replacement. Riparian trees four inches or greater measured at
diameter-at-breast-height (DBH) shall be replaced in-kind at a minimum ratio of 3:1
(replaced: removed). Trees 24 inches or greater inches DBH shall be replaced in-
kind at a minimum ratio of 10:1. Willows and cottonwoods may be planted from live
stakes following guidelines provided in the California Salmonid Stream Habitat
Restoration Manual for planting dormant cuttings and container stock (CDFW
2010).
• Tree replacement shall be conducted in accordance with a Natural Habitat
Restoration and Enhancement Plan to be approved by the City’s Natural
Resource Manager.
• The Natural Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Plan shall prioritize the
planting of replacement trees on-site where feasible, but shall allow that
replacement trees may be planted off-site with approval of the City’s Natural
Resource Manager.
• Replacement trees may be planted in the fall or winter of the year in which
trees were removed. All replacement trees will be planted no more than one
year following the date upon which the native trees were removed.
BIO-2(c). Froom Ranch Way Bridge Design to Avoid Riparian Areas. The Froom
Ranch Way Bridge crossing footings shall be placed outside mapped riparian areas.
The placement of the bridge and footings shall be indicated on the Development
Plan, VTM, and HMMP, and shall show the bridge’s placement in relation to existing
vegetation and the bed and bank of Prefumo Creek.
biological resources.
Impact BIO-3. Construction of
the project could have a
substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. Impacts would
be Class II, potentially
significant but mitigable.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) and BIO-2(a) would reduce
impacts to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation is required.
Implementation of Mitigation
Measures BIO-1(a) andBIO-2(a
would reduce potential impacts to
federally protected wetlands, any
riparian habitat, or other sensitive
natural communities to a less than
significant level and ensure that the
project would be consistent with
COSE Policy 7.5.5.
Packet Pg 373
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-35
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
Impact BIO-4. Development of
the San Luis Ranch Specific
Plan Area would not
permanently interfere with the
movement of resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established resident or
migratory wildlife corridors along
Prefumo Creek and through
open agricultural lands on the
project site. This impact would
be Class II, potentially
significant but mitigable.
Implementation of BIO-1(a) requires construction BMPs that would reduce potential
impacts to riparian habitat within the Prefumo Creek corridor. Implementation of
Mitigation Measures BIO-1(c), BIO-1(d), and BIO-1(e), would reduce impacts to
western pond turtle, CRLF, coast range newt, and steelhead by requiring pre-
construction surveys by qualified biological staff and construction worker training to
ensure individuals of these species are not impacts during project construction
activity within or adjacent to riparian and riverine habitat. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure BIO-1(f) would reduce impacts to heron rookeries by requiring
preconstruction surveys, mapping, exclusionary fencing, and offsite compensatory
mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1(h) would reduce impacts to
birds by requiring construction monitoring for nesting birds, and requiring
appropriate buffers for construction activity in proximity to active nests.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1(h) would reduce impacts to bats
roosting in trees by requiring trees that may provide habitat for roosting bats to be
surveyed by a qualified biologist prior to removal. Implementation of Mitigation
Measures BIO-2(a) would reduce potential impacts to federally protected wetlands,
any riparian habitat, or other sensitive natural community to a less than significant
level.
Implementation of Mitigation
Measures BIO-1(a), BIO-1(c), BIO-
1(d), BIO-1(e), BIO-1(f), BIO-1-(h),
and BIO-2(a) would reduce
potential impacts to wildlife species,
wildlife nursery sites, riparian
corridors, and other sensitive
natural communities to a less than
significant level.
Cumulative Biological
Resources Impacts. Consistent
with the LUCE Update EIR, the
project would implement
mitigation measures to ensure
compliance with the applicable
goals and policies of the
General Plan. As a result, the
project’s contribution to this
cumulative impact would be
potentially significant but
mitigable.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) through BIO-1(h) and BIO-2(a)
through BIO-2(c) would reduce cumulative impacts to biological resources to a less
than significant level.
Implementation of required
mitigation measures would reduce
cumulative impacts to a less than
significant level.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact CR-2. Identified
archaeological resources on the
project site are ineligible for
listing in the CRHR and NRHP,
and disturbance of these
resources would not constitute a
significant impact. However, the
CR-2(a). Retain a Qualified Principal Investigator. In accordance with
Conservation and Open Space Policies 3.5.6 and 3.5.7, a qualified principal
investigator, defined as an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for professional archaeology (hereafter qualified archaeologist), shall be
retained to carry out all mitigation measures related to archaeological resources.
Monitoring shall involve inspection of subsurface construction disturbance at or in
Implementation of Mitigation
Measures CR-2(a) and CR-2(b)
would reduce impacts to
archaeological resources to a less
than significant level.
Packet Pg 374
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-36
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
potential remains for the project
to result in impacts to previously
unidentified archaeological
resources. Therefore, this
impact would be Class II,
significant but mitigable.
the immediate vicinity of known sites, or at locations that may harbor buried
resources that were not identified on the site surface. A Native American monitor
shall also be present because the area is a culturally sensitive location. The
monitor(s) shall be on-site on a full-time basis during earthmoving activities,
including grading, trenching, vegetation removal, or other excavation activities.
CR-2(b). Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources. In the event
that archaeological resources are exposed during construction, all work shall be
halted in the vicinity of the archaeological discovery until a qualified archaeologist
can visit the site of discovery and assess the significance of the cultural resource. In
the event that any artifact or an unusual amount of bone or shell is encountered
during construction, work shall be immediately stopped and relocated to another
area. The lead agency shall stop construction within 100 feet of the exposed
resource until a qualified archaeologist/paleontologist can evaluate the find (see 36
CFR 800.11.1 and CCR, Title 14, Section 15064.5[f]). Examples of such cultural
materials might include: ground stone tools such as mortars, bowls, pestles, and
manos; chipped stone tools such as projectile points or choppers; flakes of stone
not consistent with the immediate geology such as obsidian or fused shale; historic
trash pits containing bottles and/or ceramics; or structural remains. If the resources
are found to be significant, they must be avoided or will be mitigated consistent with
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Guidelines.
Packet Pg 375
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-37
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact HAZ-4. Hazardous
materials sites identified on and
upgradient to the project site as
well as residual pesticides and
agricultural chemicals in soil due
to historical use of pesticides
and other agricultural chemicals
onsite could create a hazard to
construction workers during the
construction phase of the
project. Impacts would be Class
II, significant but mitigable.
HAZ-4. Soil Sampling and Remediation. Prior to issuance of any grading permits,
a contaminated soil assessment shall be completed in the portions of land to be
graded for development. Soil samples shall be collected under the supervision of a
professional geologist or environmental professional to determine the presence or
absence of contaminated soil in these areas. The sampling density shall be in
accordance with guidance from San Luis Obispo County Environmental Health
Services, so as to define the volume of soil that may require remediation.
Laboratory analysis of soil samples shall be analyzed for the presence of
organochlorine pesticides, in accordance with EPA Test Method SW8081A, and
heavy metals in accordance with EPA Test Methods 6010B and 7471A. If soil
sampling indicates the presence of pesticides or heavy metals exceeding applicable
environmental screening levels, the soil assessment shall identify the volume of
contaminated soil to be excavated.
If concentrations of contaminants exceed EPA action levels and therefore warrant
remediation, contaminated materials shall be remediated either prior to concurrent
with construction and an Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) shall be prepared.
Cleanup may include excavation, disposal, bio-remediation, or any other treatment
of conditions subject to regulatory action. All necessary reports, regulations and
permits shall be followed to achieve cleanup of the site. The contaminated materials
shall be remediated under the supervision of an environmental consultant licensed
to oversee such remediation and under the direction of the lead oversight agency.
The remediation program shall also be approved by a regulatory oversight agency,
such as the San Luis Obispo County Environmental Health Services, the Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or DTSC. All proper waste handling and
disposal procedures shall be followed. Upon completion of the remediation, the
environmental consultant shall prepare a report summarizing the project, the
remediation approach implemented, and the analytical results after completion of
the remediation, including all waste disposal or treatment manifests.
With implementation of Mitigation
Measure HAZ-4, impacts related to
exposure to residual agricultural
chemicals would be reduced to a
less than significant level.
Impact HAZ-5.
Tetrachloroethene (also called
perchloroethylene, or PCE) has
been detected in the shallow
aquifer in concentrations that
exceed the Maximum
Contaminant Level (MCL) in
active irrigation wells on the
HAZ-5(a). Groundwater Assessment for Contamination at Untested Wells. Any
groundwater wells on the project site that would be used for agricultural irrigation
shall be sampled by a registered soils engineer or remediation specialist to
determine the presence or absence of regulated contaminants prior to issuance of
grading permits. This assessment shall target on-site PCE associated with off-site
dry cleaning operations.
HAZ-5(b). Groundwater Remediation. If groundwater sampling indicates the
W ith incorporation of these
mitigation measures, this impact
would be less than significant.
Packet Pg 376
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-38
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
eastern portion of the site. As
future on-site residents or
workers could potentially be
exposed to PCE from irrigation
water, this would be a Class II,
significant but mitigable, impact.
presence of any contaminant in hazardous quantities, the project applicant (or
authorized agent thereof) shall contact the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) and Department of Toxic Substances (DTSC) to determine the level of
any necessary remediation efforts. These may include:
• Installation of charcoal filtration into well-head systems at wells where PCE is
identified in hazardous quantities. After installation of charcoal filtration,
groundwater wells shall be re-sampled consistent with Mitigation Measure HAZ-
5(a).
• Groundwater remediation to contaminant concentrations below applicable
standards in compliance with applicable laws prior to issuance of grading
permits. A copy of the applicable remediation certification from Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and/or Department of Toxic Substances
(DTSC), or written confirmation that a certification is not required, shall be
submitted to the Community Development Department.
Impact HAZ-6. The project site
is located in an area where
geologic analysis for NOA is
required prior to grading and
could potentially result in
exposure of people to NOA
during grading and construction
activities. Therefore, this impact
would be Class II, significant but
mitigable.
HAZ-6. Naturally Occurring Asbestos Exposure Avoidance and Minimization:
a. Prior to earthwork activities, a site-specific health and safety plan shall be
developed per California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(CalOSHA) requirements. The plan shall include appropriate health and safety
measures if NOA is detected in soil or bedrock beneath the project site. All
construction workers that have the potential to come into contact with
contaminated soil/bedrock and groundwater shall be knowledgeable of the
requirements in the health and safety plan, which includes proper training and
personal protective equipment. The health and safety plan shall prescribe
appropriate respiratory protection for construction workers.
b. Prior to beginning construction, a soil and bedrock analysis for asbestos using
polarized light microscopy and transmission electron microscopy by a qualified
laboratory shall be conducted. Samples of soil shall be collected from multiple
locations across the site, and bedrock samples shall be collected from
locations where excavation into bedrock is anticipated. If NOA is detected,
appropriate regulations pertaining to excavation, removal, transportation, and
disposal of NOA shall be followed. The sampling strategy shall take into
account the locations of potential source areas, and the anticipated lateral and
vertical distribution of contaminants in soil and/or groundwater. The results of
the investigation shall be documented in a report that is signed by a California
Professional Geologist. The report shall include recommendations based upon
the findings for additional investigation/remediation if contaminants are
detected above applicable screening levels (e.g., excavate and dispose,
groundwater and/or soil vapor extraction, or in situ bioremediation).
With implementation of Mitigation
Measure HAZ-6, impacts related to
exposure to NOA would be reduced
to a less than significant level.
Packet Pg 377
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-39
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
c. During earthwork activities, appropriate procedures shall be incorporated in the
event that NOA is detected in soil or bedrock beneath the project site. These
procedures shall be followed to eliminate or minimize construction worker or
general public exposure to potential contaminants in soil. Procedures shall
include efforts to control fugitive dust, contain and cover excavation debris
piles, appropriate laboratory analysis of soil for waste characterization, and
segregation of contaminated soil from uncontaminated soil. The applicable
regulations associated with excavation, removal, transportation, and disposal of
contaminated soil shall be followed (e.g., tarping of trucks and waste
manifesting). These procedures may be subject to San Luis Obispo APCD
requirements under the California ARB ATCM for Construction, Grading,
Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact HWQ-1. During project
construction, the surface soil
would be subject to erosion and
the downstream watershed
would be subject to pollution.
The project’s impact on water
quality during construction would
be Class II, significant but
mitigable.
HWQ-1(a). Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. All required actions shall be
implemented pursuant to a SWPPP and SWMP to be prepared by the project
applicant and submitted by the City to the Regional Water Quality Control Board
under the NPDES Phase II program. At a minimum, the SWPPP/SWMP shall
including the following BMPs:
• The use of sandbags, straw bales, and temporary de-silting basins during
project grading and construction during the rainy season to prevent discharge
of sediment-laden runoff into stormwater facilities;
• Revegetation as soon as practicable after completion of grading to reduce
sediment transport during storms;
• Installation of straw bales, wattles, or silt fencing at the base of bare slopes
before the onset of the rainy season (October 15th through April 15th);
• Installation of straw bales, wattles, or silt fencing at the project perimeter and in
front of storm drains before the onset of the rainy season (October 15th through
April 15th); and/or
• Alternative BMPs as approved by the RWQCB as part of the SWPPP submittal.
HWQ-1(b). Berms and Basins. As specified in the SWPPP, the applicant shall be
required to manage and control runoff by constructing temporary berms, sediment
basins, runoff diversions, or alternative BMP’s as approved by the RWQCB as part
of the SWPPP submittal, in order to avoid unnecessary siltation into local streams
during construction activities where grading and construction shall occur in the
vicinity of such streams.
• Berms and basins shall be constructed when grading commences and be
periodically inspected and maintained. The project applicant shall sufficiently
Implementation of the mitigation
measures and compliance with
existing regulations would ensure
that the potentially significant
construction runoff and associated
impacts to water quality would be
reduced to a less than significant
level.
Packet Pg 378
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-40
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
document, to the CCRWQCB satisfaction, the proper installation of such berms
and basins during grading.
HWQ-1(c). Concept Grading Plan and Master Drainage Plan. As specified in the
SWPPP and the City’s Floodplain Management Regulations, the applicant shall be
required to submit a Grading Plan and Master Drainage Plan to the Planning
Division and City Public Works Director for approval prior to approval of the VTTM.
The grading and drainage plans shall be designed to minimize erosion and water
quality impacts, to the extent feasible, and shall be consistent with the project’s
SWPPP. The plans shall include the following:
a. Graded areas shall be revegetated with deep-rooted, native, non-invasive
drought tolerant species to minimize slope failure and erosion potential.
Geotextile fabrics shall be used if necessary to hold slope soils until vegetation
is established;
b. Temporary storage of construction equipment shall be limited to a minimum of
100 feet away from drainages on the project site; and
c. Erosion control structures shall be installed.
d. Demonstrate peak flows and runoff for each phase of construction.
e. Be coordinated with habitat restoration efforts, including measures to minimize
removal of riparian and wetland habitats and trees (Mitigation Measures BIO-
2[a] and BIO-2[b]).
f. Grading and drainage plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Planning Division. The applicant shall ensure installation of erosion control
structures prior to beginning of construction of any structures, subject to review
and approval by the City.
Impact HWQ-3. During
operation, the proposed
residential, and commercial, and
agricultural uses would increase
the quantities of pollutants
associated with runoff and
sedimentation. The project’s
impact on water quality would be
Class II, significant but mitigable
impact.
HWQ-3(a). Stormwater Quality Treatment Controls. BMP devices shall be
incorporated into the stormwater quality system depicted in the Master Drainage
Plan (refer to Mitigation Measure HWQ-1[c]). The final design of the stormwater
quality system shall be reviewed and approved by the City.
The Master Drainage Plan shall contain the following relevant BMPs:
• Vegetated bioswales to reduce sediment and particulate forms of metals and
other pollutants along corridors of planted grasses.
• Vegetated buffer strips to reduce sediment and particulate forms of metals and
nutrients.
• Hydrodynamic separation products to reduce suspended solids greater than
240 microns, trash, and hydrocarbons. These hydrodynamic separators shall
be sized to handle peak flows from the project site consistent with applicable
regulatory standards.
Implementation of required
mitigation measures and
compliance with existing
regulations would ensure that the
potentially significant impacts to
water quality resulting from runoff
during operation of the project
would be reduced to a less than
significant level.
Packet Pg 379
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-41
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
HWQ-3(b). Stormwater BMP Maintenance Manual. The project applicant shall
prepare a development maintenance manual for the stormwater quality system
BMPs (refer to Mitigation Measure HWQ-3[a]). The maintenance manual shall
include detailed procedures for maintenance and operations of all stormwater
facilities to ensure long-term operation and maintenance of post-construction
stormwater controls. The maintenance manual shall require that stormwater BMP
devices be inspected, cleaned, and maintained in accordance with the
manufacturer’s maintenance specifications. The manual shall require that devices
be cleaned prior to the onset of the rainy season (i.e., October 15th) and
immediately after the end of the rainy season (i.e., May 15th). The manual shall also
require that all devices be checked after major storm events.
HWQ-3(c). Stormwater BMP Semi-Annual Maintenance Report. The property
manager(s) or acceptable maintenance organization shall submit to the City of San
Luis Obispo Public Works Department a detailed report prepared by a licensed Civil
Engineer addressing the condition of all private stormwater facilities, BMPs, and any
necessary maintenance activities on a semi-annual basis (October 15th and May
15th of each year). The requirement for maintenance and report submittal shall be
recorded against the property.
Impact HWQ-4. Approximately
98 acres of the project site is
within the existing 100-year
flood zone. However, proposed
grading and elevation
modifications would ensure that
the project would not place
housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area or expose people or
structures downstream of the
Specific Plan Area to flood
hazards due to increased runoff
or loss of floodplain storage.
This impact would be Class II,
significant but mitigable.
HWQ-4. Conditional Letter of Map Revision/Letter of Map Revision. The
applicant, in conjunction with the City of San Luis Obispo, shall prepare the CLOMR
application and obtain a LOMR from FEMA.
Implementation of Mitigation
Measure HWQ-4 and compliance
with existing regulations would
ensure that this impact would be
reduced to a less than significant
level.
LAND USE
Impact LU-2. The Specific Plan
would be potentially consistent
with LAFCO policies for
Mitigation Measures AG-1 and AG-3 would ensure that the Specific Plan would not
result in conflicts between the San Luis Obispo LAFCO agricultural policies and the
Specific Plan.
Implementation of Mitigation
Measures AG-1 and AG-3 would
ensure that this impact would
Packet Pg 380
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-42
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
annexation. This impact would
be Class II, less than significant
with mitigation incorporated.
remain less than significant.
Cumulative Land Use Impacts.
The proposed uses are
consistent with the intent of the
goals and policies established
within the City’s General Plan
and Zoning Regulations after
implementation of mitigation,
and would not cumulatively
contribute to the loss of open
space or agricultural land
beyond that already anticipated
in the City’s LUCE Update and
EIR. Furthermore, the Specific
Plan is not expected to
cumulatively contribute to
potential airport noise and/or
safety issues. As such,
cumulative land use impacts
would be less than significant
with incorporation of the
mitigation included in this EIR.
The following Mitigation Measures would apply to this impact:
• Section 4.1, Aesthetics: AES-1(a) and AES-1(b)
• Section 4.2, Agricultural Resources: AG-1, AG-3
• Section 4.4, Biological Resources: BIO-1(a) through BIO-1(h) and BIO-2(a)
through BIO-2(c)
• Section 4.5, Cultural Resources: CR-1(a) through CR-1(c)
• Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials: HAZ-4, HAZ-5(a), HAZ-5(b),
HAZ-6
• Section 4.10, Noise: N-1(a) through N-1(g), N-4(a), N-4(b), N-5(a) through N-
5(d)
• Section 4.12, Transportation and Circulation: T-1(a) through T-1(i), T-2(a)
through T-2(j), T-3(a) through T-3(d), T-4, T-5, T-6, T-7, T-8(a) through T-8(g),
T-9(a) through T-9(m), T-10(a) through T-10(c)
• Section 4.14, Issues Addressed in the Initial Study: GEO-1, GEO-3
This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
NOISE
Impact N-4. Future
development on the project site
would generate operational
noise typically associated with
residential, commercial, office,
and hotel development. Noise
from the project would not
exceed acceptable levels at
existing off-site sensitive
receptors. However, noise from
new on-site commercial uses
may exceed applicable City
standards at proposed on-site
N-4(a). HVAC Equipment. Retail HVAC equipment shall be shielded and located
on building rooftops, or a minimum of 100 feet from the nearest residential property
line.
N-4(b). Parking Lot/Loading Dock Orientation and Noise Barrier. Parking areas
and loading docks within the proposed retail areas shall be located a minimum of
100 feet from the property lines of the nearest residential properties. For parking
areas and loading docks located a minimum of 250 feet from the property line of
residential properties to the west, or for parking areas and loading docks located a
minimum of 150 feet from the property line of residential properties to the west with
a building intervening line-of-sight between the parking area/loading dock and the
residential property, no further mitigation would be required.
If parking areas or loading docks would be located closer to the within 250 feet of
This mitigation would ensure that
noise levels at residences on the
project site would not exceed the
City’s standards for intermittent
noise.
Packet Pg 381
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-43
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
residences. This impact would
be Class II, less than significant
with mitigation incorporated.
the residential properties to the west than described above, a masonry noise barrier
shall be installed along the eastern boundary of the proposed residences adjacent
to the commercial land use area on the eastern portion of the project site. The noise
barrier shall be constructed of any masonry material with a surface density of at
least three pounds per square foot, and shall have no openings or gaps.
Impact N-5. Existing noise
sources near the project site
include vehicles on local
roadways and U.S. 101.
Development of the project
would expose future residents
on the project site to traffic noise
from local roadways and U.S.
101. With mitigation, traffic
noise levels on the project site
would not exceed City
standards. Therefore, this
impact would be Class II, less
than significant with mitigation
incorporated.
N-5(a). Interior Noise Reduction. The project applicant shall implement the
following measures, or similar combination of measures, which demonstrate that
interior noise levels in proposed residences adjacent to Froom Ranch Way and
Madonna Road, hotel, and offices would be reduced below the City’s 45 dBA CNEL
interior noise standard. The required interior noise reduction shall be achieved
through a combination of standard interior noise reduction techniques, which may
include (but are not limited to):
• In order for windows and doors to remain closed, mechanical ventilation such
as air conditioning shall be provided for all units (Passive ventilation may be
provided, if mechanical ventilation is not necessary to achieve interior noise
standards, as demonstrated by a qualified acoustical consultant).
• All exterior walls shall be constructed with a minimum STC rating of 50,
consisting of construction of 2 inch by 4 inch wood studs with one layer of 5/8
inch Type “X” gypsum board on each side of resilient channels on 24 inch
centers and 3 ½ inch fiberglass insulation.
• All windows and glass doors shall be rated STC 39 or higher such that the
noise reduction provided will satisfy the interior noise standard of 45 dBA
CNEL.
• An acoustical test report of all the sound-rated windows and doors shall be
provided to the City for review by a qualified acoustical consultant to ensure
that the selected windows and doors in combination with wall assemblies would
reduce interior noise levels sufficiently to meet the City’s interior noise
standard.
• All vent ducts connecting interior spaces to the exterior (i.e., bathroom exhaust,
etc.) shall have at least two 90 degree turns in the duct.
• All windows and doors shall be installed in an acoustically-effective manner.
Sliding window panels shall form an air-tight seal when in the closed position
and the window frames shall be caulked to the wall opening around the
perimeter with a non-hardening caulking compound to prevent sound
infiltration. Exterior doors shall seal air-tight around the full perimeter when in
the closed position.
The applicant shall submit a report to the Community Development Department by a
qualified acoustical consultant certifying that the specific interior noise reduction
techniques included in residential, hotel, and office components of the project would
This mitigation would ensure that
traffic noise levels would not
exceed City standards.
Packet Pg 382
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-44
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
achieve interior noise levels that would not exceed 45 dBA CNEL.
N-5(b). Residential Outdoor Activity Area Noise Attenuation. Outdoor activity
areas (e.g., patios and hotel pool areas) associated with shared multifamily
residential recreational spaces, hotel, commercial, and office uses shall be
protected from sound intrusion so that they meet the City’s exterior standard of 60
dBA CNEL. Outdoor activity areas shall be oriented away from traffic noise such
that intervening buildings reduce traffic noise or shall include noise barriers capable
of reducing traffic noise levels to meet the City’s exterior standard. Hotel pool areas
shall be located a minimum of 500 feet from the U.S. 101 right-of-way. Noise
barriers may be constructed of a material such as tempered glass, acrylic glass, or
masonry material with a surface density of at least three pounds per square foot,
and shall have no openings or gaps. The applicant shall submit a report to the
Community Development Department by a qualified acoustic consultant certifying
that the specific outdoor noise reduction techniques in combination with the
orientation of outdoor activity areas of shared multifamily residential recreational
spaces, hotel, commercial, and offices would achieve exterior noise levels that
would not exceed 60 dBA CNEL.
N-5(c). Froom Ranch Way Noise Barrier. A masonry noise barrier or alternative
barrier, such as a landscaped berm, shall be installed along the southern property
line of residential lots that abut Froom Ranch Way to protect outdoor activity areas
(patios and pools) at these residences from sound intrusion from traffic along Froom
Ranch Way. The noise barrier or berm shall provide, at minimum, a 6 foot high
barrier between Froom Ranch Way and the neighboring residences from the final
grade of whichever use (i.e., Froom Ranch Way or residences) has a higher final
elevation. If a masonry noise barrier is implemented, tThe noise barrier shall be
constructed of any masonry material with a surface density of at least three pounds
per square foot, and shall have no openings or gaps. If an alternative material is
used, the developer shall submit a report to the Community Development
Department by a qualified acoustical consultant certifying that the specific exterior
noise reduction techniques included would achieve exterior noise levels that would
not exceed 60 dBA CNEL.
N-5(d). U.S. Highway 101 Noise Barrier at Hotel. If the hotel includes an outdoor
activity area (such as a patio or pool) a masonry noise barrier or alternative barrier,
such as berms, landscaping, or glass, must be installed along the eastern property
line of the hotel where it abuts the U.S. 101 right of way to protect these outdoor
activity areas from sound intrusion from traffic along U.S. 101. If a masonry noise
Packet Pg 383
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-45
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
barrier is implemented, tThe noise barrier shall provide, at minimum, an 8 foot high
barrier between U.S. 101 and the hotel from the final grade of whichever use (i.e.,
U.S. 101 or hotel) has a higher final elevation. Such a The noise barrier shall be
constructed of any masonry material with a surface density of at least three pounds
per square foot, and shall have no openings or gaps. If an alternative material is
used, the developer shall submit a report to the Community Development
Department by a qualified acoustical consultant demonstrating that the specific
exterior noise reduction techniques included in the hotel component of the project
would achieve exterior noise levels that would not exceed 60 dBA CNEL.
RECREATION
Impact REC-1. The project
would accommodate new
residents in the City of San Luis
Obispo who will use existing and
planned parks and recreation
facilities. Provision of on-site
parks and recreation facilities
would not meet the adopted City
parkland standard for the San
Luis Ranch Specific Plan Area.
Therefore, impacts to parks and
recreational facilities would be
Class II, potentially significant
but mitigable.
REC-1. Parkland In-lieu Fees. The project applicant shall pay parkland in-lieu fees
in accordance with the City’s parkland in-lieu fee program for the parkland shortage.
The project’s specific fee shall be determined by the City at the time of project
approval, after accounting for parkland provided within the San Luis Ranch Specific
Plan Area. The in-lieu fees collected from the project shall be directed to new
projects or improvements to existing parks and recreation facilities within the City of
San Luis Obispo parks system.
With payment of the City’s required
parkland in-lieu fees to ensure
compliance with the policies and
performance standards in the City’s
General Plan as part of the project,
impacts associated with parks and
recreational facilities would be less
than significant.
Cumulative Recreation
Impacts. The project would not
meet the Citywide parkland
standards and would exacerbate
the exiting shortfall of parks and
recreational facilities within the
City. As a result, cumulative
adverse physical effects on the
environment from recreational
development would be
potentially significant, and the
project’s contribution to this
impact would be cumulatively
considerable.
With payment of the City’s required parkland in-lieu fees to ensure compliance with
the policies and performance standards in the City’s General Plan as part of the
project, required by Mitigation Measure REC-1, the project contribution to
cumulative impacts associated with parks and recreational facilities would be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Implementation of required
mitigation measures would reduce
cumulative impacts to a less than
significant level.
Packet Pg 384
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-46
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
TRANSPORTATION
Impact T-4. Project construction
activities would create traffic
impacts due to construction
vehicles causing congestion and
deteriorating pavement
conditions. Mitigation would
reduce these impacts to an
acceptable level. This impact
would be Class II, less than
significant with mitigation.
T-4. Construction Traffic Management Plan. Prior to construction, a traffic
management plan shall be prepared for review and approval by the City of San Luis
Obispo Public Works Department. The traffic management plan shall be based on
the type of roadway traffic conditions, duration of construction, physical constraints,
nearness of the work zone to traffic and other facilities (bicycle, pedestrian,
driveway access, etc.). The traffic management plan shall include:
• Advertisement. The project developer shall prepare an advertisement campaign
informing the public of the proposed construction activities. Advertisements
shall occur prior to beginning work and periodically during the course of the
project construction. The advertising shall include notification of changes to bus
schedules and potential changes to bus stop locations, potential impacts during
school drop-off and pick-up times, and major intersections that may be
impacted during construction.
• Property Access. Access to parcels along the construction area shall be
maintained to the greatest extent feasible. Affected property owners shall
receive advance notice of work adjacent to their property access and when
driveways would be potentially closed.
• Schools. Any construction adjacent to schools shall ensure that access is
maintained for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists, particularly at the
beginning and end of the school day.
• Buses, Bicycles, and Pedestrians. The work zone shall provide for passage by
buses, bicyclists, and pedestrians, particularly in the vicinity of schools.
• Intersections. Traffic control (i.e., use of flag persons) shall be used at
intersections that are determined to be unacceptably congested due to
construction traffic.
Implementation of the identified
mitigation would ensure that
impacts associated with
construction traffic would be less
than significant after mitigation.
Impact T-5. Construction of the
proposed Froom Ranch Way
bridge during phase 3 of the
Specific Plan buildout would
result in significant level of
service and queuing impacts at
study area intersections and
roadway segments. Mitigation
would reduce these impacts to
an acceptable level. This impact
would be Class II, less than
significant with mitigation.
T-5. Froom Ranch Way Bridge Phasing. The Froom Ranch Way bridge
connection shall be completed prior to occupancy of Phase 1 of the Specific Plan
buildout.
Implementation of the identified
mitigation would ensure that LOS
and queuing impacts associated
with the project’s proposed
infrastructure phasing would be
less than significant after mitigation.
Packet Pg 385
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-47
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
Impact T-6. The project site
plan would result in and
contribute to increased access
conflicts. Proposed access
controls are not consistent with
General Plan policy. Mitigation
would reduce these impacts to
an acceptable level. This impact
would be Class II, less than
significant with mitigation.
T-6. Project Site Intersection Roundabout Control. New roadway intersections
within the Specific Plan Area shall be controlled using roundabout design, unless
the City Public Works Department determines that roundabout control is infeasible.
Implementation of the identified
mitigation would ensure that the
project would be consistent with
General Plan Circulation Element
Policy 7.1.2, and would ensure that
transportation impacts due to
access conflicts would be reduced
to a less than significant level after
mitigation.
Impact T-7. The project site
plan would result in on-site
traffic volumes and speeds that
may exceed General Plan policy
thresholds, resulting potential
traffic hazards within the project
site. Mitigation would reduce
these impacts to an acceptable
level. This impact would be
Class II, less than significant
with mitigation.
T-7. Traffic Calming Features. New roadway intersections along San Luis Ranch
Road shall include neighborhood traffic circles at key intersections, and traffic-
calming features, such as diverters, along longer uninterrupted segments.
This mitigation would ensure that
potential traffic hazards within the
Specific Plan area would be
reduced to a less than significant
level after mitigation.
ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE INITIAL STUDY
Due to the proximity of the site
to the Los Osos Fault and
Alquist-Priolo Zone, impacts
associated with earthquakes
and ground shaking would be
potentially significant. In
addition, the project site has
been identified as being located
in an area of very high
liquefaction potential, moderate
to high expansion potential, and
high settlement potential. In
addition, during historical
drought years, groundwater
levels in the site vicinity were
lowered enough to cause
GEO-1. Earthquake and Ground Acceleration Design and Construction
Measures. Design and construction of the buildings, roadway infrastructure and all
subgrades shall be specifically proportioned to resist Design Earthquake Ground
Motions (Design amax) of SD1=0.481 and SDS=0.832 and engineered to withstand
Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) peak ground acceleration (PGAM) equal
to 0.519 g, as described in the Soils Engineering Report for the project
(GeoSolutions, Inc., 2015). The design should take into consideration the soil type,
potential for liquefaction, and the most current and applicable seismic attenuation
methods that are available.
GEO-2. Operational Seismic Safety Requirement. For retail stores included in the
project, goods for sale may be stacked no higher than 8 feet from the floor in any
area where customers are present, unless provisions are made to prevent the
goods from falling during an earthquake of up to 7.5 magnitude. The stacking or
restraint methods shall be reviewed and approved by the City before approval of
occupancy permits, and shall be a standing condition of occupancy.
With implementation of the
mitigation described above, impacts
related to geology and soils would
be less than significant.
Packet Pg 386
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-48
Table ES-2
Class II, Significant but Mitigable Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
subsidence.
GEO-3. Geotechnical Design. The project plans and specifications shall include
the geotechnical recommendations included in the Soils Engineering Report,
prepared by GeoSolutions, Inc. on May 29, 2015. Recommendations therein that
shall be incorporated into the final project building plans include specification for the
following components of development preparation and design:
• Building Pad Preparation
• Paved Areas Preparation
• Pavement Design
• Interlocking Concrete Pavers
• Conventional Foundations
• Post-Tensioned Slabs
• Slab-On-Grade Construction
• Retaining Walls
• Exterior Concrete Flatwork
Packet Pg 387
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-49
Table ES-3
Class III, Less than Significant Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
AESTHETICS
Impact AES-1. Although there
are potentially adverse impacts
to scenic viewsheds, the project
would implement the open
space and agricultural
preservation and design
elements included in the
proposed Specific Plan.
Therefore, potential impacts to
scenic vistas and scenic
resources within a state scenic
highway would be Class III, less
than significant.
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
Impact AES-2. The project
would alter the existing visual
character of the site by
converting over half of the
agricultural site into a
predominantly residential and
commercial use site. Due to the
project’s visual compatibility with
surrounding development,
preservation of on-site open
space and agricultural land, and
compliance with design
guidelines, the project’s impact
on the visual character and
quality of the site would be
Class III, less than significant.
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
Impact AES-3. The project
would introduce a new source of
nighttime lighting and daytime
glare, which could increase
ambient light and affect the
quality of the nighttime sky.
However, project compliance
with existing City requirements
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
Packet Pg 388
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-50
Table ES-3
Class III, Less than Significant Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
and design guidelines would
limit the magnitude of these
effects. This would be Class III,
less than significant.
Cumulative Aesthetics
Impacts. As determined in the
LUCE Update EIR, all
development that adheres to
applicable General Plan policies
would result in less than
significant aesthetic impacts.
Therefore, the overall aesthetic
impact of cumulative
development in the project
vicinity would be less than
significant.
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact AG-2. The project would
alter the existing land use and
zoning on the project site.
However, these alterations
would be consistent with the
General Plan’s identification of
the San Luis Ranch Specific
Plan for a mix of urban,
agricultural, and open space
use. Therefore, this impact
would be Class III, less than
significant.
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
Impact AG-4. Re-grading of the
project site would not result in
significant degradation of
viability of on-site agricultural
land. Therefore, this impact
would be Class III, less than
significant.
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
Packet Pg 389
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-51
Table ES-3
Class III, Less than Significant Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
Cumulative Agricultural
Resources Impacts. Consistent
with the LUCE Update EIR, the
project would implement Land
Use Element Policies 1.8.1 and
1.9.2, and Conservation and
Open Space Element Policy
8.6.3. As a result, cumulative
impacts would be less than
significant.
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
AIR QUALITY
Impact AQ-4 . The project would
not expose sensitive receptors
to substantial pollutant
concentrations. This impact
would be Class III, less than
significant.
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Impact GHG-1. The San Luis
Ranch Specific Plan is
consistent with the City’s
Climate Action Plan. This impact
would be Class III, less than
significant.
The San Luis Ranch Specific Plan is consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan.
No mitigation is required.
This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
HAZARDS/ HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact HAZ-1. Small quantities
of hazardous materials may be
used in conjunction with the
proposed residential and
commercial retail uses on site.
However, these materials would
be limited in type and quantity
such that they would not create
a hazard to the public or
environment. Therefore, this
impact would be Class III, less
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
Packet Pg 390
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-52
Table ES-3
Class III, Less than Significant Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
than significant.
Impact HAZ-2. The project site
is adjacent to U.S. Highway 101,
on which accidents that involve
hazardous materials could
occur. Such accidents could
potentially create a significant
hazard to the public or
environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the
environment. However,
compliance with applicable
regulations related to the
handling and storage of
hazardous materials would
minimize the risk of the public’s
potential exposure to these
substances, resulting in a Class
III, less than significant, impact.
Transport of hazardous materials on U.S. 101 and other roadways, including U.S.
101, would be required to comply with all federal, State, and local laws pertaining to
the handling of hazardous materials. No mitigation is required.
This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
Impact HAZ-3. Two schools are
located within one-quarter mile
of the project site. Compliance
with existing federal, State, and
local regulations would ensure
that hazardous materials
impacts to schools would remain
Class III, less than significant.
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
Impact HAZ-7. Asbestos
Containing Material (ACM) and
Lead Based Paint (LBP) may be
present in existing on-site
structures. Demolition of these
structures would be required to
comply with applicable State
and local policies and
regulations for the control and
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
Packet Pg 391
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-53
Table ES-3
Class III, Less than Significant Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
remediation of hazardous
materials to prevent human
exposure. Therefore, this impact
would be Class III, less than
significant.
Impact HAZ-8. The project site
is located within a San Luis
Obispo County Regional Airport
area of influence. The project
would be consistent with the
CALUPH Airport Safety Zones,
which represent the extent of
Airport-related safety hazard
zones for people residing or
working in these areas.
Therefore, this impact would be
Class III, less than significant.
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
Cumulative Hazards and
Hazardous Materials Impacts.
As described in the LUCE
Update EIR, adherence to
applicable General Plan policies
and applicable State and federal
regulatory requirements would
reduce any cumulative hazards
and hazardous materials
impacts resulting from buildout
of the City under the General
Plan, including buildout of the
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan,
to a less than significant level.
The uses proposed for the San
Luis Ranch Project would be
consistent with the CALUPH
Airport Safety Zones, which
represent the extent of Airport-
related safety hazard zones for
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
Packet Pg 392
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-54
Table ES-3
Class III, Less than Significant Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
people residing or working in
these areas. As such, the
project would not result in a
substantial contribution to
cumulative aircraft related
hazards in the City.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact HWQ-2. The project
would alter the existing drainage
pattern of the project site, which
could result in flooding, erosion,
or siltation onsite and offsite.
However, the proposed retention
and detention systems, along
with compliance with applicable
regulations, would ensure that
this impact would remain Class
III, less than significant.
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
Cumulative Hydrology and
Water Quality Impacts.
Water Quality. The project, in
conjunction with pending
cumulative development would
not significantly increase the
concentration of urban
pollutants such as oil, grease,
and vehicular heavy metals in
surface runoff. Polluted runoff
which may be generated during
construction activities of
cumulative development and
projects considered in this
analysis would be regulated by
the SWRCB under General
Construction, NPDES permits,
and would be minimized through
the implementation of standard
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
Packet Pg 393
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-55
Table ES-3
Class III, Less than Significant Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
construction BMPs. Cumulative
impacts would therefore be less
than significant for water quality.
Flooding. The proposed on-site
drainage system would
adequately capture associated
runoff, and the project would not
substantially contribute to
flooding on- or off-site. The
project grading plan has been
designed such that the resulting
post-development floodplain
would exclude areas proposed
for housing. Overall, cumulative
impacts to hydrology and water
quality would be less than
significant.
LAND USE
Impact LU-3. The Specific Plan
would be consistent with the
land use strategy in SLOCOG’s
2014 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy. This impact would be
Class III, less than significant.
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
Impact LU-4. The Specific Plan
would allow residential and non-
residential land uses consistent
with density and use restrictions
in the City’s Airport Safety
Zones, which represent the
extent of Airport-related safety
hazard zones for people residing
or working in these areas. The
LUCE Update EIR provided
substantial evidence that the
development of the San Luis
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
Packet Pg 394
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-56
Table ES-3
Class III, Less than Significant Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
Ranch Specific Plan Area under
the updated General Plan land
use designations would be
consistent with ALUP safety and
noise standards. The project
would not conflict with land use
policies intended to prevent
airport-related safety hazards.
Therefore, this impact would be
Class III, less than significant.
NOISE
Impact N-2. Short-term
construction activities would
generate intermittent levels of
groundborne vibration. However,
the expected vibration level
during construction of the
project would not be perceptible
at the nearest residential
receptors. This impact would be
Class III, less than significant.
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
Impact N-3. Project-generated
traffic would incrementally
increase traffic-related noise on
study area roadway segments,
except on Madonna Road near
the project site, which would
potentially affect existing noise-
sensitive receptors along local
roadways. However, the
increase in traffic noise levels
along area roadways would not
exceed 3 dBA, which is the
increase threshold typically
audible to the human ear.
Therefore, the effect of
increased traffic noise would be
Class III, less than significant.
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
Packet Pg 395
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-57
Table ES-3
Class III, Less than Significant Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
Cumulative Noise Impacts.
Traffic noise levels along
roadways in the project vicinity
would not increase by more than
0.5 dBA due to cumulative
traffic. This increase would not
be significant based on the
applicable traffic noise increase
threshold of 3 dBA. Therefore,
the project’s contribution to
traffic noise would not be
cumulatively considerable or
significant.
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
WATER RESOURCES
Impact WR-1. The project would
increase water demand as a
result of new residential and
commercial development on the
project site. However, the
project’s water demand would
be within the City of San Luis
Obispo’s projected primary
water supply. Therefore, impacts
to water supply would be Class
III, less than significant.
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
Cumulative Water Resources
Impacts. The project’s water
demand would not exceed
supply when combined with all
possible future development
within the City. In addition, the
project would reduce the overall
demand on the San Luis Obispo
groundwater basin as a result of
reduced on-site agricultural uses
and, therefore, would not
exacerbate potential cumulative
impacts on the local
No mitigation is required. This impact would be less than
significant without mitigation.
Packet Pg 396
12
San Luis Ranch Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of San Luis Obispo
ES-58
Table ES-3
Class III, Less than Significant Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact
groundwater basin associate
with future development within
the City. Accordingly, the
project’s cumulative water
supply impact would be less
than significant.
Packet Pg 397
12
FINAL TERM SHEET SAN LUIS RANCH
071928\8719071v2 1
180317.1
TERM SHEET
FOR
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AND
MI SAN LUIS RANCH, LLC
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
a. The purpose of this Term Sheet is to outline basic terms by which the City of San
Luis Obispo (“City”) and MI San Luis Ranch, LLC (“Developer”) will be
negotiating a proposed Development Agreement for the orderly development of
the Project described in the Specific Plan (“Project”) on the real property
identified as APN: 067-121-022 (“Property”). This Term Sheet generally
addresses the list of issues described herein and memorializes the anticipated
terms of the proposed Development Agreement or outlines a process and/or
general approach to reach agreement.
b. The objective of the Development Agreement is to coordinate all entitlements and
provide for and secure for the orderly development of the Project and delineate a
process to specify both general and extraordinary benefits related to the
Development Agreement.
c. The final terms for the Development Agreement shall be negotiated in good faith
and nothing in this Term Sheet is binding on either party. This Term Sheet, by
memorializing the discussions to date between City and Developer, is intended to
provide clarity in planning for and facilitating the Project’s compliance with
CEQA, the processing of entitlements for the Project, and, if approved, the
orderly development of the Project.
d. Because full environmental review under CEQA and/or other state, federal, and
local environmental laws is required as part of City’s evaluation of whether to
approve the Project, nothing set forth in this Term Sheet commits or otherwise
requires City or any other federal, state, or other local agency to approve, in
whole or in part, the Project.
2. DURATION OF AGREEMENT
a. The duration of the Development Agreement is expected to be 20-30 years from
the date the Development Agreement becomes effective (“Effective Date”), but
shall comply with the time extensions and cancellations in City Municipal Code
section 17.94.190 and California Government Code sections 65868 and 65869.5
and other applicable law. The Development Agreement shall include an
expiration date within five years of effective date if the first phase of construction
is not completed.
b. The Development Agreement shall specify commencement of construction dates
along with related milestones. Failure to meet designated milestones may result in
cancellation of, and/or a reduction in the term of, the Development Agreement.
Packet Pg 398
12
FINAL TERM SHEET SAN LUIS RANCH
071928\8719071v2 2
180317.1
3. PERMITTED USES OF THE PROPERTY
a. The permitted uses of the Property are those identified, described, and otherwise
shown in the approved Specific Plan and other regulatory documents to be
included in the Development Agreement by reference. The Project shall be
limited to the expressed density and intensity of uses as shown in the approved
Specific Plan and other Project entitlements.
4. MAXIMUM DENSITY, HEIGHT, AND SIZE OF BUILDINGS
a. Any vested right relating to maximum density, height, and size of buildings shall
be for the term of the Development Agreement, subject only to the procedures and
design review standards for review of individual building projects (i.e.,
Architectural Review Commission, Cultural Heritage Commission, etc.). The
density, heights, and sizes of buildings are subjected to all Specific Plan polices or
other regulatory documents to be included in the Development Agreement by
reference.
5. PROVISIONS FOR RESERVATION OR DEDICATION OF LAND FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES
a. Before the sooner of (i) the recordation of a subdivision map for any portion of
the Project or (ii) the issuance of a building permit for the first structure to be built
as part of the first phase of the Project, Developer shall offer to dedicate to City a
conservation easement, or multiple conservation easements, preserving the land
designated by the Specific Plan as either Agriculture or Open Space in the form of
an Agriculture Easement (“Agriculture Easement”) and an Open Space Easement
(“Open Space Easement,” and collectively, the “Conservation Easements”).
Developer shall be entitled to make use of the land subject to the Conservation
Easements consistent with (i) the requirements of the Conservation Easements;
(ii) City rules, regulations, and policies, including but not limited to those
governing agriculture, agricultural buffers, wells, groundwater treatment facilities,
water lines, recreational and educational uses (including bicycle and pedestrian
paths), unpaved roadways and parking areas for agricultural purposes and
maintenance access, and surface drainage and flood management; (iii) Specific
Plan Policies, General Plan Policies, CEQA mitigation measures, conditions of
subdivision maps, and other project entitlements; and (iv) any other applicable
law or development standards in place on the Effective Date.
b. Developer shall partially fulfill the obligations of the Conservation Easements by
dedicating a portion of the Property for use as agricultural and open space land
consistent with City’s adopted General Plan and certified Final Environmental
Impact Report (“FEIR”) Mitigation Measures for the Project and any other
applicable conditions of approval or applicable regulations for the Project.
c. A portion of the agricultural/open space land may be mitigated off-site through an
agricultural/open space conservation easement on comparable land by providing
land for an agricultural/open space easement at a ratio to be determined by the
City’s Natural Resource Manager that contain specific characteristics of the land
proposed consistent in accordance with the FEIR, or through the payment of fees
to City for City’s use as a portion of monies available for the subsequent purchase
of a larger parcel of acceptable off-site mitigation property in fee or the purchase
of agricultural/open space conservation easements. In no case, shall comparable
Packet Pg 399
12
FINAL TERM SHEET SAN LUIS RANCH
071928\8719071v2 3
180317.1
offsite mitigation ratios be less than 1acre to 1acre. Any obligations of the Project
and Developer to meet those agriculture and open space requirements shall also
comply with all FEIR Mitigation Measures for the Project and any other policies
and development standards for the Project.
d. Developer agrees to fulfill its Quimby Act, General Plan Park Element, and other
applicable City park and recreation obligations by constructing the appropriate
onsite park and recreation improvements to the satisfaction of the Parks and
Recreation Commission. Should the amount of acreage dedicated to parks and
recreation amenities be insufficient to meet Developer’s obligation, Developer
shall dedicate property off-site, and/or pay applicable fees to accomplish the
same.
e. City agrees to consider an access easement to Developer for agricultural
operations on San Luis Ranch and temporary construction access across the
property commonly known as “City Farm property” (APN’s 053-152-006, 053-
152-008, and 053-152-007) within the area covered by the extension of Calle
Joaquin to the common property line. The Development Agreement shall specify
the terms for shared maintenance obligations of City and Developer as to that
access easement, as well as any necessary improvements.
6. INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRED
a. Developer shall construct all infrastructure, including but not limited to that
required by the subdivision map(s), as outlined in the FEIR for the Project,
conditions of approval for the Project, the Specific Plan, or any other related
policies or standards, subject to any reimbursement requirements identified in the
Development Agreement or other Project entitlements. Infrastructure shall
include, but shall not be limited to, improvements for streets and sidewalks, parks
and recreation facilities, stormwater management and wetlands, grading and
floodplain management, storm drain, sanitary sewer, domestic and recycled water
infrastructure, and transit to support the development of the Project as shown in
the approved entitlements, including but not limited to the Project’s Specific Plan,
FEIR, conditions of approval, or other related development standards. City shall
consider granting easements across City property that may be required for the
orderly development of the Project.
b. City and Developer shall mutually agree on the timing of infrastructure
improvements to be constructed by Developer. Construction of these
improvements shall not commence any later than the triggering date or event for
these improvements as determined by the certified FEIR or other conditions of
approval. A financing plan for the improvements shall be included in the
Development Agreement. The financing plan shall identify Developer funding,
City impact fees, other private investment, land-secured (special district) funding,
and non-Developer funding from City or other public agencies.
c. Project entitlements shall include typical conditions of approval, including
acquisition of fee and/or easement rights of access, construction, and
maintenance-repair-replacement for any off-site infrastructure improvements
outside of the control of either City or Developer as required by California
Government Code section 66462.5. In addition to the options provided to the City
by Government Code section 66462.5, the City may opt at the sole discretion of
Packet Pg 400
12
FINAL TERM SHEET SAN LUIS RANCH
071928\8719071v2 4
180317.1
the Public Works Director to require the Developer to design and construct the
roundabout as specified in the subdivision map on the Project site.
d. Prior to recordation of the final map the Developer shall complete the design of
Dalidio Road improvements and exhaust all feasible efforts to acquire the
necessary off-site dedications, easements, and agreements to construct any
infrastructure for the Project on the site at 1655 Dalidio Drive on which the
United States Post Office is currently located (APN: 053-012-013). In addition to
the options provided to the City by Government Code section 66462.5, the City
may opt to require the Developer to explore other feasible alternatives within the
scope of the EIR mitigate any impacts.
e. Developer and City shall cooperate to provide and make available real property
currently owned by either Developer or City and necessary for construction of
those public improvements, such as, but not limited to (i) construction of the
Prado Road Overcrossing and/or Freeway Interchange required by the certified
FEIR, (ii) extension of Froom Ranch Way, (iii) improvements to Madonna Road,
(iv) or other improvements needed to satisfy Project approvals.
f. Prior to approval of the final subdivision map for the Project, Developer shall
convey by fee or by grant of an irrevocable offer of dedication rights across the
Property required for construction of the improvements associated with: 1) the
Prado Road Overcrossing and/or Freeway Interchange, 2) Madonna Road,
3) Dalidio/Prado Road, 4) Froom Ranch Way and 5) any other street for public
purposes.
g. City and Developer shall diligently pursue all aspects of the applications to
Caltrans, the Army Corps of Engineers, and other agencies required for
construction of the Prado Road Overcrossing or Freeway Interchange, and all
environmental processing and supporting technical studies. City and Developer
shall diligently and cooperatively pursue the planning, engineering, cost
estimating, and other efforts necessary to determine the final cost and design of
the Prado Road Overcrossing or Freeway Interchange. City shall provide timely
review and responses to all such applications made in respect to the Prado Road
Overcrossing and/or Freeway Interchange.
7. WATER RIGHTS
a. The Project shall comply with the California Water Code and the regulations
imposed pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) for
all matters related to water rights. City and Developer acknowledge that
Developer neither relinquishes nor conveys to City any rights with respect to
groundwater or other water rights with respect to the Property. Further, Developer
expressly reserves any and all water rights it has in connection with the Property
and the Project. Developer shall be entitled to irrigate the agricultural/open space
land utilizing groundwater as long as water quality meets or exceeds all applicable
water quality standards, and shall not be required by City to irrigate that land with
reclaimed water in lieu of groundwater unless Developer at its sole option chooses
to connect to City’s water system for purposes of irrigation of
agricultural/openspace; provided, however, that nothing in the Development
Agreement shall exempt the Project or Developer from groundwater regulations
imposed by a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA). City and Developer
Packet Pg 401
12
FINAL TERM SHEET SAN LUIS RANCH
071928\8719071v2 5
180317.1
acknowledge that pursuant to applicable rules and regulations, Developer may use
well water for irrigation purposes within the parcel boundary of agricultural/open
space land.
8. AFFORDABLE HOUSING
a. At a minimum, developer shall provide affordable housing, including rental and
for-sale units, consistent with the approved Affordable Housing Plan for the
Project. All affordable units required for the residential development will be
integrated into the neighborhoods on-site and will be subject to long-term
affordability agreements. The housing units required for the commercial
development could be provided on-site, off-site, or the requirement may be met
by payment of in-lieu fees.
9. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
a. The Community Development Director may authorize the Developer to construct
up to 50% of annual units in a calendar year in excess of those permitted by the
approved phasing schedule required by the Specific Plan if he or she determines
that doing so is necessary to allow financing of essential project infrastructure.
The purpose of this section is to expressly allow for the financing of infrastructure
and is not a general waiver of the requirements under the City’s Growth
Management Ordinance.
10. FEES AND EXACTIONS
a. The Developer shall be required to pay all City-wide and Project-specific
development impact fees, excluding sewer and water impact fees addressed in
section 10(b) below, for the Project’s fair share of the cost to mitigate Project
impacts as identified in the Final Impact Report, Specific Plan, conditions of
approval or otherwise specified in the Development Agreement in effect when
each final map is recorded. All development impact fees shall be adjusted
annually based on an inflation index identified upon imposition of the fee.
b. The Developer shall be required to pay sewer and water impact fees in accordance
with the AB1600 analysis in effect when each Final Map is recorded. Sewer and
water impact fees in effect as of the date that the Final Map is recorded and may
be adjusted annually and shall be paid upon recordation of each final map at the
rate then effective.
c. Fees imposed by City, including but not limited to planning, engineering, building
permit, fire plan check and development impact fees, but excluding sewer and
water impact fees governed by section 10(b) above, shall be in accordance with
the fees in effect as of the date of when the Final Map is recorded and may be
adjusted annually in conformance with applicable City Policies.
d. If the City amends any existing Development Impact Fee (DIF) program to
include additional projects or costs for the benefit of the Project (either new
projects or increased costs for projects included in the analysis supporting existing
fees) for improvements necessary to satisfy Project requirements, Developer will
be required to pay the amended fees. Credits applied towards infrastructure costs
advanced by Developer shall apply when building permits are issued or fees are
otherwise due and shall arise only from Developer funded construction of
Packet Pg 402
12
FINAL TERM SHEET SAN LUIS RANCH
071928\8719071v2 6
180317.1
infrastructure or community facilities included in the project list on which a
particular fee was based. Credits applied when building permits are issued or fees
are otherwise due pursuant to this section shall be adjusted for inflation
consistently with such adjustments of the fees against which credits are allowed.
e. The Developer shall pay all then-current processing fees for any subsequent
planning applications and permits as adopted by the City Council.
f. City acknowledges that Developer may dedicate property and install
infrastructure improvements beyond its “fair share” cost. The City agrees to
consider fee credits and reimbursements, funded by Development Impact Fees
paid by other developers, and traffic impact fees, where eligible, but excluding
sewer and water impact fees. Nothing in the Development Agreement shall
preclude City and Developer from entering infrastructure-item-specific
reimbursement agreements for the portion of the cost of any dedications, public
facilities and/or infrastructure the City may require the Developer to construct as
conditions of the Project Approvals to the extent that they exceed the Project’s
“fair share”.
g. The Developer may be reimbursed by other private development(s) for those
developments’ “Fair Share” of the cost to construct sewer and water infrastructure
per San Luis Obispo Municipal Code sections 16.20.100 and 16.20.110. The
Developer will provide a study identifying the benefit area for each such
reimbursement agreement, conforming to San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
section 16.20.110, for review and approval of the Utilities Director, and may
provide for reimbursement for segments of infrastructure which meet a utility’s
minimum size standard if the study shows those minimally sized facilities to
benefit identified additional developments.
h. The Developer has advanced funding to process a Caltrans Project Study Report
(PSR) for the US 101/Prado Road Interchange. The Developer will either be
reimbursed by other development projects for costs beyond the Project’s “Fair
Share” of this improvement or receive an upfront fee credit for expenditures for
the PSR as established in the final Development Agreement.
11. NEW TAXES
a. Any City-wide taxes enacted or increased after the Effective Date shall apply to
the Project only if (i) such taxes apply City-wide and do not discriminate against
Developer, (ii) such taxes apply to the Property prospectively, and (iii) the
application of such taxes would not prevent development in accordance with the
Development Agreement.
12. INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING
a. The Development Agreement shall include a financing plan that specifies the
form and mechanism of public financing to be used and the obligations of City
and Developer as to such public financing (“Financing Plan”). To fund timely
construction of necessary improvements as discussed in section 6, the Financing
Plan may require Developer to pay for some portion of the public improvements
beyond the Project’s “fair share” of costs and before funding for related
Packet Pg 403
12
FINAL TERM SHEET SAN LUIS RANCH
071928\8719071v2 7
180317.1
reimbursement by City has been secured. This may be accomplished through
reimbursement agreements; land-secured public financing for the Project, such as
formation of a community facilities district; use of tax increment financing
through an infrastructure financing district; negotiation of the Tax Exchange
Agreement with the County of San Luis Obispo; or outside sources of public
investment, such as grants. City’s General Fund shall not be obligated for such
debt. City agrees to create and administer the financing mechanism(s) and to
make best efforts in consultation with Developer to identify other funding sources
to support the orderly development of the Project. Nothing in this Term Sheet or
the Development Agreement shall constitute an unlawful pre-commitment of the
City’s legislative discretion or its discretion as to quasi-judicial matters which are
required to be determined after notice and hearing and on the basis of an adequate
administrative record. Nothing in this Term Sheet or the Development Agreement
shall be in denigration of the rights of third parties under applicable law.
13. RESPONSIBILITY FOR CEQA MITIGATION AND OTHER MITIGATION MEASURES
a. The Development Agreement will incorporate by reference all applicable FEIR
mitigation measures adopted for the Project in addition to the conditions of other
Project approvals.
14. COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT
a. As stated in section 12(a) above, the Developer will agree to the formation of one
or more community facilities districts as one of many sources of revenue to fund
infrastructure. The City agrees to bring forward the formation of one or more
community facilities district for Council consideration to finance public
infrastructure and/or public services. Such community facilities districts may
levy special taxes to fund public facilities, local infrastructure maintenance, and
City services to the Project so it does not negatively impact City service levels to
other residents and property owners.
b. Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R’s) applicable to real property
shall obligate a homeowner’s association, or other common-interest association,
to bear any and all obligations for funding local infrastructure maintenance and
support for City services if an applicable community facilities district is repealed
by initiative pursuant to article XIII C, section 3 of the California Constitution, or
repealed in any other manner other than voluntary rescission by the City Council.
Each portion of the project which includes infrastructure to be maintained by the
benefited properties shall be subject to CC&Rs sufficient to attain the objective of
this paragraph (b), although the parties recognize multiple homeowner or
property-owner associations may be created for portions or phases of the
development.
15. PHASING
a. The Development Agreement shall require Developer to construct certain
improvements in addition to those “in-tract” improvements required pursuant to
the subdivision map(s) for all six phases of the Project, per the phasing schedule
approved as part of the Specific Plan. Developer shall construct and convey to
City identified infrastructure and community facilities concurrently with
Packet Pg 404
12
FINAL TERM SHEET SAN LUIS RANCH
071928\8719071v2 8
180317.1
development of the discrete phases of the Project to be served by each
infrastructure element or community facility.
b. The Public Works and Community Development Directors may defer the deadline
for the Developer to construct and convey an infrastructure element or community
facility consistently with applicable Project mitigation measures, City policies and
the Development Agreement.
c. Notwithstanding the provisions of any phasing requirements in the Project
approvals, City and Developer recognize that economic and market conditions
may necessitate changing the order in which the infrastructure is constructed.
Therefore, City and Developer will agree that if it becomes necessary or desirable
to develop any portion of the Project's infrastructure in an order that differs from
the order set forth in the Project approvals, Developer may propose any such
modification request which the City will consider in good faith so long as the
modification continues to ensure adequate infrastructure is available to serve that
portion of the Project being developed subject to environmental analysis and any
other regulatory actions necessary to inform the public and decision makers of the
potential impacts of any deviations from the planned order set forth in Project
approvals. Developer acknowledges that such a modification of the project will be
subject to CEQA and may require an amendment of the Development Agreement
or other entitlements.
16. MORATORIUM
a. No City-imposed moratorium or other limitation (whether relating to the rate,
timing, or sequencing of the development or construction of all or any part of the
Project, whether imposed by ordinance, initiative, resolution, policy, order, or
otherwise, and whether enacted by the City Council, an agency of City, the
electorate, or otherwise) affecting parcel or subdivision maps (whether tentative,
vesting tentative, or final), building permits, occupancy certificates or other
entitlements to use or service (including, without limitation, water and sewer)
approved, issued, or granted within City, or portions of City, following the
approval of the Specific Plan, shall apply to the Project to the extent such
moratorium or other limitation is in conflict with the Development Agreement;
provided, however, the provisions of this Section shall not affect City’s
compliance with moratoria or other limitations mandated by other governmental
agencies or court-imposed moratoria or other limitations.
17. FORECE MEJEURE
a. Language shall be included in the Development Agreement which exempts the
City from any liability whatsoever in the event of force majeure.
18. SUBDIVISION MAPS
a. The term of any approved tentative subdivision map shall be extended through the
term of the Development Agreement and beyond the minimum term for such
maps under the Subdivision Map Act, City regulations, and other applicable law
and in the manner and subject to such notice as is required by such law.
Subsequent phased tentative and final maps shall be processed in accordance with
Packet Pg 405
12
FINAL TERM SHEET SAN LUIS RANCH
071928\8719071v2 9
180317.1
applicable law, including applicable City standards and regulations Amendments
to any approved subdivision maps shall not extend the term of the Development
Agreement.
19. SUBSEQUENT APPROVALS
a. Applications for approval of building and architectural plans shall include a final
package of materials, including a site plan identifying the building location, floor
plans, exterior materials and colors, vertical dimensions, hardscape and landscape
concepts, and fenestration in accordance with the requirements of the Specific
Plan. Any deviation from the requirements of the Specific Plan of these items
shall be subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission
pursuant to adopted design standards and guidelines. Developer will incorporate
construction elements that reduce potable water and energy consumption, utilize
“state of the art” irrigation systems, and offer access to solar energy options
required by the applicable Building Code in effect at the time each building
permit is issued for development of the Project. Buildings shall incorporate non-
reflective roofing material and roof-mounted equipment to minimize glare
impacts on overflying aircraft.
b. City shall approve, consistently with applicable law, a Rough Grading Plan and
allow rough grading of the land subject to each final subdivision map before its
approval and recordation subject to conditions as determined by the Community
Development Director. A rough grading permit will comply with all applicable
approvals and be subject to regulations to ensure public health and safety.
Furthermore, issuance of a rough grading permit will be subject to the
Community Development Director’s determination that Developer is working
diligently and cooperatively to move the Project toward full permits and
construction.
c. Public and private parks will be subject to Parks and Recreation Commission
review and approval. Plans will include (at a minimum) landscape, irrigation,
hardscape, park furniture, and play equipment, along with proposed public art, all
consistent with applicable City regulations.
20. ASSIGNMENT AND TRANSFERS
a. Developer may transfer the Property (or portions of the Property) and the rights
and responsibilities of the Development Agreement in accordance with the
Subdivision Map Act and City standards and regulations. However, in
implementing such transfers, the Development Agreement may require the
original landowner to remain fully responsible for all Developer obligations under
the Development Agreement (e.g., construction of infrastructure and obligation
for public benefits), unless City is satisfied that the subsequent landowner has the
resources and experience to meet these obligations. Restrictions on transfer shall
not apply to a transfer by Developer to an affiliate of Developer.
21. ANNUAL REVIEW
a. The Community Development Director shall review compliance with the
Development Agreement at time intervals specified in the Development
Agreement, but not less than once every twelve months, as required by California
Packet Pg 406
12
FINAL TERM SHEET SAN LUIS RANCH
071928\8719071v2 10
180317.1
Government Code section 65865.1. The purpose of the review shall be to
determine whether the terms or conditions of the Development Agreement are
being met.
22. INDEMNIFICATION
a. The Development Agreement shall include an indemnification provision, in which
Developer agrees to defend, indemnify, save, and hold harmless City and its
elected and appointed boards, commissions, officers, agents, and employees from
any and all claims, costs, and liability for any damages, personal injury, or death,
which may arise, directly or indirectly, from Developer’s, or Developer’s
contractors’, subcontractors’, agents’, or employees’ operations under the
Development Agreement, whether such operations be performed by Developer or
by any of Developer’s contractors or subcontractors or by any one or more
persons directly or indirectly employed by or acting as agent for Developer or any
of Developer’s contractors or subcontractors.
23. VESTED RIGHTS
a. During the term of the Development Agreement, Developer shall have a vested
right to develop the Project as defined in the Project approvals in accordance with
the applicable rules, regulations, and policies identified in the Development
Agreement. City agrees not to take any actions, formal or informal, prior to
annexation that would negatively impact the existing entitlements on the Property.
If state or federal laws or regulations enacted after execution of the Development
Agreement prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of the
Development Agreement, City will modify or suspend the Development
Agreement as required by California Government Code section 65869.5 only to
the extent necessary to comply with such laws or regulations. Subsequent City
ordinances, regulations, and requirements applicable to the Development
Agreement shall be governed by City Municipal Code section 17.94.160, and the
Development Agreement may be amended pursuant to City Municipal Code
section 17.94.190 and California Government Code section 65868.
24. EXTRAORDINARY PUBLIC BENEFITS
a. The Development Agreement shall identify and include extraordinary public
benefits, such as infrastructure improvements, public open space, or monetary
payments such as “in lieu” fees, in exchange for certainty related to Developer’s
entitlements and other considerations conferred by the Development Agreement.
Extraordinary public benefits are those that exceed the exactions that may be
required for development under City’s Subdivision Map Ordinance or other City
land use regulations.
b. Developer shall be required to share financial information with City and/or an
independent third party selected by the City as its representative if necessary for
City’s evaluation of the financial capacity of the Project and/or Developer to
provide the extraordinary public benefits referenced in the Development
Agreement. City shall maintain such data in confidence as permitted by California
Government Code section 6254, subdivisions (h), (i) & (n), and California
Government Code section 6255.
Packet Pg 407
12
FINAL TERM SHEET SAN LUIS RANCH
071928\8719071v2 11
180317.1
25. LOCALLY ADOPTED REQUIREMENTS
a. The Development Agreement shall comply with City Municipal Code Chapter
17.94.
26. DEFAULT, CURE, AND REMEDIES
a. The Development Agreement will include standard terms specifying how either
City or Developer may enforce it; provided, however, that in no event shall City
be liable for damages for any breach of the Development Agreement. Developer’s
remedy against City for breach shall be limited to specific performance.
Packet Pg 408
12