HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-12-14SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
Council Chamber
City Hall - 990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
March 12, 2014 Wednesday 6:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Commissioners John Fowler, Ronald Malak, Michael Multari, William
Riggs, Charles Stevenson, Vice -Chairperson John Larson, and
Chairperson Michael Draze
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items.
MINUTES: Minutes of February 26, 2014. Approve or amend.
PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Commission about items
not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their
name and address. Comments are limited to five minutes per person. Items raised at
this time are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Commission is necessary,
may be scheduled for a future meeting.
PRESENTATION: Measure Y Presentation (Derek Johnson)
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
NOTE: Any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this agenda
may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
Any decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council
within 10 days of the action (Recommendations to the City Council cannot be appealed
since they are not a final action.). Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission
may file an appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the Community
Development Department, City Clerk's office, or on the City's website (www.slocity.org).
The fee for filing an appeal is $273 and must accompany the appeal documentation.
If you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record. Please limit
your comments to three minutes; consultant and project presentations limited to six
minutes.
1. 408 Prado Road. MOD/TR/ER 120-13: Request to add two residential lots and
amend conditions of approval for Vesting Tentative Map 2353 and consideration of
a Mitigated Negative Declaration; O-SP, R-1-SP, R-2-SP, R-3-SP, & C/OS-SP
zone; Mangano Homes, Inc., applicant. (Pam Ricci)
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on
this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development, 919 Palm
Street, during normal business hours.
Planning Commission Agenda
Page 2
2. 3000 Calle Malva. MOD/TR/ER 121-13: Request to
approval for Vesting Tentative Map 2428 and review of
previously -approved Mitigated Negative Declaration; R-1-SP
R-3-SP, & C/OS-SP zone; Margarita Ranch SLO, LLC, appli
date certain — March 26, 2014) (Pam Ricci)
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast
4. Commission
ADJOURNMENT
Presenting Planner: Pam Ricci
amend conditions of
an Addendum to the
R-2-SP, R-2-SP-PD,
cant. (Continued to a
N
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
■ city of Meeting Date: March 12, 2014
San WI S OBI SPO Item Number: 1
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Request to revise Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) 2353 to add two (2) residential lots,
amend VTM conditions of approval, and review a Mitigated Negative Declaration
PROJECT ADDRESS: 408 Prado Road
FILE NUMBER: TRIER 120-13
BY: Gary Kaiser, Senior Environmental
Project Manager, Rincon Consultants
Pam Ricci, Senior Planner PF,
Phone Number: 781-7168
E-mail: pricci@slocity.org
FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director—T),.b
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1), which recommends approval
of revisions to the Vesting Tentative Map, project conditions, and Mitigated Negative Declaration
of environmental impact to the City Council, based on findings, and subject to mitigation measures
and conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant
Mangano Homes
Representative
Steve Peck
Zoning
❑-SP, Office; R-1-5P, Low -Density
Residential; R-2-SP, Medium -Density
Residential; R-3-SP, Medium -High
Density Residential; and C/OS-SP,
Conservation open Space (all with
the Specific Plan overlay)
General Plan
Business Park/Office, Low -Density
Residential, Medium -Density
Residential, and Medium -High
Density Residential
Site Area
30 acres
Environmental
A Tiered Mitigated Negative
Status
Dec#aration of Environmental Impact
was prepared to document the
project's environmental impacts
relative to the Margarita Area
Specific Plan FIR and previous tiered
MND.
SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting revisions to the conditions of approval relative to the construction of
Prado Road, similar to revisions that were recently approved for the adjacent Tract 2342. The
applicant is also proposing revisions to the previously approved tentative map that would eliminate
an open space lot designated for drainage purposes and add two (2) residential lots, one in place of
the open space lot and another through the reconfiguration of previously approved residential lots.
Other modifications to the conditions of approval are also being requested to address certain issues
Proposed Revisions to VTM 2353 (408 Prado Road)
Page 2
that have arisen subsequent to the previous approval and to eliminate conditions that are no longer
applicable or viable. The applicant is proposing to phase the final map. Due to the extent of the
conditions needing revisions and because new conditions are being included to address the
applicant's proposed changes to the tentative map, the conditions of approval have been rewritten
with new numbering therefore the attached version does not necessarily correspond to the previous
numbering system of the adopted conditions of approval. Staff has prepared a matrix (Attachment
5) which summarizes changes to conditions and code requirements.
1.0 COMMISSION'S PURVIEW
The Planning Commission's role is to review the revised conditions of approval and the proposed
tentative tract map revisions and provide a recommendation to the City Council. The Commission
will also be reviewing the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact which
documents the project's consistency with the Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP) and
Programmatic MASP EIR.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 Project History
On October 12, 2004 the City Council certified the Final EIR for and approved the Margarita Area
Specific Plan (MASP), by Resolution No. 9615 (2004 series). The MASP Final EIR contained
numerous mitigation measures that must be carried forward and incorporated into the tiered
environmental assessments prepared for site -specific projects within the Plan area. A Tiered
Mitigated Negative Declaration (Tiered MND) and a vesting tentative map for Tract #2353 was
approved by Council in 2006 by Resolution No. 9777 (2006 Series) (Attachment 2).
Vesting Tentative Tract Map # 2353 (VTM 2353) is currently a 133-lot subdivision, which was
designed and processed in coordination with two adjacent developments, VTM #2342 and VTM
#2428. Collectively, these three tract maps are referred to as the "Western Enclave," because they
comprise the westerly portion of the MASP area. On March 7, 2006, the City Council approved
VTM 2342 & VTM 2353, and with the approval of a two-year time extension and automatic time
extensions approved by the State, the VTMs remain valid through March 7, 2015. VTM 2428 was
approved in 2007 and is also still valid. Initial submittals for improvement plans and final maps
were made by the previous property owners. However, with the downturn in the economy in 2008-
2009, the final map process was shelved and all three subdivisions have since been purchased by
new owners. The final map for Tract 2342 was recorded in July 2013 and the project is currently
under construction. Rescal, the owner of Tract 2342, is also the owner of VTM Tract 2353.
2.2 Situation
When the Western Enclave Tracts were originally approved in 2006 and 2007, they were
conditioned to complete a connection of Prado Road from its current easterly terminus to Broad
Street. The current conditions established in cooperation with prior project owners established
gradual "triggers" for construction of Prado Road. However, economic conditions have significantly
changed making if difficult, if not impossible, for any of these three tracts, a relatively small portion
of the overall MASP area, to be burdened with having to construct the length of Prado Road to
Broad Street.
Proposed Revisions to VTM 2353 (408 Prado Road)
Page 3
MASP Fees have been developed to assist with constructing major infrastructure improvements
such as Prado Road, but due to the same size of these developments, no single tract can cover the
entire costs of the roadway with their specific plan fees. Thus, any tract constructing the road would
need to borrow a significant amount of funding and act as the "bank" for this purpose for a very
long period of time. It is not likely that any of the WE Tracts would be able to satisfy this financial
obligation and instead, would likely remain idle until a future time when adjacent development
takes place and Prado is completed.
In 2012, the applicant submitted a request to modify VTM #2342 conditions related to Prado Road,
with the intention of requesting the same modifications for VTM #2353 in the next year. In
February 2013, the City Council considered and approved the modifications to VTM #2342
conditions related to Prado Road.
The approved revisions to conditions allowed phased improvements with a modified road section.
The applicant identified a funding methodology and proposed construction responsibility for
completing Prado Road in a manner that was more consistent with typical subdivision development
and could be completed within financial constraints. Revised conditions allowed the PRE -WE
portion of Prado Road to be constructed in segments along each tract's frontage as they develop,
beginning with VTM #2342. As expected, the applicant is now requesting similar modifications to
VTM #2353 conditions related to Prado Road requirements.
In addition, the applicant proposes minor lot reconfigurations to the tentative tract map that would
improve drainage flow and add area to the riparian corridor; these revisions result in two (2)
additional residential lots.
3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
3.1 Site Information/Setting
The project site is located in the southern
part of San Luis Obispo, within the
MASP area and consists of
approximately 30 acres. The site is
situated on the north side of Prado Road,
east of what is currently the easterly
terminus of Prado Road. Immediately to
the west of VTM #2353 is approved
VTM #2342, where single-family homes
are currently under construction per the
MASP. All three VTMs included in the
Western Enclave are highlighted on the
figure to the right. To the north of the
subject property is the approved VTM
#2428; to the east are lands owned by the
Damon and Garcia families; and to the
south are lands owned by L.J. and A.P.
Martinelli. These lands are either
Ilflli. r�
ff�fufuuaununminRedlllfllfi
•��
.:.-..,���,����.. off":
�...r.,r,r•rr,rr,. __
fuu.au.w.a�
�nyru oi" 1 i� ffP�alf/Lb.
ra nh,urur
-�o a i r ++■ r! lw.
�_-�rrfl 1141�
Y
k
Figure 1: The Locations of the Western Enclave VTMs
Proposed Revisions to VTM 2353 (408 Prado Road)
Page 4
undeveloped, underdeveloped, or used agriculturally, but they are also within the MASP area and
will eventually be developed pursuant to the MASP.
3.2 Project Description
Currently, VTM #2353 has been approved for a total
of 133 lots and is being developed in accordance with
the MASP (see Figure 2) as follows:
• 121 lots for single family residential use (R-1-SP,
R-2-SP, & O-SP zones);
• 6 lots for exclusive business park -office use (O-
SP zone);
• 1 lot designated for higher density residential
development in the R-3-SP zone (a portion of the
required Affordable Housing Program; the other
portion is proposed in VTM #2428) to be
developed by the Housing Authority or other
appropriate entity;
• 3 lots for "greenway" park use in the R-1- and R-
2-SP zones (within PG&E easement) for
common ownership by a Home Owners
Association; and
•
2 lots for "open space -riparian" use in the C/OS- Tr Mal
I
SP zone (drainage way) for common ownership
by a Home Owners Association. Figure 2: Previously Approved VTM 2353
The modified project includes a request for a revised VTM that now includes a total of 134 lots, one
lot more than currently approved. The total number of single-family lots would be increased by two
from the currently approved 121 to 123. The two additional single-family lots would be created by
adding one (1) residential lot through lot reconfigurations and converting an open space lot to a
residential lot.
Other modifications to the conditions of approval are also being proposed to address certain issues
that have arisen subsequent to the previous approval and to eliminate conditions that are no longer
applicable or viable. For instance, the applicant has been denied approval from the Bureau of Real
Estate for a Master Home Owner's Association, which was a condition of the previous approval, so
the corresponding conditions have been revised accordingly.
4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
With an approved vesting tentative map, the applicant now has a "vested right" to record a final
map and develop the subject property in substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies and
standards in effect when the application was determined complete on November 14, 2005, per
Chapter 16.34 (Vesting Tentative Maps) of the City's Municipal Code and Sections 66474.2 and
66498.1 of the California Government Code (Subdivision Map Act).
The Community Development Director has the authority to determine whether a final map is in
Proposed Revisions to VTM 2353 (408 Prado Road)
Page 5
substantial compliance with an approved tentative map and may approve "minor corrections or
amendments" pursuant to Section 16.10.160 of the Subdivision Regulations. In this case, however,
the changes are not minor because additional building sites are proposed and the proposed revisions
to conditions of approval have economic implications that may affect other property owners.
Therefore, the proposed revisions must be reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by
the City Council.
The analysis of the requested modifications to VTM 2353 focuses on the following:
1) Prado Road Conditions;
2) Proposed Lot Reconfigurations; and
3) Phasing
4.1 Prado Road Improvements
A key provision of the MASP is to extend Prado Road from its current easterly terminus located
approximately one -quarter mile east of its junction with South Higuera Street, east to Broad Street.
A detailed summary of the Prado Road requirements tied to the original VTM map approvals for the
Western Enclave properties in 2006 and 2007 is included on Pages 3-4 of the attached initial
study/MND (Attachment 3). As summarized in Section 2.2, the applicant is pursuing a request to
modify Conditions of Approval for VTM 2353 similar to those approved for Tract 2342 in February
of 2013.
When the Tract 2342 condition changes were reviewed last year, the conclusion was that the
relatively small scale of the development, 56 single-family homes, would not result in significant
traffic impacts. However, with either of the remaining two maps coming on line that contain
significantly more dwellings (VTM 2353 with 121 single-family homes and 23 multi -family units,
and VTM 2428 with 165 single-family homes and 32 multiple —family units), staff had informed the
applicants that a traffic analysis would need to be conducted to evaluate the carrying capacity of the
proposed and existing street system to handle the additional trips generated with the build -out of the
Western Enclave tracts without full development of Prado Road to Broad Street.
Traffic Assessment. The new traffic study was performed by Central Coast Transportation
Consulting dated January 6, 2014 (contained as Attachment 5 to the MND, Attachment 3), to
consider the potential impacts of this deferment from both a project -specific perspective and
cumulative perspective. Scenario A, the project -specific analysis, evaluates potential impacts when
western enclave traffic is added to existing traffic volumes. Scenario B, the cumulative analysis,
also factors in other approved/pending/reasonably foreseeable development in the area.
Table 1: Projection of Traffic Volumes
Projected Increases in Traffic Volumes
Segment
Existing
Scenario A
Scenario B
Margarita Avenue
1,190
2,900
2,900
Prado Road
3,302
6,100
7,500
South Street
14,854
15,300
17,300
Tank Farm Road
19,576
20,100
23,700
Proposed Revisions to VTM 2353 (408 Prado Road)
Page 6
The study then analyzed the impact that this additional traffic would have on South Higuera Street
intersections (at South Street, Madonna, Margarita, Prado and Tank Farm), since a portion of the
project -generated traffic would no longer be diverted to Broad Street. Although traffic volumes
would increase at these intersections (especially under Scenario B), the intersections would all still
function at an acceptable Level of Service. However, when the Airport Area Specific Plan was
adopted by the City Council, almost a year after the adoption of the MASP, it was determined that
the Level of Service (LOS) at the intersection of Prado Road and South Higuera Street could
decline from LOS "D" to LOS "E". As a result, City Council Resolution No. 9726 (2005 Series)
required additional mitigation (previously Mitigation Measure T-2.1; now listed as T-04 in the
current MND) to lessen impacts at this intersection. This mitigation lowered the threshold for
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) requirements to apply to employers with 25 or more
employees. Commercial development within the MASP area would be subject to this reduced
threshold.
Although the conclusions of the recent traffic study are similar to the conclusions of earlier studies,
additional infrastructure deficiencies were identified. The recent study therefore concludes that all
mitigation measures previously identified in the MASP/AASP should be carried forward and
applied to this project (except for the requirement that Prado Road be extended to Broad Street). In
addition, the recent study recommends that the City amend traffic impacts fees to include the cost of
rectifying the additional deficiencies identified, and that Western Enclave projects pay the amended
traffic impact fees. Mitigation measure T-02 is also included which requires the subdivider to re -
stripe the southbound left turn lane and install pedestrian countdown heads at the South
Higuera/Prado intersection.
Current Proposal
The Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) includes Condition # 1 as the new Prado Road condition. The
applicant's responsibilities with the extension of Prado Road are outlined in detail. Basically the
applicant is required to construct full improvements on the north half of Prado Road along the
frontage of each phase of the final map. The improvements on the north half shall include a
minimum of two lanes of Prado Road, bike lane, curb, gutter, sidewalk, utilities, storm drainage,
landscaping, street lights, and a center median. On the south half of Prado Road, the subdivider is
required to provide a minimum of one lane and a bike lane and reconstruct deficient pavement to
provide sufficient structural support for long-term use.
Staff 's Analysis
Based on the conclusions of the traffic analysis summarized above, staff supports the revised Prado
Road condition along with approval of the revised VTM. As with last year's approval of modified
conditions for Tract 2342, the proposed modifications to the conditions of approval to allow
development to move forward and be a catalyst for additional development within the Margarita
Specific Plan area.
The applicant's proposal to construct a reduced section of Prado Road as part of Tract #2353
improvements, which is similar to the section approved for VTM #2342, will provide adequate
street improvements for the projected vehicle trips and would not preclude construction of
remaining Prado Road improvements in coordination with future projects. A modified cross section
of Prado will need to be installed at the eastern section of existing Prado Road to provide sufficient
Proposed Revisions to VTM 2353 (408 Prado Road)
Page 7
channelization and access to the existing driveways located on the south side of Prado Road as
outlined in Condition # 1.
4.2 Lot Reconfigurations (Z added residential lots)
Since VTM 2353 was approved in 2046, minor modifications to lot configurations as part of the
final map review were approved as being in substantial conformance to the original VTM.
Therefore, the numbering of the lots shown on the original VTM does not correspond directly with
the current version of the map. The lot configurations currently being requested are located in the
northwestern portion of the VTM.
The revised VTM adjusts Lots 43-49 in order to add area to the riparian corridor, more closely align
the corridor to the swale's flow centerline, and orient the lots in a way that complements the
remainder of the neighborhood. The reconfiguration of these lots at the north end of Jasmine Street
also results in an additional residential lot. Figure 3 below shows the existing and proposed lot
configurations within this portion of the Tract.
�
•r
.w _
_
:%
it
AROMOM
P
.'
t rl
Figure 3: Existing (left) and Proposed (right) Lot Configurations
In addition, the applicant proposes to reconfigure Lots 38, 39 and 40 and convert Lot 39 from an
open space lot (for drainage purposes) to a residential lot. This reconfiguration shown on Figure 3
above and conversion of Lot 39 from open space to residential is a beneficial change from a
drainage standpoint. Whereas the originally approved tentative tract map would have conveyed
runoff towards the existing development to the west, the revised map would capture the runoff and
convey it into a new storm drain system under the street.
Staff's Analusis
Maintaining historic flows is generally preferred but in this case historic flows are undesired and
may cause damage to downstream development. Moreover, the proposed drainage plan would
divert runoff into the project detention basins and therefore help support the creation of wetland
habitats. These two lot reconfigurations would add one lot to the previously approved 133-tat tract,
Proposed Revisions to VTM 2353 (408 Prado Road)
Page 8
making it a 134-lot tract, and convert one of the open space lots to a residential lot, increasing the
number of residential units from 121 to 123.
4.3 VTM Phasing
The applicant is proposing to record their final map in phases. The first phase consists of the
westerly 82 lots. The second phase consists of the remaining 52 lots including the affordable
housing lot. The construction of Prado Road will generally correspond with the phasing shown on
the revised tentative map.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
On October 12, 2004, the San Luis Obispo City Council adopted the Airport Area and Margarita
Area Specific Plans and Related Facilities Master Plan. Prior to taking such action, Council
certified a Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Plans. For the
purposes of the current analysis, this document is referred to as the MASP EIR. In addition, a
Tiered Mitigated Negative Declaration (Tiered MND) was prepared and adopted when Tract #2353
was previously approved in 2007.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the current request focuses on proposed changes
to the project and any new information that has become available that may alter environmental
impact conclusions that were previously reached. The document takes into account and accepts the
environmental conclusions of the prior CEQA documents, where circumstances remain the same.
As such, mitigation measures adopted as part of the MASP EIR and Subsequent Tiered MND that
are applicable to the proposed project are carried forward and applied to the proposed project to
effectively mitigate the impacts that were previously identified. Some of these mitigation measures
are applied verbatim from prior CEQA documents, while others have been refined to more
specifically apply to the proposed project either as mitigation measures or as Conditions of
Approval required for consistency with the MASP.
It should be noted that many of the mitigation measures identified in the MASP EIR have been
incorporated by the applicant into the project design, making the project "self -mitigating" in these
instances. Finally, new impacts and mitigation measures were identified in the recent traffic study
prepared in support of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. New mitigation measures
require the payment of increased traffic impact fees as discussed previously in Section 4.1 of this
report. With all of these prior and recent mitigation measures, the proposed revisions to VTM
#2353 would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, as demonstrated throughout
the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
6.0 CONCLUSION
The current project before the Planning Commission which includes requests for a new VTM and
modifications to conditions of approval have staff s support, will not have new or increased
significant environmental impacts, and will not compromise the integrity of the overall project
development plan or the goals of the MASP. It is encouraging that the applicant intends to move
forward with the project that fulfills multiple City goals including housing, economic development,
and the start of construction for a significant transportation facility (i.e. Prado Road), consistent
with the General Plan, MASP, and Economic Development Strategic Plan.
Proposed Revisions to VTM 2353 (408 Prado Road)
Page 9
7.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The responses to the applicant's requests have been reviewed with the other departments and reflect
a unified City position.
8.0 ALTERNATIVES
8.1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
8.2 The Commission may deny the requested modifications to the VTM and prior conditions
of approval, based on findings of inconsistency with the MASP, General Plan, or
Economic Development Strategic Plan.
9.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Resolution No. 9777 (2006 Series) with originally approved VTM 2353
3. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Proposed Revisions to VTM 2353
(including Traffic Study and Biological Assessment) Mitigated Negative Declaration
4. Revised Tentative Tract Map 2353
5. Summary of Changes to Conditions and Code Requirements
Included in PC packets: Full-size copy of VTM 2353
TACommunity Development\MODTR 120-13 (VTM 2353)\VTM 2353 PC report & attachments
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF
A REVISED VSETING TENTATIVE MAP AND
MODIFICATIONS TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2353
(TR/ER 120-13; 408 PRADO ROAD)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on March 12, 2014, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application TR/ER 120-
135, Mangano Homes Inc., applicant; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding
recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,
presented at said hearing.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
Section 1. Findings.
Based upon all the evidence, the Planning Commission makes the following findings in support
of the request to revise the tentative tract map and certain modifications to project conditions of
approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2353:
1. The proposed condition modifications are reasonably necessary to allow for the construction
of Prado Road improvements to serve the first phases of Western Enclave Development in
the Margarita Area Specific Plan given financing considerations and projected traffic levels.
2. The design of the revised vesting tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan
because the proposed subdivision respects existing site constraints (slope, creeks, wetlands,
significant trees), improves drainage conditions, will incrementally add to the City's
residential housing inventory, result in parcels that meet density standards, and will be
consistent with the density and lot sizes established by the Margarita Area Specific Plan.
3. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development allowed in the R-1-SP, R-
2-SP, and O-SP zones.
Resolution No.XXXX-14 Attachment 1
Page 2
4. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use of
property within) the proposed subdivision.
5. The subdivision will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, subject to the
mitigation measures of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified by the City
Council on October 12, 2004, being incorporated into the project, the mitigation monitoring
program adopted with said EIR approval being followed and mitigation measures
recommended herein.
6. On March 7, 2006, the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration which
adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project.
Section 2. Environmental Review, The City Council adopted the project's Mitigated Negative
Declaration on March 7, 2006, which incorporated mitigation measures and monitoring
programs into the project. In addition, the Tiered Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative
Declaration prepared for the current revisions request (ER-120-13) brings forth additional
mitigation measures for impacts related to traffic. The following mitigation measures will
supersede in their entirety the previously approved mitigation measures approved by Council
Resolution No. 9777 (2006 Series). The following mitigation measures incorporate the originally
approved mitigation measures that are still applicable to this project along with the changes
necessitated by the proposed revisions to the project.
Mitigation Measures:
Reduction of Light and Glare
1. In order for MASP/AASP EIR Mitigation Measure LU-7.1 as implemented by the MASP to
be carried through to lot -specific development stage, a lighting plan that demonstrates
compliance with Community Design Section 3.3 Lighting requirements of the MASP shall
be submitted with other required plans for both the residential and commercial components
of the project to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC).
The lighting plan shall propose specific measures to limit the amount of light trespass
associated with development within the project area including shielding and/or directional
lighting methods to ensure that spillover light does not exceed 0.5 foot-candles at adjacent
property lines.
Monitoring Program: The ARC will review development plans for both the
residential and commercial components of the project. City staff, including
Planning and other departments, will review plans to assure that all of the ARC's
requirements related to lighting and compliant with the MASP provisions have
been incorporated into working drawings. City building inspectors will be
responsible for assuring that all lighting is installed pursuant to the approved
lighting plan.
Resolution No.XXXX-14
Page 3
Attachment 1
Preparation and Implementation of "Comprehensive Biological Mitigation Program"
2. Mitigation for wetland impacts. Mitigation for wetland impacts will be through a
combination of on- and off -site mitigation, approved by the City, the DFW and the Army
Corps of Engineers. Further, in compliance with the MASP/AASP EIR, the subject VTM
#2342 proposes the creation of Lot Z in an area designated by the MASP for "Open Space -
Riparian" for the express purposes of achieving some of the necessary wetlands replacement
mitigation area, as well as preservation of related biological habitat benefits.
3. Mitigation for Impacts to Sensitive Species. None of these species are expected to be difficult
to establish. City staff will work with the project sponsors in developing the details of the
effort. Congdon Tarplant. Create compensating habitat in a suitable off -site location
approved by the City.
4. Mitigation for Impacts to Other Nesting Birds. Undertake surveys prior to initiation of
construction activities; avoid construction activities within 100 feet of active nest sites, or
within 300 feet for raptor nests, until after young have fledged.
5. Off Site Mitigation for Wetland Impacts. A further component of the biological mitigation
program is the applicant's proposal to acquire (by fee, easement, or eminent domain) lands
outside the bounds of the Western Enclave (designated by the MASP as "Open Space
Riparian" lands). The targeted property (lying south of Prado Road and owned by Unocal) is
a low lying area that already naturally collects some area run-off and provides valuable
habitat for certain special concern and R-T-E (rare, threatened, and endangered) species, and
thus is beneficial to retain in its natural state. Pre -development run-off has resulted in
seasonal flooding of Prado Road due to the currently deficient collection/distribution system
to this natural drainage area south of Prado Road. The Western Enclave applicants propose to
acquire this off -site property designated for open space use by the MASP and utilize it
beneficially for biological mitigation as well as a detention basin for pre- and post -Western
Enclave development generated run-off. It is proposed that this basin be enhanced to
accommodate the greater project -generated and pre -project run-off flows, and to increase its
habitat value in the long term. The basin is proposed to be held and maintained by a Home
Owners Association (HOA) established initially for the Western Enclave area, and perhaps
ultimately for the entire MASP as stipulated be done by the MASP.
Monitoring Program: Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall
contact the City Natural Resource Manager for review and approval of the final
lot and street design to assure that on -site natural resources are protected and
preserved to the greatest extent required by the mitigation measures and
consistent with requirements of the MASP and MASP I AASP EIR. Said design
shall also be consistent with approvals required subsequent to this Tentative Map
from State Dept. of Fish and Game and Army Corps of Engineers. Prior to any
site preparation or construction activities, the applicant shall also initiate and
complete for approval by the City pre -construction surveys for nesting birds and
adhere to performance standard specified in the mitigation. Provisions for
required off -site mitigation shall be coordinated with and approved by the City
Natural Resource Manager prior to recordation of the Final Map. Periodic field
Resolution No.XXXX-14
Page 4
Attachment 1
inspections by City Staff during construction will be necessary to assure site
development conforms to mitigation measures and conditions of approval.
Preparation and Implementation of "Traffic Reduction Program"
6. In order for MASPIAASP EIR Mitigation Measure T-2.1 adopted with the certification of the
MASPIAASP EIR in conjunction with the approval of the AASP in August, 2005 (Ref. City
Council Resolution No. 9726, 2005 Series) to be brought forward to this site specific project
stage, a transportation demand management program that demonstrates reduction of peak
period travel by single -occupant vehicles shall be required of any employer within the
subdivision with 25 or more employees. Said program shall incorporate all reasonably
feasible measures or techniques, including those listed in the MASP/AASP EIR/General Plan
Circulation, that encourage alternate modes other than single -occupant vehicles as the
primary mode of transportation to the workplace and to travel during non -peak times.
Monitoring Program: Each business owner, upon employment of 25 or more
employees, shall immediately prepare and submit, obtain approval from the City
Public Works Director and implement the provisions of a Traffic Reduction Plan
which demonstrates reduction of peak period travel consistent with requirements
of the City General Plan Circulation Element Policies and Programs. City Staff
shall periodically inspect the business to observe and assure that reduction
techniques approved by the City are in place and adhered to by the business. Staff
shall take any corrective or enforcement actions authorized by law to achieve
compliance.
Preparation of Phase II Archaeological Subsurface Survey
7. In order to achieve complete mitigation for the archaeological resource found on the subject
site, this survey is required if the site cannot be avoided. The Phase II survey is to determine
if significance criteria of CEQA and/or NRHP are met. The survey must be completed and
results submitted to City for determination whether mitigation measures below, as specified
in EIR, are needed.
1) A data recovery program consisting of archaeological excavation to retrieve the
important data from the archaeological site;
2) Development and implementation of public interpretation plans for both prehistoric
and historic sites;
3) Preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction of historic structures
according to the Secretary of Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties;
4) Construction of new structures in a manner consistent with the historic character of
the region; and
5) Treatment of historic landscapes according to the Secretary of Interior Standards for
Treatment of Historic Landscapes.
If the project involves a federal agency, and is therefore subject to a MOA, the inventory,
evaluation, and treatment processes will be coordinated with that federal agency to
ensure that the work conducted will also comply with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act.
Resolution No.XXXX-14
Page 5
Attachment 1
Preparation and Implementation of a "Construction -Related Hazardous Materials
Management Plan"
8. As stipulated in the MASP / AASP EIR, this would be a plan identifying, when they are
known, site/development-specific construction activities that will involve the hazardous
materials. The plan shall be prepared before construction activities begin that involve
hazardous materials and shall discuss proper handling and disposal of materials used or
produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste. The plan will also
outline a specific protocol to identify health risks associated with the presence of chemical
compounds in the soil and/or groundwater and identify specific protective measures to be
followed by the workers entering the work area. If the presence of hazardous materials is
suspected or encountered during construction- related activities, the project proponent will
cause Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2 to be activated. Mitigation Measure HAZ-I.2 states:
"The project proponent will complete a Phase I environmental site assessment for each
proposed public facility (e.g. streets and buried infrastructure). If Phase I site assessments
indicate a potential for soil and/or groundwater contamination within or adjacent to the road
or utility alignments, a Phase II site assessment will be completed. The following Phase II
environmental site assessments will be prepared specific to soil and/or groundwater
contamination.
a. Soil Contamination. For soil contamination, the Phase II site assessment will
include soil sampling and analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If
soil contamination is exposed during construction, the San Luis Obispo Fire
Department (SLOFD) will be notified and a work plan to characterize and
possibly remove contaminated soil will be prepared, submitted and approved.
b. Groundwater Contamination. For groundwater contamination, the Phase II
assessment may include monitoring well installation, groundwater sampling, and
analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If groundwater contaminated
by potentially hazardous materials is expected to be extracted during dewatering,
the SLOFD and the Central Coast RWQCB will be notified. A contingency plan to
dispose of contaminated groundwater will be developed in agreement with the
SLOFD and Central Coast RWQCB. "
Monitoring Program: The "Construction -Related Hazardous Materials
Management Plan" will be required to be submitted to the City Community
Development Department and Fire Department for review prior to
commencement of any site preparation or construction work involving hazardous
materials. No site preparation or construction work may commence before said
plan has been approved by the City. Any site work commenced without City
approval of said Plan will be subject to "Stop Work" (cease and desist) orders as
may be issued under the authority of the City Fire Department.
Resolution No.XXXX-14
Page 6
Attachment 1
Preparation and Implementation of an "Operations -Related Hazardous Materials
Management Plan"
9. As stipulated in the MASP/ AASP EIR, this would be a plan prepared by a project proponent
identifying hazardous materials management practices as might be required by state and local
laws and regulations regarding delivery, use, manufacture, and storage of any such regulated
materials might be present On site for any operations -related activities. This plan would
identify the proper handling and disposal of materials uses or produced onsite, such as
petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste. By the filing of said Plan, the City Fire
Department will be on notice to provide regular and routine fire and life -safety inspections to
determine compliance with applicable health and safety codes.
Monitoring Program: The "Operations -Related Hazardous Materials Management
Plan" will be required to be submitted by a project proponent to the City
Community Development Department and City Fire Department for review prior
to the establishment of any operations -related activities.
Air Quality
10. AQ-1 Fugitive Dust Control Measures. The proposed project shall implement the
following dust control measures so as to reduce PM10 emissions in accordance with
SLOAPCD requirements.
a) Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible;
b) Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent
airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency would be
required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non -potable) water
should be used whenever possible;
c) All dirt stock pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed;
d) Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation
and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible following
completion of any soil disturbing activities;
e) Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one
month after initial grading should be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive
grass seed and watered until vegetation is established;
f) All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized using
approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in
advance by the APCD;
g) All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as
soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used;
h) Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any
unpaved surface at the construction site;
i) All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or
should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance
between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114;
j) Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets,
or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site;
Resolution No.XXXX-14
Page 7
Attachment 1
k) Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto
adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used
where feasible;
1) All of these fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and
building plans; and
m) 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 APCD Compliance
Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition.
11. AQ-2 Construction Equipment. The proposed project shall implement the following
emissions control measures so as to reduce diesel particulate matter in accordance with
SLOAPCD requirements.
• 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;
• 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;
• Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted;
• Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive
receptors;
• 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.
Resolution No.XXXX-14
Page 8
Attachment 1
12. AQ-3 Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan. The applicant shall prepare an Asbestos Dust
Mitigation Plan in accordance with the requirements set for by ACTM to ensure that
asbestos does not create a significant health risk to construction workers and sensitive
receptors. The Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan shall be implemented at the beginning and
maintained throughout the duration of the construction or grading activity. The Asbestos
Dust Mitigation Plan must specify dust mitigation practices which are sufficient to
ensure that no equipment or operation emits dust that is visible crossing the property
line, and must include one or more provisions addressing each of the following topics.
A. Track -out prevention and control measures which shall include:
1. Removal of any visible track -out from a paved public road at any
location where vehicles exit the work site; this shall be
accomplished using wet sweeping or a HEPA filter equipped
vacuum device at the end of the work day or at least one time per
day; and
2. Installation of one or more of the following track -out prevention
measures:
i. A gravel pad designed using good engineering practices to
clean the tires of exiting vehicles;
ii. A tire shaker;
iii. A wheel wash system;
iv. Pavement extending for not less than fifty (50) consecutive feet
from the intersection with the paved public road; or
v. Any other measure as effective as the measures listed above.
B. Keeping active storage piles adequately wetted or covered with
tarps.
C. Control for disturbed surface areas and storage piles that will remain
inactive for more than seven (7) days, which shall include one or more of
the following:
1. Keep the surface adequately wetted;
2. Establishment and maintenance of surface crusting sufficient to
satisfy the test in subsection (h)(6);
3. Application of chemical dust suppressants or chemical stabilizers
according to the manufacturers' recommendations;
4. Covering with tarp(s) or vegetative cover;
5. Installation of wind barriers of fifty (50) percent porosity around
three (3) sides of a storage pile;
6. Installation of wind barriers across open areas; or
7. Any other measure as effective as the measures listed above.
D. Control for traffic on on -site unpaved roads, parking lots, and
staging areas which shall include
1. A maximum vehicle speed limit of fifteen (15) miles per hour or
less; and
2. One or more of the following:
i. Watering every two hours of active operations or sufficiently
often to keep the area adequately wetted;
ii. Applying chemical dust suppressants consistent with
Resolution No.XXXX-14
Page 9
Attachment 1
manufacturer's directions;
iii. Maintaining a gravel cover with a silt content that is less than
five (5) percent and asbestos content that is less than 0.25
percent, as determined using an approved asbestos bulk test
method, to a depth of three (3) inches on the surface being used
for travel; or
iv. Any other measure as effective as the measures listed above.
E. Control for earthmoving activities which shall include one or more
of the following:
1. Pre -wetting the ground to the depth of anticipated cuts;
2. Suspending grading operations when wind speeds are high enough
to result in dust emissions crossing the property line, despite the
application of dust mitigation measures;
3. Application of water prior to any land clearing; or
4. Any other measure as effective as the measures listed above.
F. Control for Off -Site Transport. The owner / operator shall ensure
that no trucks are allowed to transport excavated material off -site
unless:
1. Trucks are maintained such that no spillage can occur from holes
or other openings in cargo compartments; and
2. Loads are adequately wetted and either:
i. Covered with tarps; or
ii. Loaded such that the material does not touch the front,
back, or sides of the cargo compartment at any point less
than six inches from the top and that no point of the load
extends above the top of the cargo compartment.
G. Post Construction Stabilization of Disturbed Areas. Upon completion of
the project, disturbed surfaces shall be stabilized using one or more of the
following methods:
1. Establishment of a vegetative cover;
2. Placement of at least three (3.0) inches of non -asbestos -containing
material;
3. Any other measure deemed sufficient to prevent wind speeds of ten
(10) miles per hour or greater from causing visible dust emissions.
H. Air Monitoring for Asbestos (If Required by the SLOAPCD).
1. If required by SLOAPCD, the plan must include an air -monitoring
component.
2. The air monitoring component shall specify the following:
i. Type of air sampling device(s)
ii. Siting of air sampling device(s);
iii. Sampling duration and frequency; and
iv. Analytical method.
I. Frequency of Reporting: The plan shall state how often the items specified
in subsection (e)(5)(B), and any other items identified in the plan, will be
reported to the district.
Resolution No.XXXX-14
Page 10
Transportation/Traffic
Attachment 1
13. T-01 Impact Fees. The applicant shall pay traffic impact fees that are in effect at the
time of building permit issuance. If at the time of building permit issuance the City's
TIF has not been amended to accommodate the improvements to the South
Higuera/Prado and South Higuera/Tank Farm intersections as identified in the traffic
study performed by Central Coast Transportation Consulting dated January 6, 2014, or
Prado Road has not been connected to Broad Street, the applicant will be responsible for
paying a pro rata share of said improvements subject to approval of the City's Public
Work Director.
14. T-02 Traffic Mitigation. The subdivider shall re -stripe the southbound left turn lane
and install pedestrian countdown heads at the South Higuera/Prado intersection as
identified in the traffic study performed by Central Coast Transportation Consulting
dated January 6, 2014.
15. T-03 Margarita Neighborhood. Pursuant to the Margarita Area Specific Plan, traffic
volume and speeds shall be monitored after development. Prior to final map recordation,
the Subdivider shall deposit a faithful performance security in the amount of $130,000 to
retain a qualified traffic consultant to conduct traffic counts and speed measurements on
Margarita Avenue and on streets within and in the vicinity of the subdivision. The
counts and measurements will be conducted one-year after final occupancy of complete
build -out of the subdivision or acceptance of public improvements, whichever occurs
later. The locations of the counts and measurements shall be approved by the Public
Works Director. If the traffic volumes or speeds exceed City standards, the $130,000
security will be retained by the City to guarantee that Subdivider installs additional
City -approved traffic calming measures to reduce volume and speeds to comply with
City standards.
• Monitoring Program:
Community Development and Public Works staff will oversee impact fee payments,
traffic consultant counts and measurements, and review required restriping plans.
16. T-04 Preparation and Implementation of "Traffic Reduction Program." In order
for MASP/AASP EIR Mitigation Measure T-2.1 adopted with the certification of the
MASP/AASP EIR in conjunction with the approval of the AASP in August, 2005 (Ref.
City Council Resolution No. 9726, 2005 Series) to be brought forward to this site
specific project stage, a transportation demand management program that demonstrates
reduction of peak period travel by single -occupant vehicles shall be required of any
employer within the subdivision with 25 or more employees. Said program shall
incorporate all reasonably feasible measures or techniques, including those listed in the
MASP/AASP EIR/General Plan Circulation, that encourage alternate modes other than
single -occupant vehicles as the primary mode of transportation to the workplace and to
travel during non -peak times.
Resolution No.XXXX-14
Page 11
• Monitoring Program:
Attachment 1
Each business owner, upon employment of 25 or more employees, shall immediately
prepare and submit, obtain approval from the City Public Works Director and
implement the provisions of a Traffic Reduction Plan which demonstrates reduction of
peak period travel consistent with requirements of the City General Plan Circulation
Element Policies and Programs. City Staff shall periodically inspect the business to
observe and assure that reduction techniques approved by the City are in place and
adhered to by the business. Staff shall take any corrective or enforcement actions
authorized by law to achieve compliance.
Section 3. Action. The Planning Commission hereby recommends approval to the City
Council of the requested modifications to conditions of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2353. The
following conditions will supersede in their entirety the previously approved conditions
approved by Council Resolution No. 9777 (2006 Series) on March 7, 2006, and the amended
conditions approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 5565-11 on September 28,
2011. The following conditions incorporate the originally approved conditions that are still
applicable to this project along with the changes necessitated by the proposed revisions to the
project.
Streets:
1. The subdivider shall construct full improvements on the north half of Prado Road along the
frontage of each phase of the final map. The improvements on the north half shall include a
minimum of two lanes of Prado Road, bike lane, curb, gutter, sidewalk, utilities, storm
drainage, landscaping, street lights, and a center median. The subdivider shall provide a
minimum of one lane and a bike lane on the south half of Prado Road. The subdivider shall
reconstruct deficient pavement on the south half of Prado Road to provide sufficient structural
support for long-term use as approved by the Public Works Director. The improvement plans
for Prado Road shall be based on final design drawings for the MASP build -out of Prado Road to
the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
a. Appropriate transitions, as approved by the Public Works Director, shall be provided
between the new improvements and the existing improvements, including access to
existing driveways. Access to existing driveways may be restricted to right -in
right -out as approved by the City.
b. Access to the Damon -Garcia property east of Tract 2353 shall be provided at a
location approved by the City and property owners.
c. The subdivider may submit a reimbursement proposal for the costs associated with
the design and construction of the north half of Prado Road. Subject to final approval
by the City, the proposal may include fee credits and/or other appropriate
mechanisms that may be applied against non-TIF city-wide and MASP impact fees as
development occurs.
d. Prior to final map recordation, the property owner shall enter into an agreement
waiving his/her/their rights to oppose formation of an assessment district to fund the
Resolution No.XXXX-14
Page 12
Attachment 1
portion of the MASP transportation improvements which are not funded by MASP
transportation impact fees. The agreement shall be binding on all future owners and
shall run with the land. In lieu of the agreement, prior to map recordation the
property owner may pay an amount approved by the City to cover their share of the
unfunded amount.
e. Prior to final map recordation, the subdivider shall submit a separate irrevocable offer
of dedication for public street purposes for all connecting streets to provide access
from VTM 2428 to Prado Road. The offer will be recorded in the event that the Tract
2353 public improvements have not yet been accepted by the City, but access is
needed for VTM 2428.
f. Prior to map recordation, the subdivider shall submit exhibits for Council
consideration of a plan line for Prado Road across the properties on the south side of
Prado Road to ensure development on the south side adheres to the ultimate
right-of-way of Prado Road.
2. Margarita Area Specific Plan Impact Fees, as adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo, shall
be paid prior to issuance of each building permit, subject to any approved reimbursement
agreements.
3. The public improvement plans for VTTM 2353, VTTM 2428 and VTTM 2342 shall
consider the proposed or required phasing to be completed by the combined development
known as Margarita Area Specific Plan western enclave. The public improvement plans for
each subdivision shall include any offsite improvements as considered necessary by the
Director of Public Works to provide a reasonable transition between the subdivisions in the
case that one project is developed before another. The scope of required improvements shall
be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Pursuant to Section 16.20.110
of the City Municipal Code, the subdivider may be eligible for reimbursement for
improvements that are in excess of the construction required for the subdivision, including,
but not limited to storm drainage, sewer, water and power.
4. The final subdivision design and improvements shall comply with the Margarita Area
Specific Plan and all other City of San Luis Obispo Design Standards, Engineering
Standards and Standard Plans and Specifications. The subdivision improvement plans and
the Prado Road improvement plans shall be approved by the City prior to final map
recordation.
5. The final design, location, and number of traffic calming measures including bulb -outs,
choke -downs, tabletops, roundabouts, neck -downs, etc. Shall be reviewed and approved by
the Public Works Director. Plans submitted for review shall include a truck turning diagram
demonstrating a truck's ability to negotiate the traffic calming features. Additional or
alternative traffic control measures may be required to comply with' the Specific Plan
objective to "foster traffic volumes and speeds that will be compatible with the
neighborhood."
6. The tentative map is amended as follows:
Resolution No.XXXX-14
Page 13
Attachment 1
a. The tract boundary shown on the tentative map is not correct. The final map shall
reflect the correct tract boundary, lot sizes, and Prado Road dedications.
b. Delete Margarita Avenue from the 60' right-of-way typical street section and add
Aster Street.
c. The typical street section for Margarita Avenue and Prado Road shall be in
conformance with the MASP, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works
Director.
d. Width of the bike/ped trails shall be as approved by the Public Works Director.
e. Alley easements are to be measured to the back of curb.
f. The alley width across Lots 1 and 2 shall be a minimum of 24'
g. The alley width serving Lots 46 to 49 and Lot 134 shall be a minimum of 20'.
h. A 15' PUE and Street Tree easement is required along all commercial frontage.
i. Lots 1 through 6 are incorrectly labeled as single-family on the Lot Table.
j. A bulb -out shall be provided at the intersection of Aster and Ceanothus.
k. Directional arrows on the section lines for the CMU walls and Gravity Walls are
facing the wrong direction.
1. The final configuration of the Margarita roundabout shall be as required by the Public
Works Director.
in. Driveways and alleys in the vicinity of the roundabout median islands shall be
relocated to provide unimpeded left turn ingress/egress. Shared driveways may be
required to meet this requirement.
7. The subdivision design shall include directional curb ramps wherever possible. The
inclusion of bulb -outs at directional curb ramp locations is encouraged to decrease the
roadway width to be crossed by a pedestrian.
8. The subdivision design shall include curb extensions at locations where on -street parking
needs to be restricted for sight visibility reasons.
9. The subdivider shall dedicate easements and construct alleys and streets to full -width
adjacent to all lots being created in each phase.
10. Common areas, landscaped parkways and Class I pathways (other than Prado Road) shall be
owned and maintained in perpetuity for public use by a Homeowner's Association. Water
meters for common landscape areas including but not limited to parkways, medians,
roundabouts and pathway corridors are subject to water impact fees and shall be paid for by
the subdivider.
Resolution No.XXXX-14
Page 14
Attachment 1
11. All lots with alley access shall have vehicular access denial shown on the map for the public
streets fronting those lots, including Lots 46, 47, 48, 49, and 134.
On & Off -Site Improvements:
12. With respect to all off -site improvements, prior to filing of the Final Map, the Subdivider(s)
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:
1) 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;
2) Preliminary title report including chain of title and litigation guarantee;
3) 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;
4) 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.
5) 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.
13. The final subdivision design shall incorporate stormwater quality Best Management
Practices (BMPs) with the January 2005 edition of the Engineering Standards, shall be
designed to treat the stormwater runoff from all developed surfaces excluding rooftops but
Resolution No.XXXX-14
Page 15
Attachment 1
including all private and public streets, and shall be subject to the approval of the City
Engineer.
14. The final design of any stormwater detention or treatment facilities shall incorporate all
recommendations from the final geotechnical report into the design of said facilities. The
final geotechnical report shall address the effect, if any, of detaining stormwater in close
proximity to the existing soil contamination.
15. The final design of the proposed off -site stormwater detention facilities shall also take into
consideration the effects on 100 year floodplain (as identified as an undesignated "A Zone")
on the FEMA FIRM Panel (as modified by the LOMR dated August 23,2003) for San Luis
Obispo County, from the unnamed tributary to the East Fork of San Luis Obispo Creek and
shall establish the base flood elevation, process a CLOMR or CLOMR-F with FEMA prior
to approval of any plans for ground disturbing activities; then process the final documents
once Grading is complete . The design of any stormwater facilities shall be in compliance
with the WWMP-DDM requirement for construction within a Special Floodplain
Management Zone; i.e. no significant net loss of floodplain storage.
16. The subdivider shall secure the rights for the regional stormwater detention basin in a form
acceptable to the Bureau of Real Estate and the City prior to or concurrently with the
recordation of the first final map. The stormwater detention basin shall be
privately -maintained. Should the subdivider be unsuccessful in acquiring the rights to the
basin for storm drainage capacity, the subdivider shall revise the map and plans to
accommodate appropriately -sized on -site detention of stormwater pursuant to the City's
Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual. Alternately, the City may elect, but
is not obligated, to secure the rights on behalf of the public. All costs associated with
securing said rights, including any necessary eminent domain process, shall be borne by the
subdivider.
17. To the degree feasible, shared driveways shall be utilized to reduce the number of driveway
curb cuts in the subdivision and increase the provision of on -street parking.
18. When a Class 1 bicycle path provides access across a public street, choke -downs, curb
ramps, and signage shall be provided and the street crossing shall be designed to direct
pedestrians across the roadway in a perpendicular manner.
19. Prior to final map approval, details of the proposed roadway choke -downs shall be provided.
Choke -downs adjacent to open space corridors shall be lengthened to include the entire
length of the open space corridor.
20. Prior to final map approval, the landscaped roundabout proposed at the terminus of
Margarita Avenue shall be designed to comply with Caltrans Standards Design Information
Bulletin 80 and FHWA roundabout guidelines and address pedestrian and bicycle crossing
areas. The proposed roundabout shall be landscaped and maintained by the homeowner's
association.
21. Due to the potential circulation conflicts given the lot's proximity to the proposed
roundabout, the subdivider shall dedicate vehicular access rights to the City of San Luis
Resolution No.XXXX-14
Page 16
Attachment 1
Obispo for proposed Lot 32 onto Cherry Lane and said access restriction shall be shown on
the Final Map.
22. The final map shall include an irrevocable offer of dedication to the public for road purposes
across that portion of Lot 6 as necessary to provide an alternative alignment of Prado Road
to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Said offer and final map shall recognize
access restrictions to Prado Road from Lot 6.
23. Prior to final map approval, Aster Street shall be designed and constructed to comply with
City standards which at a minimum include half -street improvements plus 12 feet. Off -site
improvements, temporary construction easements or slope bank easements may be required
in order to complete the necessary improvements.
24. Prior to final map approval, the design and location of the bus pullouts on Junipero Way
shall be coordinated with Tract 2342 and approved by the Public Works Director. Plans
submitted for review shall include a bus turning diagram demonstrating a bus's ability to
negotiate the turnout. The final design shall also include bus stop improvements and indicate
how access to adjacent parcels is provided. Unless otherwise approved by the Public Works
Director, the eastbound bus pullout shall be located on Junipero Way west of Cherry Lane
and the westbound bus pullout shall be located on Junipero Way east of Cherry Lane.
25. The Prado Road cross section shall be designed to comply with the MASP. The metric
conversions shall be as approved by the Public Works Director.
26. Private alleys shall be designed for use by emergency vehicles and garbage trucks and shall
be located within a public access easement. Sewer and storm drain lines within the private
alleys shall be privately -maintained. The subdivider shall show the alleys within a public
access easement on the Final Map.
27. Vehicular access rights along Prado Road shall be dedicated to the City.
28. The subdivider shall install private street lighting along the private internal streets per City
standards and off -site public street lighting along Prado Road leading to and from the
development, as determined by the Director of Public Works. All public street lighting on
Prado Road and on the other public streets shall be LED lighting per the most current or
interim City standards. The public street lighting installed by the developer shall include the
luminaires as well as all wiring and conduit necessary to energize the light standards from
PG&E's point of service.
Water, Sewer & Utilities:
29. The subdivider's engineer shall submit water demand and wastewater generation
calculations so that the City can make a determination as to the adequacy of the supporting
infrastructure. If it is discovered that an off -site deficiency exists, the owner will be
required to mitigate the deficiency as apart of the overall project.
30. Water meters shall be grouped in manifold pairs wherever possible, to the satisfaction of the
Utilities Engineer.
Resolution No.XXXX-14
Page 17
Attachment 1
31. The water mains, sewer mains, and sewer force mains when attached or included with a
bridge, shall be sleeved and encased within the bridge structure or located above the lowest
point so as to protect the pipelines from the high water flow.
32. Sewer backwater valves may be required on some lots. The subdivider's engineer shall
apply the City's criteria to the design to determine which lots will need backwater valves on
the sewer laterals, per City and UPC standards.
33. In areas where the pressure in the water system exceeds 80 psi, the service line shall include
a pressure regulator downstream of the water meter, where the water service enters the
building.
34. The sewer and water mains shall be located approximately 6' on either side of the street
centerline. All final grades and alignments of all public water, sewer and storm drains
(including service laterals and meters) are subject to modifications to the satisfaction of the
Public Works Director and Utilities Engineer.
35. The subdivision layout and preliminary utility plans shall include provisions for irrigating
common areas, parks, detention basins, and other large landscape areas with recycled water.
Appropriately sized reclaimed water mains shall be designed and constructed from the City's
trunk system to these irrigation areas. If other use areas exist beyond the proposed
subdivision, the mains shall be appropriately sized to provide for future use areas and
extended to the boundary of the tract. If reclaimed water is not available at the time the
recycled water is needed, the system shall be designed and constructed to reclaimed water
standards, and temporarily connected to the City's potable water system in the area of the
anticipated connection to the reclaimed water system.
Grading & Drainage:
36. The final grading plan shall include provisions to comply with the soils engineer's
recommendations, including mitigating cut slopes, debris flows uphill of the lots and truck
access. The soils engineer shall supervise all grading operations and certify the stability of
the slopes prior to acceptance of the tract and/or issuance of building permits.
37. Clearing of any portion of the existing creek and drainage channels, including any required
tree removals, and any necessary erosion repairs shall be to done the satisfaction of the
Public Works Director, Corp. of Engineers and the Department of Fish & Game. Certain
trees may require safety pruning by a certified Arborist as determined by the City Arborist.
Homeowners' Association:
38. The subdivider shall submit CC&R's with the Final Map that establishes a Homeowner's
Association (HOA). The HOA shall include the mandatory annexation of Tract 2342 and
Tract 2353. The HOA shall provide for maintenance of all common area drainage channels,
on -site and/or sub -regional drainage basins and conveyance improvements and the
Margarita median landscaping and trail network. The HOA shall also annually maintain a
30' wide wildland fuel reduction zone along all open space lots abutting developments
Resolution No.XXXX-14
Page 18
Attachment 1
within the MASP. The CC&R's shall be approved by the City and shall be recorded prior to
or concurrent with recordation of the Final Map. A Notice of Annexation or other
appropriate mechanism to annex Tract 2353 into the HOA, including all associated common
area and the regional drainage basin, shall be recorded concurrently with the map.
39. Prior to map recordation, the Serra Meadows Business -Professional Office Association shall
enter into an agreement with the Serra Meadows Residential Homeowners' Association to
pay their prorata share of the cost to maintain the regional storm drain basin and related
facilities. The Agreement for Drainage Easement and Maintenance of Storm Water
Detention Basin between the Residential HOA and the Professional Office Association shall
be revised to specifically include the regional basin and appurtenances.
40. Prior to map recordation, the subdivider shall (a) reach an agreement with the property
owners of Prado Park LLC south of Prado Road and the property owners of VTM 2428
regarding use and maintenance of the regional basin, or (b) demonstrate to the city that they
have exhausted all reasonable efforts to reach an agreement. If an agreement cannot be
reached, these property owners will need to demonstrate to the city's satisfaction how they
will provide storm drainage mitigation, open space maintenance, and wetland mitigation
through their own subdivision design and maintenance association.
41. The Homeowners' Association (HOA) shall maintain all that portion of Lot 64 of Tract 2342
and the regional basin south of Prado Road. Maintenance responsibilities shall include
maintenance of any cut or fill slopes required to make the swale and berm. The storm
drainage system within the private streets shall be privately owned and maintained by the
HOA (to be included in CC&R's). Those open space areas that accommodate trails intended
for public use shall be maintained for public access in perpetuity.
42. Subdivider shall prepare conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) to be approved by
the City. The CC&R's shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with recordation of the Final
Map. The CC&R's shall contain the following provisions that pertain to all lots:
a. Creation of an HOA or annexation into an HOA, if one exists.
b. No parking except in approved, designated spaces.
c. No change in city -required provisions of the CC&R's without prior City approval.
d. Provision for all of the maintenance responsibilities outlined in various conditions.
e. Provision for common driveway use, access, and maintenance for those lots with
shared access.
43. Prior to map recordation, the CC&R's shall be amended and/or supplemental CC&R's
created to address the following:
a. Include Lots 39 and 134 as residential lots.
b. Remove Lot 39 as a common area lot.
Resolution No.XXXX-14
Page 19
Attachment 1
c. Include the new alley serving Lots 46 through 49 and Lot 134 as common area.
d. Include a maintenance plan for the regional basin.
e. Indicate who will be responsible for maintaining the gravity wall drainage lines in the
back and side yards of the private lots. These lines are continuous drain lines that
cross from lot to lot, so there needs to be some continuity in regards to maintenance.
f. Specifically include maintenance of the bike/pedestrian pathways by the HOA within
Lots 45 and Lots 131-133 in Exhibit E, Chart of Maintenance Obligations.
g. Revise Exhibit E to include "Sewer Collection and Storm Drain Lines in Alley
Easement Areas" as being maintained by the HOA.
h. Revise Exhibit E to include the parkway adjacent to Lots 5 and 6 to be maintained by
the Professional Office Association.
Paths/Open Space:
44. The multi -use paths should be 12 feet in width as called for in the Specific Plan, however,
the Natural Resource Manager and Public Works Director may approve a narrower path in
locations that will only be used by pedestrians only or where environmental conditions
warrant a narrower path based on in -the -field consideration.
45. Final design (including materials, location, width, bridging and lighting) of pathways shall
be reviewed and approved by the Natural Resources Manager and Public Works Director.
46. Class I path crossings at public streets should be perpendicular to the street. A cross section
should be developed to show transition of path up to the roadway crossing. Choke -downs
and signage shall be provided and crossing shall be designed to direct pedestrians to cross
the roadway in a direct perpendicular manner.
Air Quality:
47. All activities associated with construction and operation for the subdivision map shall
comply at all times with all current APCD Rules and Regulations as applicable, including
but not limited to PM-10, NOX emissions, Best Available Control Technologies,
construction activity management plans, and phasing techniques
Housing Programs:
48. To provide the required affordable units for both Tentative Tract 2342 & 2353, Lot 108, the
R-3 zoned affordable housing site, shall be dedicated to the Housing Authority prior to, or in
conjunction with the recording of Phase 2 of Tract 2353. If the Housing Authority cannot
move forward with a project at the time that the project would be set to be built out, they
could formally pass on the opportunity thereby providing an option for another entity to
develop the site with an affordable project, subject to the review and approval of the
Community Development Director. Improvement plans for Phase 2 of Tract 2353 shall
include complete access and infrastructure (roads, water, sewer, and utilities) to serve the
Resolution No.XXXX-14
Page 20
Attachment 1
Housing Authority site. Additional affordable housing requirements will be required if the
average residential unit size of the entire Tract 2353 exceeds 2,000 square feet as per Table
2A of the City Housing Element.
Planning Requirements:
49. Bulb outs at `T' intersections need to be added to the straight leg "crossing the `T"' and
elongated such that pedestrian crossings are at 90 degrees to the opposing bulb out
transitions for the intersecting street leg.
50. Bulb -outs shall be provided at alley access points to street to provide line of sight where red
curbing would otherwise be needed.
51. Development of lots adjacent to El Camino Estates or the proposed VTM #2428 where pad
elevations differ by four or more feet shall be limited to single -story development and
increased rear yard setbacks of a minimum of 10 feet, or equivalent design techniques that
maximize privacy protection for the adjacent lot as approved by the Architectural Review
Commission.
52. For lots with slope banks 3:1 or steeper adjacent to the property line and drainage structures
in the rear yards, the subdivider shall designate the entire slope bank as a slope easement to
be maintained by the HOA. A deed restriction shall be placed on all lots with this situation
so that a 6 foot high privacy fence shall be installed and maintained at the top of the slope
53. All lighting within the subdivision shall comply with the lighting standards contained in the
San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines and as further stipulated in the Mitigation
Measures listed below.
54. In order to be consistent with the requirements of the Margarita Area Specific Plan and
County Airport Land Use Plan, the property owner shall grant an avigation easement for the
benefit and protection of the City of San Luis Obispo, the County of San Luis Obispo and
the San Luis Obispo County Airport via an avigation easement document prior to the
recordation of the final map.
55. In the event archaeological resources are discovered in conjunction with a construction
project, all activities shall cease and the Community Development Department shall be
notified so that the procedures required by state law may be applied.
56. New development shall implement all feasible measures to minimize the use of
conventional energy for space heating and cooling, water heating and illumination by means
of proper design and orientation, including the provision and protection of solar exposure.
57. As set forth in the Margarita Area Specific Plan, there shall be a minimum setback of 157
feet for new single family residential units from the centerline of Prado Road. Proposed
Live/Work units may be located within the 157-foot setback from Prado Road (60 dB noise
contour) subject to compliance with all of the requirements of the Sound Level Assessment
from David Lord of 45 dB dated 9-14-11.
Resolution No.XXXX-14
Page 21
Attachment 1
58. Developer hereby agrees to, and shall defend, indemnify, save and hold City and its elected
and appointed boards, commissions, officers, agents, and employees harmless 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 this Agreement, whether such operations be by Developer
or by any of Developer's contractors or subcontractors or by anyone or more persons
directly or indirectly employed by or acting as agent for Developer of any of Developer's
contractors or subcontractors. Nothing contained in the foregoing indemnity provision shall
be construed to require indemnification for claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses or
judgments resulting from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City.
59. For interior streets (not Prado Road), a 15-foot public street yard shall be allowed for homes
and a 20-foot street yard for garages with doors facing the public street.
60. The subdivider shall provide an appropriately sized recycled water main from the end of the
existing main in Margarita Avenue north on Cherry Lane to the north boundary of the tract
to serve the project's linear park landscape irrigation as well as the adjacent VTM 2428.
Code Requirements:
1. Traffic impact and water and wastewater impact fees are required to be paid as a condition of
issuance of building permits.
2. Appropriate backflow prevention will be necessary on any connection to the City water
system if the property includes an active well.
3. EPA Requirement: General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all
storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and
excavation results in land disturbance of five or more acres. Storm water discharges of less
than five acres, but which is part of a larger common plan of development or sale, also
require a permit. Permits are required until the construction is complete to be covered by a
General Construction Activity Permit; the owner(s) of land where construction activity
occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NO I) form, with the appropriate fee, to
the State Water Board.
4. The subdivision design shall comply with the City's grading ordinance.
5. Street trees shall be planted along the private street per City Standards (the number of trees is
determined by one tree per 35 linear feet of street frontage).
6. All boundary monuments, lot comers and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be
tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points shall be used and a
tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All
coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. An electronic file
containing the appropriate data compatible with AutoCAD (Digital Interchange Format,
Resolution No.XXXX-14
Page 22
Attachment 1
DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the City
Engineer.
7. Access shall be in accordance with Article 9 of the California Fire Code (CFC). Access roads
shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical
clearance of 13' 6". Access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed
loads of a 60,000 pound fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide
all-weather driving capabilities. All cul-de-sacs shall be minimum 40 foot radius.
8. Approved address numbers shall be placed on all new buildings in such a position to be
plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Numbers shall be a minimum
of 5" high x' "stroke and be on a contrasting background. [UFC 901 .4.4].
9. Water supplies and fire hydrants shall be provided in accordance with applicable articles of
the CFC. An approved water supply capable of providing the required fire flow for fire
protection is required. The fire flow shall be determined using applicable Appendices of the
CFC.
10. Fire protection systems shall be installed in accordance with the CFC and the California
Building Code. An approved NFPA system will be required for this project.
11. Fire hydrants shall be spaced per SLO-FD Guidelines (placement with Fire Department
approval) and shall be capable of supplying the required fire -flows.
Upon motion by Commissioner , seconded by
and on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 12th day of March, 2014.
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Planning Commission
Attachment 2
RESOLUTION NO.9777 (2006 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT AMP AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 408 PRADO ROAD
(TR/ER 66-05; TRACT NO.2353)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on January 25, 2006, and recommended approval of Application TR/ER 66-05, a
request to subdivide an approximately 30-acre site into 133 lots; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on March 7,
2006, for the purpose of considering Application TR/ER 63-05; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impact for the project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the
recommendation of the Planning commission, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation
and recommendations of staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the
following findings:
1. The design of the vesting tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan because the
proposed subdivision respects existing site constraints (slope, creeks, wetlands, significant
trees), will incrementally add to the City's residential housing inventory, result in parcels that
meet density standards, and will be consistent with the density and lot sizes established by the
Margarita Area Specific Plan.
2. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development allowed in the R-l-SP, R-
2-SP, R-3-SP, and O-SP zones.
3. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use of
property within) the proposed subdivision.
R 9777
4. The subdivision will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, subject to the
mitigation measures of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified by the City
Council on October 12, 2004 being incorporated into the project, the mitigation monitoring
program adopted with said EIR approval being followed and mitigation measures
recommended herein.
5. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department
on January 9, 2006. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the project's
Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental
impacts of the proposed project.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City Council finds and determines that the
project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant
environmental impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City
Council. The Council hereby adopts said Mitigated Negative Declaration and incorporates the
following mitigation measures and monitoring programs into the project:
Mitigation Measures:
Reduction of Light and Glare
1. In order for MASP/AASP EIR Mitigation Measure LU-7.1 as implemented by the
MASP to be carried through to lot -specific development stage, a lighting plan that
demonstrates compliance with Community Design Section 3.3 lighting requirements of
the MASP shall be submitted with other required plans for both the residential and
commercial components of the project to the review and approval of the Architectural
Review Commission (ARC). The lighting plan shall propose specific measures to limit
the amount of light trespass associated with development within the project area
including shielding and/or directional lighting methods to ensure that spillover light
does not exceed 0.5 foot-candles at adjacent property lines.
➢ Monitoring Program: The ARC will review development plans for both the residential
and commercial components of the project. City staff, including Planning and other
departments, will review plans to assure that all of the ARC's requirements related to
lighting and compliant with the MASP provisions have been incorporated into working
drawings. City building inspectors will be responsible for assuring that all lighting is
installed pursuant to the approved lighting plan.
Preparation and Implementation of "Comprehensive Biological Mitigation Program"
2. Mitijeation for wetland impacts. Mitigation for wetland impacts will be through a
combination of on- and off -site mitigation, approved by the City, the DFG and the
Corps. Further, in compliance with the MASP/AASP EIR, the subject VTM #2342
(Cowan) proposes the creation of Lot Z in an area designated by the MASP for "Open
Resolution No. 9777 (2006 Series)
Page 3
Space -Riparian" for the express purposes of achieving some of the necessary wetlands
replacement mitigation area, as well as preservation of related biological habitat
benefits.
3. Mitigation for Impacts to Sensitive Species. None of these species are expected to be
difficult to establish. City staff will work with the project sponsors in developing the
details of the effort.
Congdon Tarplant. Create compensating habitat in a suitable off -site location approved
by the City.
4. Mitigation for Impacts to Other Nesting Birds. Undertake surveys prior to initiation of
construction activities; avoid construction activities within 100 feet of active nest sites,
or within 300 feet for raptor nests, until after young have fledged.
5. Off Site Mitigation for Wetland Impacts. A further component of the biological
mitigation program is the applicant's proposal to acquire (by fee, easement, or eminent
domain) lands outside the bounds of the Western Enclave (designated by the MASP as
"Open Space -Riparian" lands). The targeted property (lying south of Prado Road and
owned by Unocal) is a low lying area that already naturally collects some area run-off
and provides valuable habitat for certain special concern and R-T-E (rare, threatened,
and endangered) species, and thus is beneficial to retain in its natural state. Pre -
development run-off has resulted in seasonal flooding of Prado Road due to the
currently deficient collection/distribution system to this natural drainage area south of
Prado Road. The Western Enclave applicants propose to acquire this off -site property
designated for open space use by the MASP and utilize it beneficially for biological
mitigation as well as a detention basin for pre- and post -Western Enclave development
generated run-off. It is proposed that this basin be enhanced to accommodate the
greater project -generated and pre -project run-off flows, and to increase its habitat value
in the long term. The basin is proposed to be held and maintained by a Master Home
Owners Association (MHOA) established initially for the Western Enclave area, and
perhaps ultimately for the entire MASP as stipulated be done by the MASP.
a. Monitoring Program: Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall contact the
City Natural Resource Manager for review and approval of the final lot and street
design to assure that on -site natural resources are protected and preserved to the greatest
extent required by the mitigation measures and consistent with requirements of the
MASP and MASP/AASP EIR. Said design shall also be consistent with approvals
required subsequent to this Tentative Map from State Dept. of Fish and Game and
Army Corps of Engineers. Prior to any site preparation or construction activities, the
applicant shall also initiate and complete for approval by the City pre -construction
surveys for nesting birds and adhere to performance standard specified in the
Resolution No. 9777 (2006 Series)
Page 4
mitigation. Provisions for inquired off -site mitigation shall be coordinated with and
approved by the City Natural Resource Manager prior to recordation of the Final Map.
Periodic field inspections by City Staff during construction will be necessary to assure
site development conforms to mitigation measures and conditions of approval.
Preparation and Implementation of "Traffic Reduction Program"
6. In order for MASP/AASP EIR Mitigation Measure T-2.1 adopted with the certification of
the MASP/AASP EIR in conjunction with the approval of the AASP in August, 2005
(Ref. City Council Resolution No. 9726, 2005 Series) to be brought forward to this site
specific project stage, a transportation demand management program that demonstrates
reduction of peak period travel by single -occupant vehicles shall be required of any
employer within the subdivision with 25 or more employees. Said program shall
incorporate all reasonably feasible measures or techniques, including those listed in the
MASP/AASP EIR/General Plan Circulation, that encourage alternate modes other than
single -occupant vehicles as the primary mode of transportation to the workplace and to
travel during non -peak times.
➢ Monitoring Program: Each business owner, upon employment of 25 or more
employees, shall immediately prepare and submit, obtain approval from the City Public
Works Director and implement the provisions of a Traffic Reduction Plan which
demonstrates reduction of peak period travel consistent with requirements of the City
General Plan Circulation Element Policies and Programs. City Staff shall periodically
inspect the business to observe and assure that reduction techniques approved by the
City are in place and adhered to by the business. Staff shall take any corrective or
enforcement actions authorized by law to achieve compliance.
Preparation of Phase II Archaeological Subsurface Survey
7. In order to achieve complete mitigation for the archaeological resource found on the
subject site, this survey is required if the site cannot be avoided. The Phase Il survey is
to determine if significance criteria of CEQA and/or NRHP are met. The survey must
be completed and results submitted to City for determination whether mitigation
measures below, as specified in EIR, are needed.
a) A data recovery program consisting of archaeological excavation to retrieve the
important data from the archaeological site;
b) Development and implementation of public interpretation plans for both
prehistoric and historic sites;
c) Preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction of historic structures
according to the Secretary of Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic
Properties;
Resolution No. 9777 (2006 Series)
Page 5
d) Construction of new structures in a manner consistent with the historic
character of the region; and
e) Treatment of historic landscapes according to the Secretary of Interior
Standards for Treatment of Historic Landscapes.
If the project involves a federal agency, and is therefore subject to a MOA, the
inventory, evaluation, and treatment processes will be coordinated with that federal
agency to ensure that the work conducted will also comply with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act.
➢ Monitoring Program: If the survey results reveal that the archaeological resource does
meet the significance criteria set forth in CEQA or NRHP, then no further mitigation is
required. However if the significance criteria is met, then the lead agency in
coordination with the agency with jurisdiction over the resources shall jointly determine
which of the above stated mitigation are appropriate for the resource status. The
applicant shall provide evidence to the City that the mitigation has been achieved prior
to recordation of the final subdivision map.
Preparation and Implementation of a "Construction -Related Hazardous Materials
Management Plan'
8. As stipulated in the MASP/AASP EIR, this would be a plan identifying, when they are
known, site/development-specific construction activities that will involve the hazardous
materials. The plan shall be prepared before construction activities begin that involve
hazardous materials and shall discuss proper handling and disposal of materials used or
produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste. The plan
will also outline a specific protocol to identify health risks associated with the presence
of chemical compounds in the soil and/or groundwater and identify specific protective
measures to be followed by the workers entering the work area. If the presence of
hazardous materials is suspected or encountered during construction -related activities,
the project proponent will cause Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2 to be activated.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2 states:
"The project proponent will complete a Phase I environmental site assessment for each
proposed public facility (e.g. streets and buried infrastructure). If Phase 1 site
assessments indicate a potential for soil and/or groundwater contamination within or
adjacent to the road or utility alignments, a Phase II site assessment will be completed
The following Phase 11 environmental site assessments will be prepared specific to soil
and/or groundwater contamination.
a. Soil Contamination. For soil contamination, the Phase 11 site assessment will
include soil sampling and analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If
Resolution No. 9777 (2006 Series)
Page 6
soil contamination is exposed during construction, the San Luis Obispo Fire
Department (SLOFD) will be notified and a work plan to characterize and
possibly remove contaminated soil will be prepared, submitted and approved.
b. Groundwater Contamination. For groundwater contamination, the Phase 11
assessment may include monitoring well installation, groundwater sampling, and
analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If groundwater contaminated
by potentially hazardous materials is expected to be extracted during dewatering,
the SLOFD and the Central Coast RWQCB will be notified. A contingency plan
to dispose of contaminated groundwater will be developed in agreement with the
SLOFD and Central Coast RWQCB.
➢ Monitoring Program: The "Construction -Related Hazardous Materials Management
Plan" will be required to be submitted to the City Community Development
Department and Fire Department for review prior to commencement of any site
preparation or construction work involving hazardous materials. No site preparation or
construction work may commence before said plan has been approved by the City. Any
site work commenced without City approval of said Plan will be subject to "Stop
Work" (cease and desist) orders as may be issued under the authority of the City Fire
Department.
Preparation and Implementation of an "Operations -Related Hazardous Materials
Management Plan"
9. As stipulated in the MASP/AASP EIR, this would be a plan prepared by a project
proponent identifying hazardous materials management practices as might be required
by state and local laws and regulations regarding delivery, use, manufacture, and
storage of any such regulated materials might be present on site for any operations -
related activities. This plan would identify the proper handling and disposal of
materials uses or produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary
waste. By the filing of said Plan, the City Fire Department will be on notice to provide
regular and routine fire and life -safety inspections to determine compliance with
applicable health and safety codes.
➢ Monitoring Program: The "Operations -Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan"
will be required to be submitted by a project proponent to the City Community
Development Department and City Fire Department for review prior to the
establishment of any operations -related activities.
SECTION 3. Action. The City Council does hereby approve Application TR/ER 63-05
with incorporation of the following conditions and code requirements into the project:
Resolution No. 9777 (2006 Series)
Page 7
Conditions:
Streets:
Prior to recordation of the vesting final map, or any phase thereof, the subdivider shall
present a detailed schedule and delivery "Plan", to be approved by the Public Works
Director, for the improvement of Prado Road between its eastern terminus at the current
City boundary and Broad Street. For the purposes of this condition, the Prado Road
Extension (PRE) shall be referenced in two segments. The first segment shall be the new
roadway from the present easterly terminus (City boundary) of Prado Road extending
easterly to the intersection of proposed "M" Street on Tract 2353 (the "Siena Gardens
(DeBlauw) property as shown in the Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP)). This first
segment shall be referred to as the "Prado Road Extension - Western Enclave" segment
(PRE -WE). The second segment shall be from the Prado Road/"M" Street intersection on
Tract 2353, easterly, to Broad Street. This second segment shall be referred to as the "Prado
Road Extension - "M" Street to Broad" segment (PRE-MB).
At a minimum, the Plan shall address the following milestones for Right -of -Way
acquisition, design and construction:
a. At the time of submittal of any plans for final map and/or improvement plan checking:
The subdivider shall submit construction drawings and specifications for the full width
improvement of the "Prado Road Extension - Western Enclave" segment (PRE -WE),
and shall submit schematic plans for the full width improvement of the "Prado Road
Extension - "M" Street to Broad" segment (PRE-MB). The final map and improvement
plans will follow approximately 6 months after the date of the approval of the Tentative
Map. During this time the City as well as area property owners will be involved in the
review of updated drafts and the selection of the proper engineering company as well as
overseeing the design. Following Tentative Map approval, the Western Enclave
Property Owners (WEPO) and the City will establish a Stakeholder Group comprised of
MASP property owners and public utility companies, etc. to augment/expedite the
conceptual design of the PRE-MB component of the Roadway.
b. The PRE -WE plans shall include 4 travel lanes, bike paths and lanes, sidewalks,
utilities, storm drainage, landscaping, center median improvements and other necessary
street appurtenances or as otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works.
c. Off -site dedication of property for public right-of-way purposes is necessary to facilitate
the construction of Prado Road. The subdivider shall exhaust all avenues available to
acquire said public right-of-way dedication. In the event the subdivider is unable to
acquire said property, the City Council will lend the subdivider its powers of
condemnation to acquire the off -site right-of-way dedication, including any necessary
Resolution No. 9777 (2006 Series)
Page 8
slope and drainage easements. If condemnation is required, the subdivider shall agree
to pay all costs associated with the off -site right-of-way acquisition (including attorney
and court costs). The subdivider is responsible for construction of the necessary street
improvements and striping, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.)
d. Subject to the availability of necessary right-of-way, the subdivider shall complete
construction of the PRE -WE segment prior to occupancy of the 50th unit within the
subdivision. If right-of-way is not available at the time of approval of the final map, the
subdivider may submit a plan for providing interim, secondary access to the WEPO
properties that is subject to approval by the Public Works Director. This secondary
access shall be completed prior to granting of occupancy permits and may be required
to be removed at a later time when additional access is provided from adjacent
properties.
e. At the time of recording the final map, the subdivider shall bond for the completion of
the engineering plans and specifications, environmental review, if necessary, and
associated construction permits for the PRE-MB segment. The subdivider shall
complete the construction drawings and specifications for the PRE-MB segment on or
before the 100th unit is occupied in the Western Enclave (approx, 1 year after Tentative
Map Approval). If, at the time of Final Map approval, a detailed engineered cost
estimate for the PRE-MB section of roadway has not yet been completed, the City may
require that the developer (property owners) sign a waiver not opposing the possible
future formation of a community facilities district or other such financing mechanism,
that would fund any final project costs for the construction of PRE-MB that are not
contained in the Margarita Area Specific Plan Impact Fee estimates.
Subject to the availability of necessary right-of-way, the subdivider shall, at a
minimum: (1) initiate the construction of the northern half, or some modified section of
the roadway subject to approval by the Director of Public Works, of the PRE-MB
segment prior to occupancy of the 200th residential unit in the Western Enclave
(approx. 3 years after Tentative Map Approval) , and (2) complete construction of the
northern half of the PRE-MB segment prior to occupancy of the 300th residential unit
in the Western Enclave (approx. 5 years after Tentative Map Approval). If right-of-way
is not available at the time of requests for occupancy, the City will determine if public
acquisition of said right-of-way is necessary or the subdivider will be required to submit
an interim plan for providing secondary access the Western Enclave that shall be
approved by the Public Works Director.
g. As a part of the submittal of the plan for improvements to Prado Road, the subdivider
shall submit a reimbursement proposal and schedule for the costs associated with the
environmental, engineering and construction of Prado Road in its entirety, as
established by the MASP. Subject to final approval of the City, the proposal may
Resolution No. 9777 (2006 Series)
Page 9
include fee credits and/or other appropriate mechanisms that may be applied against
non-TIF city-wide and MASP impact fees as development occurs, to facilitate
completion of the Prado Road extension.
h. A second access off Prado to service VTTM 2353 (DeBlauw) can be incorporated on an
interim basis at the time of construction of PRE -WE and will remain in place until
PRE-MB is completed and an additional access point is provided at an adopted MASP
location.
2. Margarita Area Specific Plan Impact Fees, as adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo, shall
be paid prior to issuance of each building permit, subject to condition l.g. above.
3. The public improvement plans for VTTM 2353, VTTM 2428 and VTTM 2342 shall
consider the proposed or required phasing to be completed by the combined development
known as Margarita Area Specific Plan western enclave. The public improvement plans for
each subdivision shall include any offsite improvements as considered necessary by the
Director of Public Works to provide a reasonable transition between the subdivisions in the
case that one project is developed before another. The scope of required improvements
shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
4. The final subdivision design and improvements shall comply with the Margarita Area
Specific Plan and all other City of San Luis Obispo Design Standards, Engineering
Standards and Standard Plans and Specifications.
5. The final design, location, and number of traffic calming measures including bulb -outs,
choke -downs, tabletops, roundabouts, neck -downs, etc. shall be reviewed and approved by
the Public Works Director. Plans submitted for review shall include a truck turning
diagram demonstrating a truck's ability to negotiate the traffic calming features. Additional
or alternative traffic control measures may be required to comply with the Specific Plan
objective to "foster traffic volumes and speeds that will be compatible with the
neighborhood."
6. Pursuant to the Margarita Area Specific Plan, traffic volume and speeds shall be monitored
after development, The subdivider shall retain a qualified traffic consultant to conduct
traffic counts throughout the subdivision at locations approved by the Public Works
Director. If traffic speeds or volumes exceed City standards during counts taken by the
subdivider one year after final occupancy of complete build -out of the subdivision or
acceptance of public improvements whichever occurs later, the subdivider shall be
responsible for installing additional traffic calming measures to the approval of the Public
Works Director to reduce volume and speeds to comply with City standards. As an
alternative to the above, prior to final map recordation, the Western Enclave property
owners may pay a one-time non-refundable contribution to the City's Neighborhood Traffic
Management Program in the amount of $130,000 to fund future traffic calming efforts in
Resolution No. 9777 (2006 Series)
Page 10
the City.
7. The subdivision design shall include directional curb ramps wherever possible. The
inclusion of bulb -outs at directional curb ramp locations is encouraged to decrease the
roadway width to be crossed by a pedestrian.
8. The subdivision design shall include curb extensions at locations where on -street parking
needs to be restricted for sight visibility reasons.
9. Prior to approval of improvement plans, alternative paving materials proposed within the
public right-of-way shall be approved by the Public Works Director. Alternative paving
materials shall be maintained by the Homeowner's Association.
10. Common areas, landscaped parkways and Class I pathways (other than Prado Road) shall
be owned and maintained in perpetuity for public use by the Master Homeowner's
Association. Water meters for common landscape areas including but not limited to
parkways, medians, roundabouts and pathway corridors are subject to water impact fees and
shall be paid for by the subdivider.
On & Off -Site Improvements:
11. With respect to all off -site improvements, prior to filing of the Final Map, the Subdivider(s)
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. Request in writing that the subdivider has exhausted all reasonable efforts to acquire
interest to the subject property and 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, no later that 90 days prior
to recordation of the Final Map (final Parcel Map), submit, in a form acceptable to the
City Engineer, the following documents regarding the property to be acquired:
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;
Resolution No. 9777 (2006 Series)
Page 11
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.
12. Should the final design for the stormwater detention basin require the installation of a
stormwater pumping station in order to provide an outlet for the detention basin, the final
pump station design shall be in accordance with Section 8 of the VAVW-DDM and the
following"
a. The pump station shall be a triplex design.
b. The pump station shall be designed to discharge at the 100 year pre -developed rate with
all three pumps running, the 10 year pre -developed rate with two pumps running and
the 2 year pre -developed rate with only one pump in operation. At no time shall the
pump discharge rate exceed that of the pre -development flow rates for each of the
design storms. Or the pump station shall consist for a variable speed drive that matches
the required discharge regime.
c. The pump discharge shall be designed such that no erosion damage will occur.
d. The pump shall discharge into a natural waterway or into an easement to which the
subdividers, their heirs and/or assigns have rights to.
13. The final subdivision design shall incorporate stormwater quality BMPs with the January
2005 edition of the Engineering Standards, shall be designed to treat the stormwater runoff
from all developed surfaces excluding rooftops but including all private and public streets,
and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
14. The final design of any stormwater detention or treatment facilities shall incorporate all
recommendations from the final geotechnical report into the design of said facilities. The
final geotechnical report shall address the effect, if any, of detaining stormwater in close
Resolution No. 9777 (2006 Series)
Page 12
proximity to the existing soil contamination.
15. The final design of the proposed off -site stormwater detention facilities shall also take into
consideration the effects on 100 year floodplain (as identified as an undesignated "A
Zone") on the FEMA FIRM Panel (as modified by the LOMR dated August 23, 2003) for
San Luis Obispo County, from the unnamed tributary to the East Fork of San Luis Obispo
Creek and shall establish the base flood elevation, process a CLOMR or CLOMR-F with
FEMA prior to approval of any plans for ground disturbing activities; then process the final
documents once Grading is complete. The design of any stormwater facilities shall be in
compliance with the WWMP-DDM requirement for construction within a Special
Floodplain Management Zone; i.e. no significant net loss of floodplain storage.
16. The subdivider shall secure the rights for the regional stormwater detention basin prior to or
concurrently with the final subdivision maps. Should the subdividers be unsuccessful in
acquiring off site property for the construction of the stormwater facilities, the subdivider
shall either: a) revise the maps to reflect appropriately sized on -site detention of
stormwater pursuant to the City's Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual or,
b) request in writing that the City assist in securing the property following procedures as
outlined above. All costs associated with securing said rights including the eminent domain
process shall be bome by the subdividers.
17. Prior to the approval of the public improvement plans the subdivider(s) shall have received
an approved grading permit from the County of San Luis Obispo a written waiver for the
construction of any facilities outside the City's corporate limits. Should San Luis Obispo
County defer to the City for the processing of the grading permits for property outside the
City corporate boundary, the subdivider(s) shall process the grading permit with the City
Public Works Department concurrently with the improvements plans and pay all fees
associated said grading in accordance with the Public Works Department Fee schedule for
plan checking and inspection in effect at the time of permit processing.
18. To the degree feasible, shared driveways shall be utilized to reduce the number of driveway
curb cuts in the subdivision and increase the provision of on -street parking.
19. The final map and its associated dedications should reflect the correct legal description; that
is to say the offer of dedication for future Prado Road should be to the actual south property
line as described in the legal description contained in an up-to-date title report.
20. Where a Class 1 bicycle path provides access across a public street, raised decorative
paving, choke -downs, curb ramps and signage shall be provided and the street crossing shall
be designed to direct pedestrians across the roadway in a perpendicular manner.
21. Prior to final map approval, details of the proposed roadway choke -downs shall be
provided. Choke -downs adjacent to open space corridors shall be lengthened to include the
Resolution No. 9777 (2006 Series)
Page 13
entire length of the open space corridor.
22. Prior to final map approval, the landscaped roundabout proposed at the terminus of
Margarita Avenue shall be designed to comply with Caltrans Standards Design Information
Bulletin 80 and FHWA roundabout guidelines and address pedestrian and bicycle crossing
arras. The proposed roundabout shall be landscaped and maintained by the homeowner's
association.
23. Due to the potential for circulation conflicts given the lot's proximity to the proposed
roundabout, the subdivider shall dedicate vehicular access rights to the City of San Luis
Obispo for proposed Lot 24 onto "D" Street and said access restriction shall be shown on
the Final Map.
24. Prior to final map approval, the subdivider shall demonstrate how Lots 47 and 48 will be
developed with a shared driveway easement and a design that allows vehicles exiting the
lots to exit in a forward motion to address the potential for circulation conflicts given the
lots proximity to the proposed roundabout. Said easement shall be shown on the final map.
25. The final map shall include an irrevocable offer of dedication to the public for road
purposes across that portion of Lot 6 as necessary to provide an alternative alignment of
Prado Road to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Said offer and final map shall
recognize access restrictions to Prado Road from Lot 6.
26. Demolition permits are required from the Building Division for the removal of all existing
structures. The permits shall be issued prior to approval of the public improvement plans.
27. Prior to final map approval, "L" Street shall be designed and constructed to comply with
City standards which at a minimum include half -street improvements plus 12 feet. Off -site
improvements, temporary construction easements or slope bank easements may be required
in order to complete the necessary improvements.
28. Prior to final map approval, the design and location of the bus pullouts on "C" Street shall
be coordinated with Tract 2342 (Cowan) and approved by the Public Works Director. Plans
submitted for review shall include a bus turning diagram demonstrating a bus's ability to
negotiate the turnout. The final design shall also include bus stop improvements and
indicate how access to adjacent parcels is provided. As called for in the Specific Plan, the
eastbound bus pullout shall be located on "C" Street east of "D" Street, not directly across
from the westbound bus pullout as shown on project plans.
29. Prior to final map approval, the Prado Road cross section shall be redesigned to comply
with the Margarita Area Specific Plan.
30. Prior to final map approval, traffic calming islands shown on "J" and "L' Streets shall be
Resolution No. 9777 (2006 Series)
Page 14
eliminated and replaced with other traffic calming devices.
31. Private alleys shall be designed for use by emergency vehicles and garbage trucks and shall
be located within a public access easement.
32. Vehicular access rights along Prado Road shall be dedicated to the City.
33. The subdivider shall install private street lighting along the Rrivaim internal streets per City
standards and off -site ub i street lighting along Prado Road leading to and from the
development, as determined by the Director of Public Works. All public street lighting
installed by the developer shall include the luminaires as well as all wiring and conduit
necessary to energize the light standards from PG& E's point of service.
Water, Sewer & Utilities:
34. The subdivider's engineer shall submit water demand and wastewater generation
calculations so that the City can make a determination as to the adequacy of the supporting
infrastructure. If it is discovered that an off -site deficiency exists, the owner will be
required to mitigate the deficiency as a part of the overall project.
35. Water meters shall be grouped in manifold pairs wherever possible, to the satisfaction of
the Utilities Engineer.
36. The water mains, sewer mains, and sewer force mains when attached or included with a
bridge, shall be sleeved and encased within the bridge structure or located above the lowest
point so as to protect the pipelines from the high water flow.
37. Sewer backwater valves may be required on some lots. The subdivider's engineer shall
apply the City's criteria to the design to determine which lots will need backwater valves on
the sewer laterals, per City and UPC standards.
38. In areas where the pressure in the water system exceeds 80 psi, the service line shall include
a pressure regulator downstream of the water meter, where the water service enters the
building.
39. The sewer and water mains shall be located approximately 2m on either side of the street
centerline. All final grades and alignments of all public water, sewer and storm drains
(including service laterals and meters) are subject to modifications to the satisfaction of the
Public Works Director and Utilities Engineer.
40. The subdivision layout and preliminary utility plans shall include provisions for irrigating
common areas, parks, detention basins, and other large landscape areas with recycled water.
Appropriately sized reclaimed water mains shall be designed and constructed from the
Resolution No. 9777 (2006 Series)
Page 15
City's trunk system to these irrigation areas. If other use areas exist beyond the proposed
subdivision, the mains shall be appropriately sized to provide for future use areas and
extended to the boundary of the tract. If reclaimed water is not available at the time the
recycled water is needed, the system shall be designed and constructed to reclaimed water
standards, and temporarily connected to the City's potable water system in the area of the
anticipated connection to the reclaimed water system.
Grading & Drainage:
41. The final grading plan shall include provisions to comply with the soils engineer's
recommendations, including mitigating cut slopes, debris flows uphill of the lots and truck
access. The soils engineer shall supervise all grading operations and certify the stability of
the slopes prior to acceptance of the tract and/or issuance of
42. Clearing of any portion of the existing creek and drainage channels, including any required
tree removals, and any necessary erosion repairs shall be to done the satisfaction of the
Public Works Director, Corp. of Engineers and the Dept. of Fish & Game. Certain trees
may require safety pruning by a certified Arborist as determined by the City Arborist.
Homeowners' Association:
43. The subdivider shall submit CC&R's with the Final Map that establishes a "Margarita Area
Master Homeowner's Association" (Master HOA). The Master HOA shall include the
subdivider's tract, and provide for the automatic annexation of all subsequent potential
tracts within the Margarita Specific Plan area. The subsequent tracts may, at their sole
discretion, annex to the Master HOA, or demonstrate to the city's satisfaction how many
they may form their own, independent HOA, to manage their common area improvements.
The Master HOA, and any and all subsequent HOA's not a part of the Master HOA, shall
provide for maintenance of all common area drainage channels, on -site and/or sub -regional
drainage basins and conveyance improvements and the Margarita median landscaping and
trail network. The Master HOA shall also annually maintain a 30' wide wildland fuel
reduction zone along all open space lots abutting developments within the MASP. The
CC&R's shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation of the Final Map, or
any phase thereof.
44. The Master Homeowners' Association (MHOA) shall own and maintain all that portion of
the lots designated as "Open Space" or "Wetlands Mitigation". The MHOA shall also be
responsible for maintenance of said lots. ?hose open space areas that accommodate trails
intended for public use shall be maintained for public access in perpetuity. Maintenance
responsibilities shall also include maintenance of any cut or fill slopes required to make the
swale and berm. The storm drainage system within the private streets shall be privately
owned and maintained by the MHOA (to be included in CC& R's).
Resolution No. 9777 (2006 Series)
Page 16
45. Subdivider shall prepare conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) to be approved
by the City Attorney and Community Development Director prior to final map approval.
CC&R's shall contain the following provisions that pertain to all lots:
a. Creation of a master homeowners' association if none exists or annexation into an
existing MHOA, if one exists.
b. No parking except in approved, designated spaces.
c. No change in city -required provisions of the CC&R's without prior City Council
approval.
d. Provision for all of the maintenance responsibilities outlined in various conditions
below.
e. The subdivider shall submit common driveway agreements for those lots with shared
access including maintenance provisions, to the approval of the Community
Development Director at the time of final map approval.
Paths/Open Space:
46. The multi -use paths should be 12 feet in width as called for in the Specific Plan, however the
Natural Resource Manager and Public Works Director may approve a narrower path in
locations that will only be used by pedestrians only or where environmental conditions
warrant a narrower path based on in -the -field consideration.
47. Final design (including materials, location, width, bridging and lighting) of pathways shall be
reviewed and approved by the Natural Resources Manager and Public Works Director.
48. Class I path crossings at public streets should be perpendicular to the street. A cross section
should be developed to show transition of path up to the roadway crossing. A raised table -top
design with decorative pavement, choke -downs (see above), and signage shall be provided
and crossing shall be designed to direct pedestrians to cross the roadway in a direct
perpendicular manner.
Air Quality:
49. All activities associated with construction and operation for the subdivision map shall comply
at all times with all current APCD Rules and Regulations as applicable, including but not
limited to PM-10, NOx emissions, Best Available Control Technologies, construction activity
management plans, and phasing techniques. .
Housing Programs:
Resolution No. 9777 (2006 Series)
Page 17
50. Lot 105, the "condominium" lot, shall be dedicated to the Housing Authority prior to, or in
conjunction with, recording the first phase of Tentative Tract 2353. Improvement plans for
Phase 1 of Tentative Tract 2353 shall include complete access and infrastructure (roads,
water, sewer, and utilities) to serve the Housing Authority sites. Additional affordable
housing requirements will be required if the average residential unit size of the entire
Tentative Tract 2353 exceeds 2,000 square feet as per Table 2A of the City Housing Element.
Planning Requirements:
51. Bulb outs at "I"' intersections need to be added to the straight leg "crossing the 'T"' and
elongated such that pedestrian crossings are at 90 degrees to the opposing bulb out
transitions for the intersecting street leg.
52. Bulb -outs shall be provided at alley access points to street to provide line of sight where red
curbing would otherwise be needed.
53. Development of lots adjacent to El Camino Estates or the proposed VTM #2428 where pad
elevations differ by four or more feet shall be limited to single -story development and
increased rear yard setbacks of a minimum of 10 feet, or equivalent design techniques that
maximize privacy protection for the adjacent lot as approved by the Architectural Review
Commission.
54. For lots with slope banks 3:1 or steeper adjacent to the property line and drainage structures
in the rear yards, the subdivider shall designate the entire slope bank as a slope easement to
be maintained by the HOA. A deed restriction shall be placed on all lots with this situation
so that a 6 foot high privacy fence shall be installed and maintained at the top of the slope
55. All lighting within the subdivision shall comply with the lighting standards contained in the
San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines and as further stipulated in the Mitigation
Measures listed below.
56. In order to be consistent with the requirements of the Margarita Area Specific Plan and
County Airport Land Use Plan, the property owner shall grant an avigation easement for the
benefit and protection of the City of San Luis Obispo, the County of San Luis Obispo and
the San Luis Obispo County Airport via an avigation easement document prior to the
recordation of the final map.
57. In the event archaeological resources are discovered in conjunction with a construction
project, all activities shall cease and the Community Development Department shall be
notified so that the procedures required by state law may be applied
58. New development shall implement all feasible measures to minimize the use of conventional
energy for space heating and cooling, water heating and illumination by means of proper
Resolution No. 9777 (2006 Series)
Page 18
design and orientation, including the provision and protection of solar exposure.
59. As set forth in the Margarita Area Specific Plan, there shall be a minimum setback of 157 feet
for new residential uses from the centerline of Prado Road.
60. For interior streets (not Prado Road), a 15-foot public street yard shall be allowed for
homes and a 20-foot street yard for garages with doors facing the public street.
61. Islands in "J" street should be moved farther back of the intersection and designed to
accommodate appropriately located pedestrian crossing to align with bulb -outs. Islands
shall be landscaped and in such a way so as to not obstruct left and right line of sight to
approaching cars from intersecting streets.
Code Requirements:
1. Traffic impact fees and water and wastewater impact fees shall be paid as a condition of
issuance of building permits.
2. The property is tributary to the Laguna Sewer Lift Station. Appropriate Lift Station Fees
shall be paid prior to the final map approval.
3 Appropriate backflow prevention will be necessary on any connection to the City water
system if the property includes an active well.
4 EPA R uirement: General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all
storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and
excavation results in land disturbance of five or more acres. Storm water discharges of less
than five acres, but which is part of a larger common plan of development or sale, also
require a permit. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by
a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity
occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to
the State Water Board.
5 The subdivision design shall comply with the City's grading ordinance.
6 Street trees shall be planted along the private street per City Standards (the number of trees
is determined by one tree per 35 linear feet of street frontage).
7 All boundary monuments, lot comers and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be
tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points shall be used and
a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All
coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter
computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with AutoCAD (Digital
Resolution No. 9777 (2006 Series)
Page 19
Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be
submitted to the City Engineer.
8 The final map, public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International
System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final
map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units,
metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the City Engineer.
9. Access shall be in accordance with Article 9 of the California Fire Code (CFC). Access roads
shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical
clearance of 13' 6". Access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed
loads of a 60,000 pound fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide
all-weather driving capabilities. All cul-de-sacs shall be minimum 40 foot radius.
10. Approved address numbers shall be placed on all new buildings in such a position to be
plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Numbers shall be a minimum
of 5" high x YV stroke and be on a contrasting background.
11. Water Supplies and fire hydrants shall be provided in accordance with applicable articles of
the CFC. An approved water supply capable of providing the required fire flow for fire
protection is required. The fire flow shall be determined using applicable Appendices of the
CFC.
12. Fire protection systems shall be installed in accordance with the CFC and the California
Building Code. An approved NFPA system will be required for this project.
13. Fire hydrants shall be spaced per SIA-FD Guidelines (placement with Fire Department
approval) and shall be capable of supplying the required fire -flows.
On motion of Vice Mayor Settle, seconded by Council Member Ewan, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Brown, Ewan and Mulholland Vice Mayor Settle and
Mayor Romero
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 7th day of March 2006.
Resolution No. 9777 (2006 Series)
Page 20
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
-ry CleT�r
1
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jon P. Lowell
City Attorney
1999!!9!!9!!3!!9!9!&9l99999!!!!!!!!9!!!3!9!9°.!lE9999999l49l9l9!!l9�9 �a �a !.3"-�{�.�=-•!
::a;:::aa:a:aa:a;:;::;a;l:aaa:aa:;a:aaasaaaaaaa:.:::a;;;a.a;aala:aaa
{EE{EEEEE{{{EiEEE{EEEEEE{EEEEE{E{{EEEEE�{EEEEEEEEE{E{EEEEEEEEEEE{t!!
944i44444449444444444444444494444444144�4444444444444444iiCi44i44 f [ 1 [ !�[ )�
•a{a,RFRRR[C FRC■:pN•ai■■■F.p•ppp[.[as[• off.:..aaie ■saga. a��5[1.. _.a i _ !
j9�;S6il9§9995999l9SS9S91939lS!!9l999!;!!!!!.SsS999l9l99SS9S9S �;{ �� � � � � 9---
Y
�'igl�je a .a.•pia•°p.:aa;a;:;ap."97-'aaia;a;a';;;;i';i77'"aiQ1 ���� �� � ��� �� � � �
!_ a;ai; :;�e e■ ra■ea aaai i• ■ a • ii a■
ri0 0 00
F ij I
��f{YYYfffYfffiYYfYY4l1449444449 44444! 444444444444444444444444444
]^-•-----R-................... aoar■.raa i■■ao.........
45
Attachment 2
1I � I
klk i
a
J'
3
Attachment 3
City of San Luis Obispo
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER # 120-13 (SCH 2O06011051)
1. Project title:
2.
3
4.
61
Vesting Tentative Tract Map #2353 (Revised)
Lead agency name and address:
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Contact Person and phone number:
Pam Ricci, Senior Planner
City of San Luis Obispo
(805) 781-7168
Project location:
Initial
Gary Kaiser, Senior Environmental Project Manager
Rincon Consultants, San Luis Obispo
The project site is a 30-acre property, located at 408 Prado Road in the City of San Luis Obispo. The project
is located in the Margarita Area Specif c Plan (MASP), and is identified as part of the "Western Enclave" of
residential development envisioned by the Plan. Figure I shows the project within the local contest.
Project sponsor's name and address:
Mangano Company LTD
1005 N. Demaree
Visalia, California 93281
6. General Plan designation:
The Margarita Area Speci is Plan (MASP) designates the site for:
• Business Park Office
• Low -Density Residential
• Medium -Density Residential
• Medium -High Density Residential
• Greenway
• Open Space — Riparian
7. Zoning:
The site contains multiple zoning districts to implement the MASP land use designations, as follows:
• O-SP (Office -Specific Plan Overlay)
• R-1-SP (Low -Density Residential -Specific Plan Overlay)
• R-2-SP (Medium Density Residential -Specific Plan Overlay)
• R-3-SP (Medium High Density Res. -Specific Plan Overlay)
• C/OS-SP (Conservation/Open Space -Specific Plan Overlay)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 'I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
i
City of San Luis Obispo Initial
Description of the Previously Approved Project:
VTM #2353 was previously approved in 2007. This approval was for a 133-lot subdivision, which was
designed and processed in coordination with the two adjacent developments, described below, in order to
better achieve the objectives and requirements of the MASP:
• VTM #2342 (Rescal/Mangano Homes) 67 lots on approximately 15 acres; located immediately south
of the existing El Camino Estates residential subdivision along Margarita Avenue and east of the
Rancho San Lutis Mobile Home Park, generally northeast of the current easterly terminus of the City
maintained portion of Prado Road, east of South Higuera Street.
• VTM #2428 (Moresco) 178 lots on approximately 99 acres; located immediately north of the existing
El Camino Estates residential subdivision along Margarita Avenue, and east of the existing Chumash
Village Mobile Home Park (accessed from South Higuera). This site is also generally situated along
the lower lying slopes of the South Hills between South Higuera Street and Broad Street.
Collectively these three tract maps are referred to as the "Western Enclave" (of the MASP.
Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) #2353, as currently approved, contains a total of 133 lots designated as
follows in accordance with the MASP:
• 109 lots designated for single family residential use; 83 at low density in the R-I-SP zone, 26 at
medium density in the R-2-SP zone;
• 12 lots designated for "mixed use" with integrated single family and business park -office uses on each
lot in the O-SP zone;
• 61ots for exclusive business park -office vise in the O-SP zone;
• 1 lot designated for medium -high density residential development in the R-2-SP zone to be developed
by the Housing Authority or other appropriate entity (satisfying the required Affordable Housing
Program for VTM #2342 & 2428);
• 3 lots for "greenway" park use in the R-1- and R-2-SP zones (within PG&E easement) for common
ownership by a Home Owners Association; and
• 2 lots for "open space -riparian " use in the C/OS-SP zone (drainage way) for common ownership by a
Home Owners Association
With an approved vesting tentative map, the applicant now has a "vested right" to develop in substantial
compliance with the ordinances, policies and standards in effect when the application was determined
complete on November 14, 2005, per Chapter 16.34 (Vesting Tentative Maps) of the City's Municipal Code
and Sections 66474.2 and 66498.1 of the California Government Code (Subdivision Map Act).
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
9. Proposed Amendments to VTM #2353:
The applicant proposes revisions to the Conditions of Approval relative to the construction of Prado Road.
The applicant also proposes revisions to the previously approved tentative tract map that would add one
(1) residential lot and convert an open space lot for drainage purposes to a residential lot, increasing the
number of single-family residential lots from 121 to 123, and overall number of lots front 133 to 134.
Prado Road Improvements
A key provision of the MASP is to extend Prado Road from its current easterly terminus, which is
approximately one -quarter mile east of its junction with South Higuera Street, east to Broad Street.
Further, the MASP seeks to establish this east -west connection of Prado Road between Broad Street and
South Higuera Street at the earliest possible stage of development. Because the three "Western Enclave"
tract maps represent the first phase of proposed development in the MASP area, they were required to
design and construct this full extension of Prado Road. The MASP does provide one option to finance this
full extension of Prado Road, and that is that the City may credit (or pro -rate) the design and construction
costs against all future Margarita Area impact fees until the amount of fees equals the amount of
construction costs. If the costs of the roadway exceed fee amounts, another financing mechanism, such as a
facilities financing district, could be used to complete the project.
The MASP includes three residential tracts in the westerly portion of the MASP area that all lie on the
north side of the planned extension of Prado Road to Higuera Street. When the MASP was adopted in
2004, it was assumed that all three of these westerly tracts (known collectively as the "Western Enclave')
would move forward concurrently, sharing the burden of completing Prado Road improvements. Except
for project -specific conditions, all conditions of approval related to requirements and triggers for
extension of Prado Road were identical.for the 3 residential tracts: TR 2342 (56 units), TR 2353 (145
units), and TR2428 (197 units).
The initial studies for each project, discusses the importance of Prado Road as follows:
"The primary self-mitigating\traffic feature of the MASP is the Plan's requirement that Prado Road be
extended easterly, from its current terminus just east of South Higuera Street, all the way to Broad Street,
thus providing a major new divided 4-lane east -west cross town arterial connector in the southerly area of
San Luis Obispo. Conditions of approval are recommended that would require improvements to Prado Road
as stipulated by the MASP and MASP/AASP EIR. The project will be conditioned to provide build -out of
Prado Road commensurate with the development of the subject site together with the other two
developments within the Western Enclave, as required by the MASP and as recommended by the City
Public Works Dept."
In the MASP, the Prado Road Extension (PRE) along the frontage of the Western Enclave (WE) tracts is
referred to as the "PRE -WE" segment, and the remaining portion east to Broad Street is called "PRE-
MB" (from "M" Street to "Broad Street). Triggers for constructing the road were based on residential
unit occupancy as follows:
• Prior to occupancy of the 50th unit: Extend Prado Road to "M" Street (PRE -WE) from the
westerly terminus at TR 2342;
• Prior to occupancy of 100th unit: Submit complete Plans, Specifications and Estimates for "M"
to Broad Street;
• Prior to occupancy of 200th unit: Initiate construction of eastern segment from "M" Street to
Broad Street (PRE-MB)
• Prior to occupancy of 300th unit: Complete construction of Prado Road connection to Broad
Street.
* CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
The City had anticipated that Prado Road right-of-way (ROW) dedications would be made as soon as the
MASP was approved, but the Western Enclave alliance of owners disintegrated under the stresses of the
2008 economic collapse. The subsequent adverse housing market conditions delayed permitting efforts
and resulted in changes of ownership on all of the Western Enclave properties. At this time, the
easternmost property (Damon -Garcia) over which the Prado Road connection to Broad Street lies (the
PRE-MB segment) is not moving forward with subdivision and may not for some time. The City currently
does not have right-of-way dedication across the Damon -Garcia property for the PRE-MB segment.
Acquisition of the needed right-of-way would require successful negotiations with the property owners or
the use of eminent domain or other public acquisition process.
In 2011, the Planning Commission determined that the affordable housing units in VTM #2353 will not be
counted towards the 200-unit construction trigger for Prado from "M" to Broad Street. In July 2012, the
2004 MASP was amended to reduce the park impact fees required per unit.
In February 2013, the City approved revised conditions of approval for VTM #2342 allowing phased
improvements with a modified road section along with other adjustments to Tract conditions. The applicant
identified a funding methodology and proposed construction responsibility for completing Prado Road in a
manner that was more consistent with typical subdivision development and could be completed within
financial constraints. Revised conditions allowed the PRE -WE portion of Prado Road to be constructed in
segments along each tract's frontage as they develop, beginning with VTM #2342. Revised Prado Road
improvements for VTM #2342 include fill frontage improvements on the north side abutting the tract.
These improvements, which are currently being constructed, accommodate a minimum of two lanes of
Prado Road, bike lanes, sidewalk on the north side, a median, and a roundabout. The frontage
improvements on the south side of Prado Road would then be completed at a later time with the
development of the adjacent approved 20—acre Business Park site.
As anticipated, the applicant for VTM #2353 is requesting revisions to the conditions of approval
consistent with those that were approved.for the adjacent VTM #2342. The applicant proposes to construct
the portion of Prado Road fronting VTM #2353 similar to the portion that was approved and that is
currently being built for VTM #2342 except these improvements will be done in two phases. Phase I would
occur during construction of the first 82 lots of VTM #2353, and Phase 2 would occur during construction
of the remaining 52 lots of VTM #2353, as shown on the revised tentative tract map.
Finally, the applicant proposes to modify the lot configurations for Lots 43-49 in order to add area to the
riparian corridor, more closely align the corridor to the swale's flow centerline, and orient the lots in a
way that complements the remainder of the neighborhood. In addition, the applicant proposes to
reconfigure Lots 38, 39 and 40 and convert Lot 39 from an open space lot (for drainage purposes) to a
residential lot. This allows the applicant to capture runoff into a storm drain rather than convey the runoff
onto downstream residential lots. These two lot reconfigurations would add one lot to the previously
approved 133-lot tract, making it a I34-lot tract, and convert one of the open space lots to a residential lot,
increasing the number of single-family residential lots from 121 to 123.
10. Surrounding land uses and setting:
The project site, 408 Prado Road, is located in the southern part of San Luis Obispo, within the MASP
area. The site is situated on the north side of Prado Road, east of what is currently the easterly terminus of
Prado Road. The intervening property is the approved VTM #2342, which is currently under construction
per the MASP. To the north of the subject property is the approved VTM #2428; to the east are lands
owned by the Damon and Garcia families; and to the south are lands owned by L.J. and A.P. Martinelli.
The property owned by A.P. Martinelli has some long-standing commercial development, while the other
properties to the east and south are primarily undeveloped or used agriculturally, but they are also within
the MASP area and will eventually be developed pursuant to the MASP.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
City of San Luis
Initial
The site is comprised of the lower lying slopes of the South Hills in an area characterized as perennial
grassland with patches of Valley Needlegrass grassland. Historically, a portion of the site was in
agricultural production and another portion was a home site but the site is currently vacant. The site
conveys runoff through a natural swale across the north easterly corner of the site (extending out of the
proposed VTM #2428. This swale is well -enough defined as to be designated by the MASP as "Open
Space -Riparian " and as such, is proposed for preservation in its natural state within the subdivision. This
drainage also contains habitat suitable for special concern species, and is to be preserved in "open space"
not only as a component of the Western Enclave biological mitigation program, but also to fiinction as a
component of the sub -regional drainage plan devised for the Western Enclave developments, in
accordance with objectives of the MASP.
11. Project Entitlements Requested:
Approval of a Revised Vesting Tentative Map VTM #2353
Approval of Revised Conditions of Approval for VTM #2353
12. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
Air Pollution Control District (Permit to Construct, Permit to Operate)
Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES permit -including Phase II & SWPPP)
California Department of Fish and Game
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Board of Real Estate
13. Earlier Analyses:
On October 12, 2004, the San Luis Obispo City Council adopted the Airport Area and Margarita Area
Specific Plans and Related Facilities Master Plan. Prior to taking such action, Council certified a Final
Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Plans. For the purposes of the current
analysis, this document is referred to as the MASP EIR. In addition, a Tiered Mitigated Negative
Declaration (Tiered MND) was prepared and adopted when VTM # 2353 was previously approved in
2007. These documents, incorporated herein by reference, are available for public review at the City of
San Luis Obispo Community Development Department located at 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA
93401.
The following excerpt from the MASP EIR is helpful in understanding its relationship to subsequent
documents:
"The State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15168) encourage agencies to use a program EIR
in certain circumstances involving the implementation of a series of related projects. Use
ofsuch a document allows the lead agency (in this case, the City of San Luis Obispo) to
characterize the overall plan or program as the project being approved at the time and to
consider broad policy alternatives and program -wide mitigation measures early in the
plan development and facilities planning effort. This approach also avoids duplicative
consideration of policies when future portions of the project are evaluated.
This EIR contains analysis, at a program level, of the basic issues that will be used in
conjunction with subsequent tiered environmental documents for specific projects related
to the proposed Airport Area Specific Plan, the Margarita Area Specific Plan, and
related facilities master plans. Once these plans are adopted by the City of San Luis
Obispo (City), the basic policy issues will not need to be revisited by subsequent (second -
tier) documents. However, in many cases, actual development of these plans will involve
subsequent CEQA review. "
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
Section 15152 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides for tiering, as follows:
"Tiering refers to using the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (such
as one prepared for a general plan or policy statement) with later EIRs and negative
declarations on narrower projects; incorporating by reference the general discussions
from the broader EIR; and concentrating the later EIR or negative declaration solely on
the issues specific to the later project. "
Further, Subsection 15152(d) states:
"Where an EIR has been prepared and certified for a program, plan, policy, or
ordinance consistent with the requirements of this section, any lead agency for a later
project pursuant to or consistent with the program, plan, policy, or ordinance should
limit the EIR or negative declaration on the later project to effects which:
Were not examined as significant effects on the environment in the prior EIR; or
Are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions
in the project, by the imposition of conditions, or other means. "
Accordingly, this document.focuuses on proposed changes to the project and anv new information that has
become available that may alter environmental impact conclusions that were previously reached.
This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration takes into account and accepts the environmental
conclusions of the prior CEQA documents, where circumstances remain the same. As such, mitigation
measures adopted as part of the MASP EIR and Subsequent Tiered MND that are applicable to the
proposed project are carried forward and applied to the proposed project to effectively mitigate the
impacts that were previously identified. Some of these mitigation measures are applied verbatim from
prior CEQA documents, while others have been refined to more specifically apply to the proposed project
either as mitigation measures or as Conditions of Approval required for consistency with the MASP. Note
that many of the mitigation measures identified in the MASP EIR have been incorporated by the applicant
into the project design, making the project "self -mitigating" in these instances. Finally, new impacts and
mitigation measure were identified in recent traffic and air quality studies prepared in support of this
Initial Sturdy/Mitigated Negative Declaration. With all of these prior, recent and new mitigation measures,
the proposed revisions to VTM #2353 would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, as
demonstrated throughout this IS-MND.
Where circumstances do not remain the same, because project changes are proposed or because new
information is available, this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration updates the record and
supersedes earlier conclusions.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO B INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
Figure 1 — Vicinity Map
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
i
111 City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
Figure 2 - Revised Tentative Tract Map
4
N;
E c
i
N
U
CUrn
Lf)
rn
rlj
l.1
dg
Y�
:,
y
•.
F.
t E
4y
E
-
9
=I
i
1
:
9j
a
•4.
..
t.
«
_
FF
.._ I�
e
a
i
x
_
s i ,
I
I
I
cy
i
i
+
{
I�I
:
n
-
y
4
E
4
I Y
;a
q
E
h1�Mw0
-
A.(b€
a
s
r
--_�
..x
r. -
s •
--
:
i
...�..d�r.«,.e.,.<>=:.•�p.�r° .�< L
.....
z.
••.ti.
a
0 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact
that is "Potentially Significant" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
®
Aesthetics
®
Biological Resources
❑
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
❑
Land Use/Planning
❑
Population/Housing
® Transportation/Traffic
❑
Agriculture and Forest
Resources
®
Cultural Resources
®
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
❑
Mineral Resources
❑
Public Services
❑ Utilities/Service Systems
® Air Quality
❑
Geology/Soils
❑
Hydrology/Water Quality
❑
Noise
❑
Recreation
❑ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on
fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project
qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of
X
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
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
X 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
15073(a)).
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made 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.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless
mitigated" impact 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 potential
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) 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.
3 / -1 l 1 �t
Signature Date
Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
A
ENCO City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
L AESTHETICS— Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
❑
❑
®
❑
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
❑
❑
N
❑
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
❑
❑
N
❑
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
❑
®
❑
❑
Settine
The MASP EIR and Subsequent Tiered MND describe the physical and regulatory setting of the MASP area and
surrounding areas. Since adoption of the MASP, the project site remains undeveloped; however, the adjoining
property to the west (Tract 2342) is currently under construction. Also since adoption of the MASP, the property to
the north of the subject property (Tract 2428) has been approved for a total of.165 lots, some for single family
residential development and some for condominium development. The currently proposed project (Tract 2353)
contains similar uses and densities.
Discussion
(a-d) Build -out of the MASP area will have a significant and unavoidable impact on visual resources, and the
currently proposed project will contribute to the impact. The City's General Plan Land Use Element, Conservation
and Open Space Element, Circulation Element, Community Design Guidelines, and Zoning Ordinance contain
policies and development standards that will apply to the proposed project, all of which effectively serve to protect
public views.
To be approved, the Tract 2353 must be found consistent with the uses and densities that are prescribed by the
MASP and it must comply with applicable policies and standards relative to visual resources. Such findings of
consistency were made when Tract 2353 was previously approved in 2007. The focus of review for the current
request (Revised Tract 2353) is the new information that was not previously known, in particular: the reconfiguration
of lots; the addition of two (2) more residential lots; and the revised phasing plan for improvements to Prado Road.
The lot reconfigurations and two (2) additional residential lots are interior changes within the project and do not
have the potential to substantially alter public views of the project, or change any of the conclusions that were
previously reached. The proposed Prado Road improvements would reduce visual impacts compared to the
previously required road improvements because the revised roadway would result in less disturbance, at least in the
short-term. Regardless, the MASP EIR concluded that individual tracts within the MASP have the potential for
significant adverse impacts related to light and glare. Thus, MASP EIR Mitigation Measure LU-7.1 requires that
individual tracts include project -specific lighting plans. Potential impacts are less than significant with mitigation,
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO i 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
and the project's contribution to the aesthetic impact of the MASP would not be significant, with implementation of
the same mitigation measure that was imposed when the VTM was originally approved:
Mitigation Measure
VIS-01 Reduction of Light and Glare. In order for MASP/AASP FIR Mitigation Measure LU-7.1 as
implemented by the MASP to be carried through to lot -specific development stage, applicants, at the time of
building permit application, shall submit for review by the City Community Development Department, a
lighting plan that demonstrates compliance with Community Design Section 3.3 Lighting requirements of
the MASP shall be submitted with other required plans for both the residential and commercial components
of the project to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The lighting
plan shall propose specific measures to limit the amount of light trespass associated with development
within the project area including shielding and/or directional lighting methods to ensure that spillover light
does not exceed 0.5 foot-candles at adjacent property lines.
Monitoring Program: The ARC will review development plans for both the residential and commercial
components of the project. City staff, including Planning and other departments, will review plans to assure
that all of the ARC's requirements related to lighting and compliant with the MASP provisions have been
incorporated into working drawings. City building inspectors will be responsible for assuring that all
lighting is installed pursuant to the approved lighting plan.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
I1. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST
RESOURCES -- In determining whether
impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to
the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture
and farmland. In determining whether impacts
to forest resources, including timberland, are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to information compiled by the
California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection regarding the state's inventory of
forest land, including the Forest and Range
Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment Project; and forest carbon
measurement methodology provided in Forest
Protocols adopted by the California Air
Resources Board. -- Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? ❑
❑ ❑
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, ❑
❑ ❑
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12
INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
i
City of San Luis Obispo Initial
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less than
_Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code Section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
Section 51104(g))?
❑
❑
❑
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non -forest use?
❑
❑
❑
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
❑
❑
®
❑
Settine
The MASP EIR and Subsequent Tiered MND describe the physical and regulatory setting of the MASP area and
surrounding areas. Since adoption of the MASP, the project site remains undeveloped; however, the adjoining
property to the west (Tract 2342) is currently under construction. Also since adoption of the MASP, the property to
the north of the subject property (Tract 2428) has been approved for development.
A large portion of the greater San Luis Obispo area is designated for agriculture. Almost the entire area surrounding
the City limits is designated by the County for agricultural use. The continued viability of agricultural activities is
essential to the economic base of San Luis Obispo and to the county as a whole.
Thresholds of SiEnificance
Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact may occur if the project would:
• Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland) to nonagricultural use;
• Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; and/or
• Involve other changes in the existing environment which, dace to their location or
nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to nonagricultural use.
Discussion
(a-e) According to the MASP FIR and the most recent (2010) Important Farmland Maps, the Margarita Area
(including the Western Enclave area) does not contain any lands in the stated categories as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. In addition, there
is no agricultural zoning or Williamson Act Contract in effect on the subject site, and the site does not contain forest
lands. However, the MASP area was historically farmed (and grazed) and its conversion to urban uses would
preclude future agricultural use. The impacts of conversion of these lands to non-agricultural uses have already been
evaluated both in the environmental documents for the City's Land Use and Circulation Elements and the MASP
FIR as significant, irreversible, adverse impacts that could not be mitigated and the necessary Statement of
Mil CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
A
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
Overriding Considerations was adopted (Resolution No. 9615 (2004 Series) pursuant to CEQA. Nevertheless, the
MASP includes provisions that ensure the preservation of significant open space areas, much of which would remain
in a natural state. To this extent, developments that comply with the MASP are "self -mitigating.'"
The proposed revisions to Tract 2353 occur within the "footprint' that was previously considered for development
and would not alter the project's impact on agricultural resources nor have the potential to change any of the
conclusions previously reached. No impacts or mitigation measures were deemed necessary when the Tract 2353 was
originally approved in 2007 and there have been no changes in circumstances. Potential impacts are less than
significant.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
III.
AIR QUALITY -- Would the project:
a)
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
❑
❑
®
❑
b)
Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
❑
®
❑
❑
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)?
❑
❑
®
❑
d)
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
❑
❑
®
❑
e)
Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
❑
❑
®
❑
Settin
The City of San Luis Obispo falls within the jurisdiction of the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District
(SLOAPCD). San Luis Obispo is located within the South Central Coast Air Basin. SLOAPCD monitors air
pollutant levels in the South Central Coast Air Basin to ensure that air quality standards are met, and if they are not
met, to develop strategies to meet the standards. SLOAPCD has developed quantitative emissions thresholds that
apply to projects within the South Central Coast Air Basin.
SLOAPCD has established the following significance thresholds for construction activities in the South Central
Coast Air Basin:
ROG and NOX Emissions
• Daily: For construction projects expected to be completed in less than one quarter (90 days), exceedance
of the 137 Ibs/day threshold requires Standard Mitigation Measures;
fir CITY OF SAN LUIS Owspo 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
i
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
• Quarterly — Tier 1: For construction projects lasting more than one quarter, exceedance of the 2.5 ton/gtr
threshold requires Standard Mitigation Measures and Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for
construction equipment. If implementation of the Standard Mitigation and BACT measures cannot bring
the project below the threshold, off -site mitigation may be necessary; and,
• Quarterly — Tier 2: For construction projects lasting more than one quarter, exceedance of the 6.3 ton/gtr
threshold requires Standard Mitigation Measures, BACT, implementation of a Construction Activity
Management Plan (CAMP), and off -site mitigation.
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Emissions
• Daily: For construction projects expected to be completed in less than one quarter, exceedance of the 7
lb/day threshold requires Standard Mitigation Measures;
• Quarterly - Tier 1: For construction projects lasting more than one quarter, exceedance of the 0.13
tons/quarter threshold requires Standard Mitigation Measures, BACT for construction equipment; and,
• Quarterly - Tier 2: For construction projects lasting more than one quarter, exceedance of the 0.32 ton/gtr
threshold requires Standard Mitigation Measures, BACT, implementation of a CAMP, and off -site
mitigation.
Fugitive Particulate Matter (PM10), Dust Emissions
• Quarterly: Exceedance of the 2.5 ton/qtr threshold requires Fugitive PM10 Mitigation Measures and may
require the implementation of a CAMP.
SLOAPCD has also established the following significance thresholds for project operations in the South Central
Coast Air Basin:
• 55 pounds per day of ROG
• 55 pounds per day of NOX
• 550 pounds per day of CO
• 150 pounds per day of SOX
• 150 pounds per day of PM10
• 55 pounds per day of PM2.5
Discussion
(a) According to the SLOAPCD CEQA Handbook (2012), a consistency analysis with the Clean Air Plan is
required for a Program Level environmental review, and may be necessary for a Project Level environmental
review, depending on the project being considered. Project -Level environmental reviews which may require
consistency analysis with the Clean Air Plan and Smart/Strategic Growth Principles adopted by lead agencies
include: subdivisions, large residential developments and large commercial/industrial developments. The
consistency analysis should evaluate whether the proposed project is consistent with the land use and transportation
control measures and strategies outlined in the Clean Air Plan. If the project is consistent with these measures, the
project would be considered consistent with the Clean Air Plan.
The proposed project is located adjacent to existing development with access to existing transit and is planned
development under the MASP. The MASP includes provisions for pedestrian trails, bike lanes and several bus
stops, including a potential bus stop location within the boundaries of Tract 2353. Furthermore, and as noted in the
responses to items b) and c) below, the proposed project would not result in operational emissions that would
exceed SLOAPCD's significance thresholds for criteria air pollutants. For these reasons, the proposed project
would not conflict with or obstruct continued implementation of the CAP. This impact would be less than
significant.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
City of San Luis Obispo Initial
(b, c) Construction Impacts. Construction activities would generate fugitive dust particles, ozone precursors, and
diesel exhaust that could result in an increase in criteria pollutants and could also contribute to the existing SLO
County nonattainment status for ozone and PM10. Sensitive receptors near the project site include adjacent single
family residences to the west. Table 1 summarizes the estimated project emissions generated from construction
activities.
Table 1
Tract 2353 Construction Emissions
Criteria
Pollutant of Concern
Emissions'
Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?
ROG and NOx
1.30
2.5 tons/quarter (Tier 1)
No
(combined)
tons/quarter
Fugitive PM10
0.09
2.5 tons/quarter (Tier 1)
No
(dust)
tons/quarter
DPM
0.10
0.13 tons/quarter
No
tons/quarter
(Tier 1)
1. Quarterly emissions were calculated by dividing maximum annual construction emissions by 9, since construction activities would extend for
a duration of exceeding 90 days, as recommended by SLOAPCD.
2. The DPM estimations were derived from the " PMtrr Exhaust " output from CalEEMod as recommended by SLOAPCD. This estimation
represents a worst case scenario because it includes other PMtrr exhaust other than DPM.
See Attachment 5.for CalEEMod software program output.
The proposed project is expected to generate 1.30 tons/quarter of ozone procurers, 0.09 tons/quarter of fugitive
PM10, and 0.10 tons/quarter of DPM as a result of construction emissions. As shown in Table 1, the proposed
project would not exceed SLOAPCD quarterly construction emissions for ROG, NOX, PM10, or DPM.
While the estimated construction emissions are below the SLOAPCD thresholds, in accordance with the standards
of the SLOPACD CEQA Handbook, standard mitigation measures are required because sensitive receptors
(existing residential units) are located within 1,000 feet of the project site and because the air basin is in non -
attainment for PM10. Accordingly, Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 below would be required to reduce
fugitive dust, ozone precursors, and diesel particulate matter emissions.
According to the SLOAPCD Naturally Occurring Asbestos Map for San Luis Obispo County, the project site is
located in an area that is known to contain naturally occurring asbestos. Naturally occurring asbestos has been
identified by the State Air Resources Board as a toxic air contaminant. Serpentine and ultramafic rocks are very
common in the City of San Luis Obispo and may contain naturally occurring asbestos. The proposed project would
result in substantial excavation and grading and therefore may encounter naturally occurring asbestos. Under the
State Air Resources Board Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface
Mining Operations, prior to any construction or grading activities at the site, the applicant must comply with all
applicable requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM.
These requirements may include but are not limited to 1) an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan which must be approved
by the City before construction begins, and 2) an Asbestos Health and Safety Program will also be required for
some projects, subject to the approval of SLOAPCD. SLOAPCD monitors State air quality requirements and would
be sent project plans submitted for building permits to insure compliance with all standards and requirements.
SLOAPCD also responds in the field during construction on a complaint basis. The ACTM has different
requirements for projects depending on the area of disturbance. For a project that would disturb more than one acre
of land, the ACTM requires an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan. Therefore, Mitigation Measure AQ-3 below would
be required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Operational Impacts. As shown in Table 2, area source and operational emissions of the proposed project would
not exceed SLOAPCD thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5. Therefore, the proposed project
would not violate air quality standards or contribute to an existing air quality violation.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
i
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
Table 2
Tract 2428 Operational Emissions
Emission Source
ROG
Area Source and Operational (lbs/day)
14.6
Threshold Totallbs/day
55
Threshold Exceeded?
No
See Appendix 5.fbr CaIEEMod software program output.
Because the proposed project would not violate air quality standards or contribute to an existing air quality
violation, impacts would be less than significant.
(d) While the estimated construction emissions are below the SLOAPCD thresholds, in accordance with the
standards of the SLOAPCD CEQA Handbook (December 2009), standard mitigation measures are required
because sensitive receptors are located within 1,000 feet of the project site, as discussed above. Accordingly,
Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would be required to reduce fugitive dust, ozone precursors, and diesel
particulate matter emissions.
(e) The proposed project is a residential development and would not generate objectionable odors. Surrounding
land uses would not be expected to generate odors that would affect project residents. Therefore, no impacts would
result.
Mitigation Measures
AQ-1 Fugitive Dust Control Measures. The proposed project shall implement the following dust
control measures so as to reduce PM10 emissions in accordance with SLOAPCD requirements.
a) Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible;
b) Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from
leaving the site. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed
15 mph. Reclaimed (non -potable) water should be used whenever possible;
c) All dirt stock pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed;
d) Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project re -vegetation and landscape
plans should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing
activities;
e) Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial
grading should be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive grass seed and watered until
vegetation is established;
f) All disturbed soil areas not subject to re -vegetation should be stabilized using approved chemical
soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD;
g) All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible
after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used;
h) Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the
construction site;
i) All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at
least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in
accordance with CVC Section 23114;
j) Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks
and equipment leaving the site;
k) Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads.
Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible;
1) All of these fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans; and
/I CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
r�
City of San Luis
Initial
m) 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 APCD
Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition.
AQ-2 Construction Equipment. The proposed project shall implement the following emissions control
measures so as to reduce diesel particulate matter in accordance with SLOAPCD requirements.
• 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;
• 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;
• Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted;
• Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors;
• 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-3 Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan. The applicant shall prepare an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan in
accordance with the requirements set for by ACTM to ensure that asbestos does not create a significant
health risk to construction workers and sensitive receptors. The Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan shall be
implemented at the beginning and maintained throughout the duration of the construction or grading
activity. The Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan must specify dust mitigation practices which are sufficient to
ensure that no equipment or operation emits dust that is visible crossing the property line, and must include
one or more provisions addressing each of the following topics.
A. Track -out prevention and control measures which shall include:
1. Removal of any visible track -out from a paved public road at any location where
vehicles exit the work site; this shall be accomplished using wet sweeping or a
HEPA filter equipped vacuum device at the end of the work day or at least one
time per day; and
2. Installation of one or more of the following track -out prevention measures:
i. A gravel pad designed using good engineering practices to clean the tires of
exiting vehicles;
ii. A tire shaker;
iii. A wheel wash system;
iv. Pavement extending for not less than fifty (50) consecutive feet from the
intersection with the paved public road; or
v. Any other measure as effective as the measures listed above.
B. Keeping active storage piles adequately wetted or covered with tarps.
C. Control for disturbed surface areas and storage piles that will remain inactive for more
than seven (7) days, which shall include one or more of the following:
1. Keep the surface adequately wetted;
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
2. Establishment and maintenance of surface crusting sufficient to satisfy the test in
subsection (h)(6);
3. Application of chemical dust suppressants or chemical stabilizers according to
the manufacturers' recommendations;
4. Covering with tarp(s) or vegetative cover;
5. Installation of wind barriers of fifty (50) percent porosity around three (3) sides
of a storage pile;
6. Installation of wind barriers across open areas; or
7. Any other measure as effective as the measures listed above.
D. Control for traffic on on -site unpaved roads, parking lots, and staging areas which shall
include
1. A maximum vehicle speed limit of fifteen (15) miles per hour or less; and
2. One or more of the following:
i. Watering every two hours of active operations or sufficiently often to keep
the area adequately wetted;
ii. Applying chemical dust suppressants consistent with manufacturer's
directions;
iii. Maintaining a gravel cover with a silt content that is less than five (5)
percent and asbestos content that is less than 0.25 percent, as determined
using an approved asbestos bulk test method, to a depth of three (3) inches
on the surface being used for travel; or
iv. Any other measure as effective as the measures listed above.
E. Control for earthmoving activities which shall include one or more of the following:
1. Pre -wetting the ground to the depth of anticipated cuts;
2. Suspending grading operations when wind speeds are high enough to result in
dust emissions crossing the property line, despite the application of dust
mitigation measures;
3. Application of water prior to any land clearing; or
4. Any other measure as effective as the measures listed above.
F. Control for Off -Site Transport. The owner / operator shall ensure that no trucks
are allowed to transport excavated material off -site unless:
1. Trucks are maintained such that no spillage can occur from holes or other
openings in cargo compartments; and
2. Loads are adequately wetted and either:
i. Covered with tarps; or
ii. Loaded such that the material does not touch the front, back, or sides of
the cargo compartment at any point less than six inches from the top
and that no point of the load extends above the top of the cargo
compartment.
G. Post Construction Stabilization of Disturbed Areas. Upon completion of the project,
disturbed surfaces shall be stabilized using one or more of the following methods:
1. Establishment of a vegetative cover;
2. Placement of at least three (3.0) inches of non -asbestos -containing material;
3. Any other measure deemed sufficient to prevent wind speeds of ten (10) miles
per hour or greater from causing visible dust emissions.
H. Air Monitoring for Asbestos (If Required by the SLOAPCD).
1. If required by SLOAPCD, the plan must include an air -monitoring component.
2. The air monitoring component shall specify the following:
i. Type of air sampling device(s)
ii. Siting of air sampling device(s);
iii. Sampling duration and frequency; and
iv. Analytical method.
I. Frequency of Reporting: The plan shall state how often the items specified in subsection
(e)(5)(B), and any other items identified in the plan, will be reported to the district.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
I"
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact Impact
IV.
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 Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
❑
❑
® ❑
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 Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
❑
❑
® ❑
c)
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by 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?
❑
❑
® ❑
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?
❑
❑
® ❑
e)
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
❑
❑
❑
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?
❑
❑
❑
Setting
The MASP EIR and Subsequent Tiered MND describe the physical and regulatory setting of the MASP area and
surrounding areas. Since adoption of the MASP, the project site remains undeveloped; however, the adjoining
property to the west (Tract 2342) is now under construction and the property to the north of the subject property
(Tract 2428) has been approved for development.
There have been no substantial changes in species composition in the area since the earlier surveys were conducted,
as evidenced by review of sensitive habitat and species records for the project site and vicinity with the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife Natural Diversity Database (accessed on January 9, 2014).
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
Discussion
(a-f) The proposed revisions to Tract 2353 occur within the "footprint' that was previously considered for
development and would not alter the project's impact on biological resources nor have the potential to change any of
the conclusions previously reached. To recap, the MASP EIR conducted extensive biological resource impact
analyses, including site -specific surveys for the Western Enclave properties during the winter, spring, and summer of
2005. As a result of these surveys, performance standards to avoid, minimize, or compensate for the impacts are set
forth in Mitigation Measure 1310-6.1.
Mitigation Measures
BI0-6.1 (from MASP EIR). Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Wetland Habitat. To avoid and minimize
impacts to freshwater marsh and other wetland habitats, the project proponent will do all of the following:
• obtain a qualified wetland ecologist to conduct a delineation of waters of the United
States, including wetlands, at the project site;
• obtain verification of the delineation from the Corps;
• avoid identified waters of the United States and wetlands during project design to the
extent possible and establish a buffer zone around jurisdictional features to be preserved;
• obtain a permit from the Corps for any unavoidable "fill" of wetlands or other waters of
the United States; and
• develop and implement a mitigation and monitoring plan in coordination with the
agencies to compensate for losses and to ensure no net loss of wetland habitat functions
and values.
In compliance with this mitigation, an approved "Comprehensive Mitigation Program" is now in place for the
Western Enclave properties. The Plan involves the construction of drainage basins in the southwest portion of Tract
2342, and on a 20-acre site located on the south side of Prado Road (Prado Basin). The basins, owned and
maintained by a Homeowners Association (HOA), will be vegetated with suitable grasses and other native plant
materials, including wetlands. As impacts to biological resources occur within the Western Enclave Tracts, the
basins are planted and expanded accordingly. The area that is available for mitigation in these two locations exceeds
the mitigation requirement, because it assumed that the entire wetland area on Tract 2353 (530 linear feet, or 0.03
acres) would be impacted when in fact the majority of the wetlands on Tract 2353 will be retained. The current
proposal would impact a 104-foot long segment, yet mitigation is occurring based on removal of 530 feet.
According to a recent biological survey of the swale by Althouse and Meade (attached), the proposed conversion of
a drainage segment on Lot 39 yard would impact approximately 260 square feet of "potential non -wetland waters of
the U.S. and waters of the state." This minor increase in impacts to non -wetland waters (0.006 acres) is substantially
less than that which is already being mitigated for in the comprehensive mitigation plan (0.03 acres). No further
mitigation is required. The impact of the proposed project revisions is less than significant because required
mitigation measures are already required and being implemented.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 21 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
V.
CULTURAL RESOURCES --
Would the project:
a)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined
in § 15064.5?
❑
®
❑
❑
b)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource as
defined in § 15064.5?
❑
®
❑
❑
c)
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
❑
❑
❑
d)
Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
❑
❑
❑
Settine
The MASP EIR and Subsequent Tiered MND describe the physical and regulatory setting of the MASP area and
surrounding areas. The cultural resource analysis was based on (1) a Phase I (surface) survey for archaeological
resources conducted by Heritage Discoveries, Inc. of San Luis Obispo, CA for the entire Western Enclave area
(report dated May 31, 2005) and (2) a Historical Evaluation of the small farm house at the subject site, the only
structures within the Western Enclave area, performed by Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants (report dated
April 2005).
Discussion
(a-b) The proposed revisions to Tract 2353 occur within the "footprint" that was previously considered for
development and would not alter the project's impact on cultural resources nor have the potential to change any of
the conclusions previously reached. The 2005 Historical Evaluation concluded that the research conducted on the
property revealed no evidence of historical significance, and therefore there would be no significant impact resulting
from the removal of the house (which has since been removed). The cultural resources report, however,
recommended further testing to determine the extent and significance of a site located on Tract 2353. A recent
records search revealed that no additional sites have been recorded on the site or in the project area since the earlier
report was prepared.
The archaeological report, however, found and completed a site record for, a small archaeological site of unspecified
significance within the subject project site area. The report recommends that a Phase II subsurface test be performed
to complete the required mitigation, but the City previously determined that such survey will not affect the project
and therefore does not impact the subject project going forward. If the Phase II survey determines significance
criteria for a unique resource (as defined in CEQA) or evidence of a qualifying historical site per NRHP have been
met and avoidance of the resource is not possible, then the impact to the resource shall be mitigated in consultation
with the lead agency and any or all of the following measures may be needed:
Mitigation Measure
CR-1. Phase II Testing (from prior MND ER 66-05). In order to achieve complete mitigation for
the archaeological resource found on the subject site, this survey is required if the site cannot be
avoided. The Phase II survey is to determine if significance criteria of CEQA and/or NRHP are met.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 22 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
.A
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
The survey must be completed and results submitted to City for determination whether mitigation
measures below, as specified in EIR, are needed.
1.) A data recovery program consisting of archaeological excavation to retrieve the important data
from the archaeological site;
2.) Development and implementation of public interpretation plans for both prehistoric and
historic sites;
3.) Preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction of historic structures according to
the Secretary of Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties;
4.) Construction of new structures in a manner consistent with the historic character of the region;
and
5.) Treatment of historic landscapes according to the Secretary of Interior Standards for Treatment
of Historic Landscapes.
With this carry-over mitigation measure from the previously Mitigated Negative Declaration that was adopted when
the project was originally approved, the impact is less than significant with mitigation.
c-d) The project site is located in an area that does not contain any unique geological feature and possesses no known
unique paleontological resources. The project area has been part of two general cultural resource field surveys. As a
result of these field surveys, there are no known historical or archaeological resources that are associated with the
project site. Therefore there is no impact.
d) There is no evidence available that suggests human remains are known to exist within the project boundaries.
Therefore, there is no impact.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
VI. 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:
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? ❑
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
Less than
Significant No
Impact Impact
❑
®
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
®
❑
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 23 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
VI.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS —
Would the project:
c)
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off -site landslide,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse?
❑
❑
®
❑
d)
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code,
creating substantial risks to life or property?
❑
❑
®
❑
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 wastewater?
❑
❑
❑
Settinz
The MASP EIR and Subsequent Tiered MND describe the physical and regulatory setting of the MASP area and
surrounding areas. Since adoption of the MASP, the project site remains undeveloped; however, the adjoining
property to the west (Tract 2342) is now under construction and the property to the north of the subject property
(Tract 2428) has been approved for development. There have, however, been no changes to the geology and soils of
the area.
Discussion
(a—d) The proposed revisions to Tract 2353 occur within the "footprint" that was previously considered for
development and would not alter the project's impact on geologic resources nor have the potential to change any of
the conclusions previously reached. To recap, the initial study prepared prior to the MASP EIR determined that the
MASP did not have the potential for significance effects and therefore the MASP EIR conducted no further
evaluations. There is no new evidence to suggest there would be any site specific impacts that were not adequately
anticipated or evaluated in the prior environmental documents, nor is there evidence that the revisions that are
currently being proposed would have potentially significant impacts. The final grading plan prepared for the
subdivision will be reviewed for consistency with City code and it will have to be in accordance with the
Geotechnical Engineer's recommendations and the California Building Code. Therefore, potential impacts are less
than significant.
(e) Public sewer is available to the project area and Tract 2353 will be served by public sewer. Therefore, no
impacts related to septic systems would result.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 24 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
VIL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
SettinE
In 2008, the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a baseline emissions inventory. In August 2012, the City of San Luis
Obispo adopted a Climate Action Plan (2012 CAP) for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The 2012 CAP is a
strategic document, based on the concept that local governments are well positioned to develop and implement
locally effective strategies to reduce GHG emissions. The CAP includes a GHG emissions reduction target and
emissions reduction strategies designed to help the City achieve that target. The adopted target is a reduction of
communitywide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, consistent with AB 32.
The City of San Luis Obispo has not yet adopted GHG emissions thresholds for use in CEQA documents. In March
2012, the SLOAPCD adopted CEQA thresholds for GHG emissions in order to achieve goals outlined in the
County's EnergyWise Plan. This document includes three thresholds that can be used to evaluate the level of
significance of GHG emissions impacts for residential and commercial projects. The three thresholds are described
below:
Qualified GHG Reductions Strategies. A project would have a significant impact if it is not
consistent with a qualified GHG reduction strategy that meets the requirements of the State CEQA
Guidelines. If a project is consistent with a qualified GHG reduction strategy, it would not have a
significant impact; OR,
Bright -Line Threshold. A project would have a significant impact if it exceeds the "bright -line
threshold" of 1,150 metric tons COzE/year; OR,
Ei iciencv Threshold. A project would have a significant impact if the efficiency threshold exceeds
4.9 metric tons of COzE/service population/year. The service population is defined as the number
of residents plus employees for a given project.
Discussion
Questions A and B:
GHG reduction strategies in the 2012 CAP that apply to future residential construction include new construction
energy conservation (BLD 2), renewable energy implementation (RE 2), land use diversity and density (TLA 5),
reduce the need for commuting (TLU 8), and water conservation: new development (WTR 2). The proposed project
implements CAP strategies, such as including a mixed -use component which reduces the need for commuting, and is
consistent with a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy by incorporation of the following features in the project:
1. Solar is provided on 100% of all residential units, more than three times the rate recommended by City
Open Space/Conservation policies. This may change as vendors change their pricing and is dependent on
utility incentives. The panel sizes are designed to meet 50% of the electrical energy requirements.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 25 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
A
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
2. Fewer than 25% of the homes are Serra Meadows are equipped with air conditioning. It is not a standard
feature because the units are designed for passive cooling.
3. The building package has been rated, on average as providing energy efficiency 20% above CalGreen and
Title 24.
4. We have provided on -site bus stops per city requirements.
5. The project is a mixed use project with office uses integrated with the residential.
6. Substantial Class II and Class I bike paths are provided with connections to future retail services and to
employment centers across Prado Road.
7. The proposed amendment seeks to increase the number of residential units and increase the "compactness"
of the development.
8. The project integrates affordable housing per City requirements.
9. The project makes substantial use of recycled water for arterial parkways and greenways.
10. Roundabouts are part of the circulation plan which encourages more efficient traffic movement and less
idling.
The applicant has also completed a CAP compliance checklist which outlines the many design features of the project
that further document compliance with a qualified GHG reduction strategy. Therefore, the project is consistent with
EIR guidance on reducing GHGs as well as the CAP; therefore, potential impacts are less than significant.
VIII. 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?
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?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within % mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous material 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?
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 26
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
❑ ❑
No
Impact
INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
ENVOIN City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
VIII.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS - Would the project:
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?
❑
❑
®
❑
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?
❑
❑
❑
g)
Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
❑
❑
®
❑
h)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
❑
❑
❑
SettinE
The MASP EIR and Subsequent Tiered MND describe the physical and regulatory setting of the MASP area and
surrounding areas. The project site is located on the north side of Prado Road and south and east of Margarita
Avenue, on undeveloped, slightly sloped land within the urban boundary line and adjacent to residential uses. The
adjoining property to the west (Tract 2342) is currently under construction.
Discussion
(a,b,d) The proposed revisions to Tract 2353 occur within the "footprint" that was previously considered for
development and would not alter the project's impact related to hazards nor have the potential to change any of the
conclusions previously reached. To recap, the MASP EIR and subsequent MND determined that historical
agricultural activities and surrounding industrial activities of the Margarita Area may have released hazardous
materials into the environment. Hazardous materials releases may have involved leaking underground or
aboveground storage tanks, or similar events from other nearby properties that store or handle hazardous or toxic
materials. Construction -related and ground disturbing activities may involve the use of materials that could
contaminate nearby soils and water resources in the project area. Existence of such potential hazards could cause
construction workers and other people to be exposed to dust or emissions containing such hazardous materials or to
organic pesticides, herbicides, and other hazardous materials.
The project site is not 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 not create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment (Environmental Data Resources, Inc. Inquiry # 3827270.3, January 9, 2014). There are two potentially
contaminated sites within 0.5 miles of the subject site. The nearest site is 985 feet away, within the westerly portion
of Tract 2342. This site was impacted by a crude pipeline removed in the 1930's that used to transport oil to the
former San Luis Obispo Tank Farm located to the south of the property. Site assessment work has been completed
M CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 27 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Stud
and the Regional Water Quality Control Board has recommended closure but limited remnant hydrocarbons still
occur at depths between 5 and 15 feet, which presents a low risk to groundwater quality. The other site is 2,491 feet
away at 277 Granada Drive, where minor spills of hazardous waste have occurred. Both of these sites are at a lower
elevation than Tract 2353 and do not pose a risk to the subject property.
The prior documents further determined that impacts related to development of allowed business park land uses
could result in operations -related exposures to hazardous materials and short-term surface water quality degradation
from accidental release of hazardous materials during construction. The prior MASP EIR and subsequent MND
required the following mitigation measures that would reduce such impacts to less than significant with mitigation:
Mitigation Measures (from prior MND ER 66-05
HAZ-1.1: Implement a construction -related hazardous materials management plan.
HAZ-1.2: If presence of hazardous materials is suspected or encountered during construction -related
activities, conduct a Phase I and possibly Phase II Environmental Site Assessment to determine soil or
groundwater contamination.
HAZ-2.1: Implement an operations -related hazardous materials management plan
As stipulated in the MASP/AASP EIR, this would be a plan identifying, when they are known,
site/development-specific construction activities that will involve the hazardous materials. The plan shall be
prepared before construction activities begin that involve hazardous materials and shall discuss proper
handling and disposal of materials used or produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and
sanitary waste. The plan will also outline a specific protocol to identify health risks associated with the
presence of chemical compounds in the soil and/or groundwater and identify specific protective measures to
be followed by the workers entering the work area. If the presence of hazardous materials is suspected or
encountered during construction -related activities, the project proponent will cause Mitigation Measure
HAZ-1.2 to be activated. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2 states:
"The project proponent will complete a Phase 1 environmental site assessment for each proposed public
facility (e.g. streets and buried infrastructure). If Phase I site assessments indicate a potential for soil
and/or groundwater contamination within or adjacent to the road or utility alignments, a Phase II site
assessment will be completed. The following Phase H environmental site assessments will be prepared
specific to soil and/or groundwater contamination.
a. Soil Contamination. For soil contamination, the Phase H site assessment will include soil
sampling and analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If soil contamination is exposed during
construction, the San Lads Obispo Fire Department (SLOFD) will be notified and a work plan to
characterize and possibly remove contaminated soil will be prepared, submitted and approved.
b. Groundwater Contamination. For groundwater contamination, the Phase H assessment may
include monitoring well installation, groundwater sampling, and analysis for anticipated contaminating
substances. If groundwater contaminated by potentially hazardous materials is expected to be extracted
during dewatering, the SLOFD and the Central Coast RWQCB will be notified. A contingency plan to
dispose of contaminated groundwater will be developed in agreement with the SLOFD and Central Coast
RWQCB.
• Monitoring Program:
The "Construction -Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan" will be required to be submitted to the
City Community Development Department and Fire Department for review prior to commencement of any
site preparation or construction work involving hazardous materials. No site preparation or construction
work may commence before said plan has been approved by the City. Any site work commenced without
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 28 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
amrai
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
City approval of said Plan will be subject to "Stop Work" (cease and desist) orders as may be issued under
the authority of The City Fire Department.
As stipulated in the MASP/AASP E1R, this would be a plan prepared by a project proponent identifying
hazardous materials management practices as might be required by state and local laws and regulations
regarding delivery, use, manufacture, and storage of any such regulated materials might be present on site
for any operations -related activities. This plan would identify the proper handling and disposal of materials
uses or produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste. By the filing of said
Plan, the City Fire Department will be on notice to provide regular and routine fire and life -safety
inspections to determine compliance with applicable health and safety codes.
• Monitoring Program:
The "Operations -Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan" will be required to be submitted by a
project proponent to the City Community Development Department and City Fire Department for review
prior to the establishment of any operations -related activities.
(c) The project site is not located within a one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Therefore, there is no
potential impact.
(e) The project site is located in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, and is subject to the
County Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). In its adoption of the MASP, the City Council already found the MASP to
be consistent with the ALUP. It follows, therefore, that because the subject project and proposed residential uses and
densities are compliant with the MASP, the project is also compatible with the policies and objectives of the Airport
Land Use Plan. Therefore, there is no potential impact in terms of emergency response. The project does not
(f) The project is not located within then vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, there is no potential impact.
(g) A recent traffic study and recent consultations with the police and fire departments regarding the proposed
tentative tract map revisions, including the proposal to defer the full extension of Prado Road to Broad Street,
concluded that impacts would be less than significant. The project will be reviewed by the Fire Marshall who may
have recommended conditions of approval which will assure compliance with adopted fire/emergency-related codes.
The Fire Marshall has provided no expert evidence that the project will impair implementation of, or physically
interfere with, the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plans of the City. Therefore, potential
impacts are less than significant.
(h) The MASP EIR and subsequent MND concluded that the project site is not located in an area subject to wildland
fire hazards. The most recent adopted (2007) and recommended (2009) CalFire Hazard Maps were reviewed and
the site is still not located in a high fire hazard area (http://www.calfireslo.org/FHSZ.htmi). Therefore, there is no
potential impact.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact Impact
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
OUALITY — Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
❑
❑
® ❑
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 29 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
IX.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER
OUALITY — Would the project:
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 or 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)?
❑
❑
❑
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?
❑
❑
®
❑
d)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including 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?
❑
❑
®
❑
e)
Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
❑
❑
®
❑
f)
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
❑
❑
®
❑
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?
❑
❑
❑
h)
Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
❑
❑
❑
i)
Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury, or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
❑
❑
❑
j)
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
❑
❑
❑
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 30 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
alai
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
Setting?
The MASP EIR and Subsequent Tiered MND describe the physical and regulatory setting of the MASP area and
surrounding areas. The project site is located within the San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed, which drains an area of
approximately 84 square miles, including the City of San Luis Obispo and its surrounding hills, mountains, and
valleys. The watershed generally drains to the south- southwest via San Luis Obispo Creek where it meets the
Pacific Ocean at Avila Beach.
Discussion
(a-j) The proposed revisions to Tract 2353 occur within the "footprint' that was previously considered for
development and would not alter the project's impact on hydrology and water quality nor have the potential to
change any of the conclusions previously reached. To recap, the MASP EIR and subsequent MND analyzed the
project site and determined that impacts were less than significant. The project is not located in a flood zone or area
subject to seiches, tsunamis or mudflows. Potential impacts associated with proposed revisions would also be less
than significant. The reconfiguration that converts Lot 39 from open space to residential is a beneficial change from
a drainage standpoint. Whereas the originally approved tentative tract map would have conveyed runoff towards the
existing development to the west, the revised map would capture the runoff and convey it into a new storm drain
system. Maintaining historic flows is generally preferred but in this case historic flows are undesired and may cause
damage to downstream development. Moreover, the proposed drainage plan would divert runoff into the project
detention basins and therefore help support the creation of wetland habitats, as discussed in Section 4 above.
Potential impacts associated with proposed revisions are therefore less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
X.
LAND USE AND PLANNING --
Would the proposal:
a)
Physically divide an established community?
❑
❑
❑
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?
❑
❑
❑
c)
Conflict with an applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
❑
❑
❑
Setting
The MASP EIR and Subsequent Tiered MND describe the physical and regulatory setting of the MASP area and
surrounding areas.
Discussion
(a-c) To be approved, the project must be found consistent with the MASP. If consistent, the project would serve to
implement the MASP. As noted above, there are several MASP Land Use designations on the subject property,
including Business Park (which allows mixed -use), Single Family Residential and Multi -family residential. The lot
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 31 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
sizes, densities and uses that are proposed are consistent with those designations and the applicant proposes to
comply with all applicable development standards and design standards. Therefore, the project would not divide a
community or conflict with adopted plans. The applicant proposes revisions to the project that was previously
approved but the proposed revisions also do not divide the community or conflict with adopted plans, policies or
regulations.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
XI. 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?
❑
❑
❑
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?
❑
❑
❑
Setting
The MASP EIR and Subsequent Tiered MND describe the physical and regulatory setting of the MASP area and
surrounding areas. According to the City's Conservation and Open Space Element (2006), quarries and mines in the
San Luis Obispo area previously produced basaltic stone, "red rock,'' and cinnabar. However, mining is no longer
permitted within the City, pursuant to Section 17.08.070 of the Zoning Regulations.
Discussion
(a,b) There are no known mineral resources on the project site that would be of value to the region and the residents
of the State. The project would have no impact.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
XII.
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?
❑
❑
®
❑
b)
Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
❑
❑
❑
c)
A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels above levels existing without the
project?
❑
❑
®
❑
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 32 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
ri
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
XIL NOISE —Would the project result in:
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
❑
❑
❑
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?
❑
❑
❑
Settin
The MASP EIR and Subsequent Tiered MND describe the physical and regulatory setting of the MASP area and
surrounding areas. Community noise is usually measured using an index called the Community Noise Equivalent
Level (CNEL), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a 5-decibel (dBA) penalty for noise occurring from 7
p.m. to 10 p.m. and a 10 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Standards for new projects affected
by or including stationary noise sources (City of SLO,1996) are:
• Daytime (7 a.m. to 10 p. m.) hourly Leq: 50 dB
• Nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) hourly Leq: 45 dB
• Daytime (7 a.m. to 10 p. m.) maximum Leq: 70 dB
• Nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) maximum Leq: 65 dB
Sensitive receptors near the project site include adjacent single family residences to the west.
Discussion
(a-c) The prior MND concluded that the project would not have significant impacts related to noise provided that all
of the mitigation measures identified in the MASP EIR were included. According to the MASP EIR, the proposed
project is located in an area zoned for residential and business land uses that are predicted to be exposed to traffic
noise levels that exceed the Noise Element standard of 60 decibels (dB). This is particularly true for lots adjacent to
Prado Road which will function, when fully built, as a major east -west arterial, connecting South Higuera and Broad
Street and will carry relatively large volumes of traffic. Consequently, the MASP established a setback for
residential uses of 157 feet measured from the centerline of Prado Road, the projected location of the 60 dB noise
contour.
Although the MASP would otherwise allow mixed use office and residential within the BP-0 zone, the 157-foot
noise contour discussed in the preceding paragraph would effectively preclude a residential component. However, a
condition amendment was approved by the Planning Commission in September of 2011 which allowed work/live
units within the 157-foot noise contour. The amendment was supported by the Commission based on data included in
a noise study prepared by David Lord, PhD which demonstrated that standard the interior noise level of 45 decibels
can be achieved through construction techniques, and outdoor use areas on the second floor of buildings oriented
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 33 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
i
'NOON" City of San Luis Obispo Initial
toward the alley would comply with the 60-decibel standard. Specific building designs have not been proposed for
Business Park -Office lots. However, potential developers will have the option for a residential component even for
Lots 1-6 fronting on Prado Road if the residential use is developed in compliance with all of the requirements of the
Sound Level Assessment from David Lord of 45dB dated 9-14-11. In this regard the project proposal and design is
self -mitigating.
According to the MASP EIR, the proposed project is located in an area zoned for residential land uses that are
predicted to be exposed to traffic noise levels resulting from new roadways within the development. Such traffic -
related noise levels are expected to exceed the maximum exterior noise planning standard of 60 Ldn/CNEL (day -
night average sound level; or 24-hour average community noise equivalent level, in decibels). However, the EIR
concludes that this impact is less -than -significant since in order for a subdivision map to be approved it must be fully
compliant with the entirety of the City's General Plan. As such, the project is required to be consistent with the
Specific Plan standards for road noise mitigation and outdoor noise reduction as well as subject to mitigation
measures listed and already adopted in the City's General Plan Noise Element
In summary, the proposed two (2) additional residential units are within the "footprint" of the development area that
was previously analyzed and would therefore not be exposed to (or generate) noise levels that are substantially
different than the levels previously analyzed. The applicant proposes modifications with respect to the timing Prado
Road improvements, but the applicant is not proposing modifications with respect to its location or capacity that
would increase noise generation. The deferred extension of Prado Road to Broad Street would temporarily shift all
traffic associated with the project to the west, as quantified in the recent Traffic Study (Attachment 5). However, the
traffic volumes associated with the project, and the entire Western Enclave, are less than the volumes associated with
full buildout of the Margarita and Airport Specific Plans which, even with the full extension of Prado Road, would
exceed the temporary shift in traffic patterns caused by the deferment of the Prado Road extension to Broad Street.
Noise impacts caused by the proposed revisions would not differ or exceed the noise impacts that were previously
analyzed and found to be less than significant.
d) The project is located in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, and is subject to the County
Airport Land Use Plan, although the subject property is not within the 60 or 65 dBA contour. However, due to
projected future aircraft over flight, the project is required to implement design features to ensure compatibility with
the Airport and thereby control indoor noise levels to not exceed 45 dB.
The proposed revisions would not alter the project's noise impacts. Impacts would still be within the MASP buildout
scenario that was previously analyzed. Therefore, the project would have impacts which are with less than
significant.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
XIII. 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)?
❑
❑
®
❑
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
❑
❑
❑
IK
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
❑
❑
❑
IK
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 34 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Setting
The MASP EIR and Subsequent Tiered MND describe the physical and regulatory setting of the MASP area and
surrounding areas. The Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP) prepared by the San Luis Obispo Council of
Governments (SLOCOG) identified a future housing need in the City of 1,589 new dwelling units for the period of
2007 to 2015 (SLOCOG, 2008). The City's General Plan is required to provide adequate sites for the 1,589 units to
be in compliance with state law. The City's updated 2010 Housing Element reflects the RHNP goals for housing
needs. Build -out of the residential component of the MASP serves to implement the City's housing goals and Needs
Plan.
Discussion
(a-c) The project occurs on land that is currently vacant. Therefore, the project would not displace housing or
people. Proposed revisions would result in the creation of only two (2) additional single family residences compared
to the previously approved project, increasing the total number of residential units from 145 to 147. According to
the Department of Finance, there is an average of 2.3 persons per household in San Luis Obispo. As a result of the
proposed revisions, the total population of the project would increase from 333.5 to 338.1, which represents an
increase of less than 1.5%. Such an increase in population within the project is less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, or the need for 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:
i) Fire protection?
❑
❑
®
❑
ii) Police protection?
❑
❑
®
❑
iii) Schools?
❑
❑
®
❑
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 35 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No _
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES
iv) Parks? ❑
❑
®
❑
v) Other public facilities? ❑
❑
®
❑
Setting
The MASP EIR and Subsequent Tiered MND describe the physical and regulatory setting of the MASP area and
surrounding areas. The City provides police, fire, parks and recreation, schools, sewage treatment, storm drains,
water supply, and solid waste disposal services funded in part by impact fees that will be paid by new development,
including the proposed project. Police, fire, roads, and utilities staff were contacted to confirm that adequate
facilities are in place to serve the project and that proposed revisions, including deferral of the full extension of
Prado Road to Broad Street, would not result in substandard response times, or inadequate access. Therefore,
impacts are less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
XV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
❑
❑
®
❑
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?
❑
❑
®
❑
Setting
The MASP EIR and Subsequent Tiered MND describe the physical and regulatory setting of the MASP area and
surrounding areas. The City of San Luis Obispo Parks & Recreation Department is responsible for managing and
maintaining the City's six mini parks, ten neighborhood parks, and seven community parks. A wide variety of
recreational activities can be conducted at these facilities, including baseball, softball, football, tennis, jogging,
swimming, skateboarding, disc golf and other passive recreational sports. Upon build -out of the MASP, additional
open space areas, trails, sports fields, parks and playgrounds will be available to the public.
Discussion
(a,b) The project is consistent with the MASP and will contribute to the construction of public park facilities through
the payment of City-, as well as, MASP-adopted Park Improvement Fees to offset costs associated with increases in
demand and services as it relates to maintaining City-wide public park areas. The two additional residential lots
would increase park demand, but would increase these fees proportionately. The fees would be used to fund parks
planned within the MASP, the environmental effects of which were described in the MASP EIR. Therefore, the
project will have a less than significant impact on parks or other recreational facilities.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 36 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact Impact
XVI. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC --
Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or
policy establishing a measure 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?
❑
®
❑ ❑
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?
❑
❑
®
❑
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?
❑
❑
❑
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm
equipment)?
❑
❑
❑
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
❑
❑
®
❑
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bikeways,
or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
substantially decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities?
❑
❑
®
❑
Setting
The MASP EIR and Subsequent Tiered MND describe the physical and regulatory setting of the MASP area and
surrounding areas. Automobiles are the primary form of non-commercial regional transportation serving San Luis
Obispo. U.S. Highway 101 is the region's principal access corridor, linking San Luis Obispo with the metropolitan
areas of Los Angeles and San Francisco. In addition, State Routes 1 and 227 are routes of regional importance,
which connect San Luis Obispo with other destinations in the county, including Arroyo Grande and Morro Bay.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 37 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
Discussion
(a-b) The proposed revisions in Tract 2353 would incrementally add traffic associated with the proposed two (2)
single family homes to streets that serve as entry/exit routes to the project site. These streets can accommodate the
added vehicular traffic. It is primarily the surrounding streets and intersection that are of concern.
The MASP EIR concluded that the project will increase traffic in the area, but that it would not exceed the
established acceptable level of service (LOS) threshold (adopted at LOS "D" by the City General Plan). However,
when the Airport Area Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council, almost a year after the adoption of the MASP,
it was determined that the Level of Service (LOS) at the intersection of Prado Road and South Higuera Street could
decline from LOS "D" to LOS "E". As a result, City Council Resolution No. 9726 (2005 Series) required additional
mitigation (Mitigation Measure T-2.1) to lessen impacts at this intersection. This mitigation lowered the threshold
for Transportation Demand Management (TDM) requirements to apply to employers with 25 or more employees.
Commercial development within the MASP area would be subject to this reduced threshold.
Finally, the MASP EIR assumed that Prado Road would be extended to Broad Street upon build -out, and it relied on
that assumption in order to make conclusions about traffic impacts. Considering that the current request would defer
the full extension of Prado Road, a new traffic study was prepared to focus on the potential impacts of such a
deferment. The new traffic study was performed by Central Coast Transportation Consulting dated January 6, 2014
(attached), to consider the potential impacts of this deferment from both a project -specific perspective and
cumulative perspective. Scenario A, the project -specific analysis, evaluates potential impacts when Western Enclave
traffic is added to existing traffic volumes. Scenario B, the cumulative analysis, also factors in other
approved/pending/reasonably foreseeable development in the area.
Table 4
Projected Increases in Traffic Volumes
Segment
Existing
Scenario A
Scenario B
Margarita Avenue
1,190
2,900
2,900
Prado Road
3,302
6,100
7,500
South Street
14,854
I5,300
17,300
Tank Farm Road
19,576
20,100
23,700
The study then analyzes the impact that this additional traffic would have on South Higuera Street intersections (at
South Street, Madonna, Margarita, Prado and Tank Farm), since a portion of the project -generated traffic would no
longer be diverted to Broad Street. Although traffic volumes would increase at these intersection (especially under
Scenario B), the intersections would all still function at an acceptable Level of Service (except Prado and South
Higuera as discussed above). South Street would exceed its daily volume threshold by approximately 15 percent, but
this not expected to result in a breakdown in flow, but rather there would be fewer gaps for turning traffic and
pedestrians crossing South Street between Broad Street and South Higuera Street.
Although the conclusions of the recent traffic study are similar to the conclusions of earlier studies, additional
infrastructure deficiencies were identified. The recent study therefore concludes that all mitigation measures
previously identified in the MASP/AASP should be carried forward and applied to this project (except for the
requirement that Prado Road be extended to Broad Street). In addition, the recent study recommends that the City
amend traffic impacts fees to include the cost of rectifying the additional deficiencies identified, and that western
enclave projects pay the amended traffic impact fees. Following are the additional traffic recommendations from the
recent traffic study:
• South Higuera Street/South Street: the City should implement the planned westbound left turn lane
extension and associated left turn prohibition to/from Parker Street.
• South Higuera Street/Madonna Avenue: the City should monitor traffic operations at this location and
evaluate the need and feasibility of converting a northbound through lane to a second northbound left turn
lane.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 38 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
• South Higuera Street/Prado Road: the City should amend the Traffic Impact Fee to include the second
northbound left turn lane and associated bridge widening at this location. The City should enter into a cost
sharing agreement with the Western Enclave applicants to re -stripe the southbound left turn lane and install
pedestrian countdown heads at this intersection.
• South Higuera Street/Tank Farm Road: the City should amend the Traffic Impact Fee to include the
second southbound left turn lane at this location.
• The Western Enclave projects shall pay the amended Traffic Impact Fee as their fair share contribution to
the deficiencies identified in this report. If at the time of building permit issuance the City's TIF has not
been amended to accommodate these projects, or Prado Road has not been connected to Broad Street, the
Western Enclave project applicants will be responsible for paying a pro rata share of said improvements
subject to approval of the City's Public Work Director.
• Margarita Neighborhood: the previously adopted Condition of Approval requiring monitoring of traffic
conditions or a one-time Neighborhood Traffic Management contribution should be included in the revised
Conditions of Approval.
Therefore, the project will have a potentially significant impact unless mitigation is incorporated on traffic and
circulation. Mitigation measures listed below will mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures T-01, T-02, & T-03 are new recommended mitigation measures, while Mitigation Measure T-
04 is from prior MND ER 66-05.
Mitieation Measures
T-01 Impact Fees. The applicant shall pay traffic impact fees that are in effect at the time of building
permit issuance. If at the time of building permit issuance the City's TIF has not been amended to
accommodate the improvements to the South Higuera/Prado and South Higuera/Tank Farm intersections as
identified in the traffic study performed by Central Coast Transportation Consulting dated January 6, 2014,
or Prado Road has not been connected to Broad Street, the applicant will be responsible for paying a pro
rata share of said improvements subject to approval of the City's Public Work Director.
T-02 Traffic Mitigation. The subdivider shall re -stripe the southbound left turn lane and install pedestrian
countdown heads at the South Higuera/Prado intersection as identified in the traffic study performed by
Central Coast Transportation Consulting dated January 6, 2014.
T-03 Margarita Neighborhood. Pursuant to the Margarita Area Specific Plan, traffic volume and speeds
shall be monitored after development. Prior to final map recordation, the Subdivider shall deposit a faithful
performance security in the amount of $130,000 to retain a qualified traffic consultant to conduct traffic
counts and speed measurements on Margarita Avenue and on streets within and in the vicinity of the
subdivision. The counts and measurements will be conducted one-year after final occupancy of complete
build -out of the subdivision or acceptance of public improvements, whichever occurs later. The locations of
the counts and measurements shall be approved by the Public Works Director. If the traffic volumes or
speeds exceed City standards, the $130,000 security will be retained by the City to guarantee that
Subdivider installs additional City -approved traffic calming measures to reduce volume and speeds to
comply with City standards.
T-04 Preparation and Implementation of "Traffic Reduction Program." In order for MASP/AASP
E1R Mitigation Measure T-2.1 adopted with the certification of the MASP/AASP FIR in conjunction with
the approval of the AASP in August, 2005 (Ref. City Council Resolution No. 9726, 2005 Series) to be
brought forward to this site specific project stage, a transportation demand management program that
demonstrates reduction of peak period travel by single -occupant vehicles shall be required of any employer
within the subdivision with 25 or more employees. Said program shall incorporate all reasonably feasible
measures or techniques, including those listed in the MASP/AASP EIR/General Plan Circulation, that
encourage alternate modes other than single -occupant vehicles as the primary mode of transportation to the
workplace and to travel during non -peak times.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 39 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
• Monitoring Program:
Each business owner, upon employment of 25 or more employees, shall immediately prepare and
submit, obtain approval from the City Public Works Director and implement the provisions of a
Traffic Reduction Plan which demonstrates reduction of peak period travel consistent with
requirements of the City General Plan Circulation Element Policies and Programs. City Staff shall
periodically inspect the business to observe and assure that reduction techniques approved by the
City are in place and adhered to by the business. Staff shall take any corrective or enforcement
actions authorized by law to achieve compliance.
With incorporation of Mitigation Measures T-01 to T-04, the project's traffic impacts would be reduced to a less
than significant level.
Finally, the project incorporates and complies with MASP provisions for internal bikeways and pedestrian facilities
that connect to existing neighborhoods west of the project location. Deleting the condition to extend Prado Road
east of the site also removes the connection of the Class I bikeway from the project location to Broad Street, the
adjacent Damon Garcia Sports Complex as well as neighborhood commercial sites at the Marigold Shopping Center.
Based upon the anticipated project building schedules for Tract 2353 and Tract 2428, along with the existing
condition thresholds that have been established for each project (see Discussion Section), Tract 2353 would likely
not have been required to begin construction of Prado Road east of the tract location since it would not exceed the
200 unit threshold. Therefore deleting this portion of the condition for Tract 2353 would likely not change bicycle
and pedestrian inconveniences or connectivity to adjacent recreational and commercial areas. However, it is
important to note that because the MASP neighborhood recreational park is on the Damon Garcia property and not
likely to be built soon, residents in Tract 2353 will need to access other recreational areas of the city that are distant
and bicycle and pedestrian mobility to these locations will be limited for quite some time.
Proposed Prado Road modifications along tract frontages would retain the bike lane and sidewalk as envisioned in
the MASP document. Internal streets within Tract 2353 also include sidewalks and the open space lots that traverse
the proposed project would include trails. Therefore, the lack of a bicycle connection to Broad Street is not
considered a new significant environmental impact, but the possibility of creating a linkage through conditions of
approval will be discussed in project staff reports.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
❑
❑
❑
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
❑
❑
❑
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?
❑
❑
®
❑
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 40 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
City of San Luis
Initial
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
d) Have insufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
❑
❑
®
❑
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has inadequate capacity to
serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
❑
❑
®
❑
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
❑
❑
®
❑
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
❑
❑
®
❑
Settinlz
The MASP E1R and Subsequent Tiered MND describe the physical and regulatory setting of the MASP area and
surrounding areas. The City's wastewater collection system and Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) is managed by
the Utilities Department, and the City Utilities Department provides water service throughout the City. The City's
stormwater drainage system is a separate system that collects surface runoff and conveys it to community retention
basins, such as parks, local lakes, and creeks. In this case, runoff will be conveyed to compensatory mitigation
basins wherein wetlands will be created and maintained by a Homeowners Association. The regional waste
collection facility is Cold Canyon Landfill, located approximately six miles south of the City on Highway 227. The
San Luis Garbage Company is the sole provider of solid -waste collection services in the City. The Pacific Gas &
Electric Company (PG&E) supplies electricity to consumers in the vicinity of the project area, and natural gas is
supplied to City residents by the Southern California Edison Gas Company.
Discussion
(a-g) The MASP/AASP EIR determined that implementation and build out of the MASP will not result in any
significant impacts related to water supply, wastewater collection or treatment, or storm water drainage/retention and
concluded mitigation was deemed unnecessary. The two (2) additional single family residences that are now being
proposed would not change these conclusions. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 41 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact Impact
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE —
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self- sustaining
levels, 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?
❑
❑
® ❑
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 past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
Discussion
Based upon the analysis throughout this Initial Study, which relies heavily on the analysis in the MASP EIR and
subsequent tiered MND that was prepared for the project when it was originally approved, the proposed project
would not have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species or cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels. There is no significant evidence of historical importance or prior
Native American occupancy. However, the biological elements analyzed in this Initial Study indicate the presence of
a special status plant species, Cambria morning-glory. In addition, the proposed project would result in impacts to
purple needlegrass grassland habitat, which is a sensitive natural community, and would impact the number and
diversity of plant materials on -site. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BI04 would reduce these impacts to a less
than significant level. In addition, the project site may contain previously unidentified buried archaeological
resources. Mitigation Measure CR-1 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The cumulative
effects of the project, in combination with other planned projects in the vicinity, were evaluated in the MASP EIR.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 42 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
REFERENCES
Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County. Airport Land Use Plan for the San Lads Obispo County
Regional Airport. Amended May 18, 2005. Available at:
http://sloaiEport.com/index.php?p=custom page&page name=Airport%20Land%2OUse%2OPlan%2OCount
California Air Resources Board. 2007. Climate Change Emission Control Fact Sheet, 2007.
http_//www.arb.ca.gov/cc/factsheets/ccc newfs.pdf
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment
for the State of California, DMG Open -file Report 96-08. 1996.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Guidelines.for Evaluating and Mitigating
Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117. Revised 2008.
California Department of Finance. Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2010-
2011. 2011. Available at:
http://www. dof.ca. Qov/HTM L/DEMOG RAP/ReportsPaDers/Re_portsPaoers.phn.
California Department of Fish and Game, 2003. California Natural Diversity Database: Commercial Version —
Dated January 1, 2011. Report Printed on January 9, 2014.
Jameson, E. W. Jr., and Peeters, H. H., 2004. Mammals of California, revised edition. University of California
Press, Berkeley, California.
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region (3), Watershed Management Initiative. January
2002. Available at:
http /../..www,_waterboards ca._gov/centra.lcoast/publications._forms/_publications./..basin plan/
San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District. 2001 Clean Air Plan, San Luis Obispo County. December 2001.
Available at: http;//www.slocleanair.ore/business/pdf/CAPintro,pdf
San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. December 2009. Available at:
http://www.slocleanair.org/business/pdf/2010/CEOA/CEOA Handbook Final 2009 v03.pdf
San Luis Obispo, City of. Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. November 2010. Available at:
httR//www. ci. sa n-1 uis-
obispo.ca.us/communitydevelopment/historicpreservationord/New Folder/HistoricGuidelines%20(4-18-
11 . df
San Luis Obispo, City of. Fire Department Master Plan. 2009. Available at: htW.//www_ci_san-luis-
obispo;ca.us/fire/admin. asp
San Luis Obispo, City of. General Plan. Conservation and Open Space. 2006. Available at:
http. //ww ............................org/comMunit vdevelopment/down,load/unif edgoeralplari/Chapter6..-COSE,pdf
San Luis Obispo, City of. General Plan. Circulation. Revised April 4, 2006. Available at:
http://www. slocity.orrgg/communitydevelopment/download/5-15 -
07%20 Unified%o20G P/chapter2circulation.pdf
San Luis Obispo, City of. General Plan. Housing. Revised 2010. Available at: http://www.ci.san-luis-
obispo.ca. us/communitydevelopment/housinpelement2009/councilapprovedi anuaa2010.pdf
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 43 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
San Luis Obispo, City of. General Plan. Land Use. Revised April 4, 2006. Available at:
htt�W//www locity-_o/communitydevelopment/download/unifiedgeneralplan/Chaptert_-Land%20Use.pdf
San Luis Obispo, City of. General Plan. Noise. Revised 1996. Available at:
http //www.slocitj _org/communitydevelopment/download/5-15-
07%20Umfied%o20GP/chapter8waterandwastewater,pdf
San Luis Obispo, City of. General Plan. Parks and Recreation. Revised 2001. Available at:
http://www.slocity.org/communitydevelopment/download/5-15-
07%2 0 Unified% 2 OG P/chapter7parksandrecreation. pdf
San Luis Obispo, City of. General Plan. Safety. 2000. Available at:
httD://www.sloci .org/communitydevelooment/Long°/`20Ran2e/General%20PIan-Safety.pdf
San Luis Obispo, City of. General Plan. Water and Wastewater. Revised 2010. Available at:
htjp//wwwalocit org/gomrnunitxdevelODment/download/5. _15-
07%o20Unif ed%o20GP/chapter8waterandwastewater:.pdf
San Luis Obispo, City of. Margarita Area Specific Plan, October 2004. Available at:
http //www.slocity.org/communitydevelo,pment/download/masp.,pdf
San Luis Obispo, City of. Margarita Area Specific Plan EIR, October 2004. Available at:
http. _//www,. slocitX,org/communitydevelopment/Long%..20Rauge/annexation,_asp
San Luis Obispo, City of. Municipal Code. December 2009. Available at:
http://www.codeDubIishin2.com/ca/sanIuisobispo/
San Luis Obispo, City of. Stormwater Management Plan. February 2010. Available at: http://www.ci.san-luis-
obispo. ca. us/publicworks/stormwater/documents/2-10S W M P-J E.pdf
San Luis Obispo, City of. Urban Water Management Plan. December 6, 2005. Available at: http//www_ci.san-
luis,-obispo.ca us/utilities/download/uwmp2005..pdf
San Luis Obispo, City of. Utilities Department Website, Water: Supply Sources. http://www.ci.san_luis-
ob s,po,ca.us/ut 1ities/sou...... sp.
San Luis Obispo, City of. 2009 Water Resources Status Report. July 2009.
San Luis Obispo, City and County of. Waterway Management Plan, San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed. Vol 1.
2003. Available at: http://www.slocity_org/publicwork_s./download/wmi/wmp.
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments. Regional Housing Needs Plan. August 2008. Available at:
http://www.slocog_or /Lg ibrary/Final_Regional_Housing_Needs_Plan_-_August_2008.pdf
Southern California Earthquake Center. Seismic Hazards in California: Probable Earthquakes, 1994-2024. 1995.
Stebbins, R. C., 2003. Western Reptiles and Amphibians, third edition. Houghton and Mifflin, Boston,
Massachusetts.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, PB 206 717, 1971.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 44 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
MN
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS
Biological Assessment for Sierra Gardens Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2353, Althouse & Meade, Inc., July,
2005.
Wetland Delineation for Sierra Gardens Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2353, Althouse & Meade, Inc., July, 2005.
Phase I Environmental Site assessment 408 Prado Road, Project No. SL04922-1, GeoSolutions, Inc., June 30, 2005
Affordable Housing Project; Margarita Annexation and Specific Plan Area, Dave Watson, AICP, June, 2005
Addendum and Update to Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Report for the Margarita Area, San Luis Obispo
County, TEC Civil Engineering Consultants, October, 2005
Soils Engineering Report for 408 Prado Road, project No. SLO 4922-1, GeoSolutions, Inc., July 12, 2005.
An Archaeological Survey for the Margarita Area Specific Plan, Western Enclave Area, Heritage Discoveries, Inc.,
May, 2005
Historical Evaluation for a House at 408 Prado Road, Bertranado & Bertranado Research Consultants, April, 2005
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, Althouse and Meade, August 2007.
Tract 2353 Swale — Brief Biological Resource Review, Althouse and Meade, January 17, 2014
Traffic Study, Central Coast Transportation Consulting, January 6, 2014.
Updated UCSB Cultural Resources Records Search Results, January 14, 2014.
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. Inquiry # 3827270.3, January 9, 2014.
CA Department of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Diversity Database, accessed on January 9, 2014
Attachments
Attachment 1:
Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 66-05
Attachment 2:
Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2353
Attachment 3:
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, Althouse and Meade, August
2007.
Attachment 4:
Tract 2353 Swale — Brief Biological Resource Review, Althouse and Meade, January 17,
2014.
Attachment 5:
Traffic Study, Central Coast Transportation Consulting, January 6, 2014.
Attachment 6:
CaIEEMod software program output (available in project file upon request)
REQUIRED MITIGATIONS AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
(Note: Most of the following mitigation measures are carry-over measures from the Mitigated Negative Declaration
that was adopted when the project was originally approved. Mitigation Measures T-01, T-02, & T-03 are new
recommended mitigation measures, while Mitigation Measure T-04 is from prior MND ER 66-05.
1. VIS-01 Reduction of Light and Glare. In order for MASP/AASP EIR Mitigation Measure LU-7.1 as
implemented by the MASP to be carried through to lot -specific development stage, applicants, at the time of
building permit application, shall submit for review by the City Community Development Department, a
lighting plan that demonstrates compliance with Community Design Section 3.3 Lighting requirements of
the MASP shall be submitted with other required plans for both the residential and commercial components
of the project to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The lighting
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 45 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
A
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
plan shall propose specific measures to limit the amount of light trespass associated with development
within the project area including shielding and/or directional lighting methods to ensure that spillover light
does not exceed 0.5 foot-candles at adjacent property lines.
• Monitoring Program:
The ARC will review development plans for both the residential and commercial components of the project.
City staff, including Planning and other departments, will review plans to assure that all of the ARC's
requirements related to lighting and compliant with the MASP provisions have been incorporated into
working drawings. City building inspectors will be responsible for assuring that all lighting is installed
pursuant to the approved lighting plan.
2. AQ-1 Fugitive Dust Control Measures. The proposed project shall implement the following dust
control measures so as to reduce PM10 emissions in accordance with SLOAPCD requirements.
a) Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible;
b) Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from
leaving the site. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed
15 mph. Reclaimed (non -potable) water should be used whenever possible;
c) All dirt stock pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed;
d) Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape
plans should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing
activities;
e) Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial
grading should be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive grass seed and watered until
vegetation is established;
f) All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized using approved chemical
soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD;
g) All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible
after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used;
h) Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the
construction site;
i) All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at
least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in
accordance with CVC Section 23114;
j) Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks
and equipment leaving the site;
k) Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads.
Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible;
1) All of these fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans; and
m) 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 APCD
Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition.
3. AQ-2 Construction Equipment. The proposed project shall implement the following emissions control
measures so as to reduce diesel particulate matter in accordance with SLOAPCD requirements.
• 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;
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 46 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
i
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
• 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;
• 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;
• Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted;
• Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors;
• 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.
4. AQ-3 Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan. The applicant shall prepare an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan in
accordance with the requirements set for by ACTM to ensure that asbestos does not create a significant
health risk to construction workers and sensitive receptors. The Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan shall be
implemented at the beginning and maintained throughout the duration of the construction or grading
activity. The Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan must specify dust mitigation practices which are sufficient to
ensure that no equipment or operation emits dust that is visible crossing the property line, and must include
one or more provisions addressing each of the following topics.
A. Track -out prevention and control measures which shall include:
a. Removal of any visible track -out from a paved public road at any location where
vehicles exit the work site; this shall be accomplished using wet sweeping or a
HEPA filter equipped vacuum device at the end of the work day or at least one
time per day; and
b. Installation of one or more of the following track -out prevention measures:
i. A gravel pad designed using good engineering practices to clean the
tires of exiting vehicles;
ii. A tire shaker;
iii. A wheel wash system;
iv. Pavement extending for not less than fifty (50) consecutive feet from
the intersection with the paved public road; or
v. Any other measure as effective as the measures listed above.
B. Keeping active storage piles adequately wetted or covered with tarps.
C. Control for disturbed surface areas and storage piles that will remain inactive for more
than seven (7) days, which shall include one or more of the following:
a. Keep the surface adequately wetted;
b. Establishment and maintenance of surface crusting sufficient to satisfy the test in
subsection (h)(6);
c. Application of chemical dust suppressants or chemical stabilizers according to
the manufacturers' recommendations;
d. Covering with tarp(s) or vegetative cover;
e. Installation of wind barriers of fifty (50) percent porosity around three (3) sides
of a storage pile;
f. Installation of wind barriers across open areas; or
g. Any other measure as effective as the measures listed above.
D. Control for traffic on on -site unpaved roads, parking lots, and staging areas which shall
include
a. A maximum vehicle speed limit of fifteen (15) miles per hour or less; and
b. One or more of the following:
i. Watering every two hours of active operations or sufficiently often to
keep the area adequately wetted;
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 47 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
ii. -Applying chemical dust suppressants consistent with manufacturer's
directions;
iii. Maintaining a gravel cover with a silt content that is less than five (5)
percent and asbestos content that is less than 0.25 percent, as
determined using an approved asbestos bulk test method, to a depth of
three (3) inches on the surface being used for travel; or
iv. Any other measure as effective as the measures listed above.
E. Control for earthmoving activities which shall include one or more of the following:
a. Pre -wetting the ground to the depth of anticipated cuts;
b. Suspending grading operations when wind speeds are high enough to result in
dust emissions crossing the property line, despite the application of dust
mitigation measures;
c. Application of water prior to any land clearing; or
d. Any other measure as effective as the measures listed above.
F. Control for Off -Site Transport. The owner / operator shall ensure that no trucks are
allowed to transport excavated material off -site unless:
a. Trucks are maintained such that no spillage can occur from holes or other
openings in cargo compartments; and
b. Loads are adequately wetted and either:
i. Covered with tarps; or
ii. Loaded such that the material does not touch the front, back, or sides of
the cargo compartment at any point less than six inches from the top
and that no point of the load extends above the top of the cargo
compartment.
G. Post Construction Stabilization of Disturbed Areas. Upon completion of the project,
disturbed surfaces shall be stabilized using one or more of the following methods:
a. Establishment of a vegetative cover;
b. Placement of at least three (3.0) inches of non -asbestos -containing material;
c. Any other measure deemed sufficient to prevent wind speeds of ten (10) miles
per hour or greater from causing visible dust emissions.
H. Air Monitoring for Asbestos (If Required by the SLOAPCD).
a. If required by SLOAPCD, the plan must include an air -monitoring component.
b. The air monitoring component shall specify the following:
i. Type of air sampling device(s)
ii. Siting of air sampling device(s);
iii. Sampling duration and frequency; and
iv. Analytical method.
I. Frequency of Reporting: The plan shall state how often the items specified in subsection
(e)(5)(B), and any other items identified in the plan, will be reported to the district.
5. B10-6.1 (from MASP EIR). Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Wetland Habitat. To avoid and minimize
impacts to freshwater marsh and other wetland habitats, the project proponent will do all of the following:
• obtain a qualified wetland ecologist to conduct a delineation of waters of the United
States, including wetlands, at the project site;
• obtain verification of the delineation from the Corps;
• avoid identified waters of the United States and wetlands during project design to the
extent possible and establish a buffer zone around jurisdictional features to be preserved;
• obtain a permit from the Corps for any unavoidable "fill" of wetlands or other waters of
the United States; and
• develop and implement a mitigation and monitoring plan in coordination with the
agencies to compensate for losses and to ensure no net loss of wetland habitat functions
and values.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 48 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
City of San Luis Obisno Initial
Preparation and Implementation of "Comprehensive Biological Mitigation Program"
Mitigation for wetland impacts. Mitigation for wetland impacts will be through a combination of on- and
off -site mitigation, approved by the City, the DFW and the Corps. Further, in compliance with the
MASP/AASP FIR, Lot 64 of VTM #2342 includes an area designated by the MASP for "Open Space -
Riparian" for the express purposes of achieving some of the necessary wetlands replacement mitigation
area, as well as preservation of related biological habitat benefits.
Mitigation for Impacts to Sensitive Species. None of these species are expected to be difficult to establish.
City staff will work with the project sponsors in developing the details of the effort.
Congdon Tarplant. Create compensating habitat in a suitable off -site location approved by the City.
Mitigation for Impacts to Other Nesting Birds. Undertake surveys prior to initiation of construction
activities; avoid construction activities within 100 feet of active nest sites until after young have fledged.
Off Site Mitigation for Wetland Impacts. A further component of the biological mitigation program is the
applicant's proposal to acquire (by fee, easement, or eminent domain) lands outside the bounds of the
Western Enclave (designated by the MASP as "Open Space -Riparian" lands). The targeted property (lying
south of Prado Road and owned by Unocal) is a low lying area that already naturally collects some area run-
off and provides valuable habitat for certain special concern and R-T-E (rare, threatened, and endangered)
species, and thus is beneficial to retain in its natural state. Pre -development run-off has resulted in seasonal
flooding of Prado Road due to they currently deficient collection/distribution system to this natural drainage
area south of Prado Road. The Western Enclave applicants propose to acquire this off -site property
designated for open space use by the MASP and utilize it beneficially for biological mitigation as well as a
detention basin for pre- and post -Western Enclave development generated run-off. It is proposed that this
basin be enhanced to accommodate the greater project -generated and pre -project run-off flows, and to
increase its habitat value in the long term. The basin is proposed to be held and maintained by a Master
Home Owners Association (MHOA) established initially for the Western Enclave area, and perhaps
ultimately for the entire MASP as stipulated be done by the MASP.
• Monitoring Program:
Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall contact the City Natural Resource Manager for review
and approval of the final lot and street design to assure that on -site natural resources are protected and
preserved to the greatest extent required by the mitigation measures and consistent with requirements of the
MASP and MASP/AASP FIR. Said design shall also be consistent with approvals required subsequent to
this Tentative Map from State Dept. of Fish and Game and Army Corps of Engineers. Prior to any site
preparation or construction activities, the applicant shall also initiate and complete for approval by the City
pre -construction surveys for nesting birds and adhere to performance standard specified in the mitigation.
Provisions for required off -site mitigation shall be coordinated with and approved by the City Natural
Resource Manager prior to recordation of the Final Map. Periodic field inspections by City Staff during
construction will be necessary to assure site development conforms to mitigation measures and conditions
of approval.
6. CR-1. Phase II Testing (from prior MND ER 66-05). In order to achieve complete mitigation for the
archaeological resource found on the subject site, this survey is required if the site cannot be avoided. The
Phase 11 survey is to determine if significance criteria of CEQA and/or NRHP are met. The survey must be
completed and results submitted to City for determination whether mitigation measures below, as specified
in EIR, are needed.
1.) A data recovery program consisting of archaeological excavation to retrieve the important
data from the archaeological site;
2.) Development and implementation of public interpretation plans for both prehistoric and
historic sites;
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 49 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
3.) Preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction of historic structures according to
the Secretary of Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties;
4.) Construction of new structures in a manner consistent with the historic character of the
region; and
5.) Treatment of historic landscapes according to the Secretary of Interior Standards for
Treatment of Historic Landscapes.
If the project involves a federal agency, and is therefore subject to a MOA, the inventory, evaluation, and treatment
processes will be coordinated with that federal agency to ensure that the work conducted will also comply with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
• Monitoring Program:
If the survey results reveal that the archaeological resource does meet the significance criteria set forth in
CEQA or NRHP, then no further mitigation is required. However if the significance criteria is met, then the
lead agency in coordination with the agency with jurisdiction over the resources shall jointly determine
which of the above stated mitigation are appropriate for the resource status. The applicant shall provide
evidence to the City that the mitigation has been achieved prior to recordation of the final subdivision map.
Hazardous Materials (from prior MND ER 66-05).
HAZ-1.1: Implement a construction -related hazardous materials management plan.
HAZ-1.2: If presence of hazardous materials is suspected or encountered during construction -related
activities, conduct a Phase I and possibly Phase II Environmental Site Assessment to
determine soil or groundwater contamination.
HAZ-2.1: Implement an operations -related hazardous materials management plan.
5. Preparation and Implementation of a "Construction -Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan"
As stipulated in the MASP/AASP EIR, this would be a plan identifying, when they are known, site/development-
specific construction activities that will involve the hazardous materials. The plan shall be prepared before
construction activities begin that involve hazardous materials and shall discuss proper handling and disposal of
materials used or produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste. The plan will also
outline a specific protocol to identify health risks associated with the presence of chemical compounds in the soil
and/or groundwater and identify specific protective measures to be followed by the workers entering the work area.
If the presence of hazardous materials is suspected or encountered during construction -related activities, the project
proponent will cause Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2 to be activated. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2 states:
"The project proponent will complete a Phase 1 environmental site assessment for each proposed public facility (e.g.
streets and buried infrastructure). If Phase I site assessments indicate a potential for soil and/or groundwater
contamination within or adjacent to the road or utility alignments, a Phase H site assessment will be completed.
The following Phase H environmental site assessments will be prepared specific to soil and/or groundwater
contamination.
C. Soil Contamination. For soil contamination, the Phase H site assessment will include
soil sampling and analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If soil contamination is
exposed during construction, the San Luis Obispo Fire Department (SLOFD) will be notified and
a work plan to characterize and possibly remove contaminated soil will be prepared, submitted
and approved.
d. Groundwater Contamination. For groundwater contamination, the Phase H assessment
may include monitoring well installation, groundwater sampling, and analysis for anticipated
contaminating substances. Ifgroundwater contaminated by potentially hazardous materials is
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 50 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
EWA City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
expected to be extracted during dewatering, the SLOFD and the Central Coast RWQCB will be
notified. A contingency plan to dispose of contaminated groundwater will be developed in
agreement with the SLOFD and Central Coast RWQCB.
• Monitoring Program:
The "Construction -Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan' will be required to be submitted to the
City Community Development Department and Fire Department for review prior to commencement of any
site preparation or construction work involving hazardous materials. No site preparation or construction
work may commence before said plan has been approved by the City. Any site work commenced without
City approval of said Plan will be subject to "Stop Work" (cease and desist) orders as may be issued under
the authority of The City Fire Department.
As stipulated in the MASP/AASP EIR, this would be a plan prepared by a project proponent identifying hazardous
materials management practices as might be required by state and local laws and regulations regarding delivery, use,
manufacture, and storage of any such regulated materials might be present on site for any operations -related
activities. This plan would identify the proper handling and disposal of materials uses or produced onsite, such as
petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste. By the filing of said Plan, the City Fire Department will be on
notice to provide regular and routine fire and life -safety inspections to determine compliance with applicable health
and safety codes.
• Monitoring Program:
The "Operations -Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan' will be required to be submitted by a
project proponent to the City Community Development Department and City Fire Department for review
prior to the establishment of any operations -related activities.
8. T-01 Impact Fees. The applicant shall pay traffic impact fees that are in effect at the time of building
permit issuance.
9. T-02 Traffic Mitigation. The subdivider shall re -stripe the southbound left turn lane and install
pedestrian countdown heads at the South Higuera/Prado intersection as identified in the traffic study
performed by Central Coast Transportation Consulting dated January 6, 2014.
10. T-03 Margarita Neighborhood. Pursuant to the Margarita Area Specific Plan, traffic volume and
speeds shall be monitored after development. Prior to final map recordation, the Subdivider shall
deposit a faithful performance security in the amount of $130,000 to retain a qualified traffic consultant
to conduct traffic counts and speed measurements on Margarita Avenue and on streets within and in the
vicinity of the subdivision. The counts and measurements will be conducted one-year after final
occupancy of complete build -out of the subdivision or acceptance of public improvements, whichever
occurs later. The locations of the counts and measurements shall be approved by the Public Works
Director. If the traffic volumes or speeds exceed City standards, the $130,000 security will be retained
by the City to guarantee that Subdivider installs additional City -approved traffic calming measures to
reduce volume and speeds to comply with City standards.
• Monitoring Program:
Community Development and Public Works staff will oversee impact fee payments, traffic consultant
counts and measurements, and review required restriping plans.
11. T-02 Preparation and Implementation of "Traffic Reduction Program." In order for MASP/AASP EIR
Mitigation Measure T-2.1 adopted with the certification of the MASP/AASP EIR in conjunction with the
approval of the AASP in August, 2005 (Ref. City Council Resolution No. 9726, 2005 Series) to be brought
forward to this site specific project stage, a transportation demand management program that demonstrates
reduction of peak period travel by single -occupant vehicles shall be required of any employer within the
I CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 51 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
City of San Luis Obispo Initial Study
subdivision with 25 or more employees. Said program shall incorporate all reasonably feasible measures or
techniques, including those listed in the MASP/AASP EIR/General Plan Circulation, that encourage
alternate modes other than single -occupant vehicles as the primary mode of transportation to the workplace
and to travel during non -peak times.
• Monitoring Program:
Each business owner, upon employment of 25 or more employees, shall immediately prepare and submit,
obtain approval from the City Public Works Director and implement the provisions of a Traffic Reduction
Plan which demonstrates reduction of peak period travel consistent with requirements of the City General
Plan Circulation Element Policies and Programs. City Staff shall periodically inspect the business to
observe and assure that reduction techniques approved by the City are in place and adhered to by the
business. Staff shall take any corrective or enforcement actions authorized by law to achieve compliance.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 52 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised VTM #2353-Magano)
Attachment 1
Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 66-05
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER #66-05
1. Project Title:
Vesting Tentative Map #2353 (Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Pam Ricci, Senior Planner
City of San Luis Obispo
805-781-7168
4. Project Location:
Mary Beatie, Senior Planner (Contract Planner)
TPG Consulting, Inc.
222 N. Garden Street, Suite #100
Visalia, CA 93291
559-739-8072
The project site address is 408 Prado Road; consisting of approximately 30 acres. (Please refer
to Attachment 1 "Western Enclave Projects Vicinity Map ".)
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Owner: Sierra Gardens of SLO, LTD.
411 El Camino Real
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Applicants: Richard & Duane DeBlauw
6. General Plan Designation:
The Land Use Element of the City General Plan designates the site for:
Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Medium -High Density Residential
Business Park, and Open Space
The Margarita Area Speci 'c Plan (MASP), which implements the City General Plan, designates
the site for:
Business Park Office
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium High Density Residential
Greenway
Open Space Riparian
7. Zoning:
The site contains multiple zoning districts to implement the MASP land use designations, as
follows:
Applies
to
Land Use Designation
Zoning
VTM Lot #s
Business Park Office
O-SP (Office -Specific Plan Overlay)
1-18
Low Density Residential
R-1-SP (Low -Density Residential -Specific Plan Overlay)
23-30, 32-36
Medium Density Residential
R-2-SP (Medium Density Residential -Specific Plan Overlay)
19-22,37, 68-70,
101-104, 117-
130
Medium High Density Res.
R-3-SP (Medium High Density Res. -Specific Plan Overlay)
105
Greenway
R-1-SP (Low -Density Residential -Specific Plan Overlay)
131-133
Open Space -Riparian
C/OS-SP (Conservation/Open Space -Specific Plan Overlay)
31,38
8. Description of the Project:
Proposed VTM #2353, a 133-lot subdivision, has been designed and is being processed in
coordination with the processing of two adjacent developments, described below, in order to
better achieve the objectives and requirements of the MASP:
• VTM #2342 (Cowan/French) proposing 67 lots on approximately 15 acres; located
immediately south of the existing El Camino Estates residential subdivision along Margarita
Avenue and east of the Rancho San Luis Mobile Home Park, generally northeast of the
current easterly terminus of the City maintained portion of Prado Road, east of South
Higuera Street.
• VTM #2428 (King) proposing 148 lots on approximately 99 acres; located immediately north
the existing El Camino Estates residential subdivision along Margarita, and east of the
existing Chumash Village Mobile Home Park (accessed from South Higuera.) This site is
also generally situated along the lower lying slopes of the South Hills between South
Higuera Street and Broad Street.
Collectively these three tract map proposals are referred to as the "Western Enclave" (of the
MASP.)
Vesting Tentative Map VTM #2353 proposes a total of 133 lots designated as follows in
accordance with the MASP:
• 109 lots designated for single family residential use; 83 at low density in the R-I-SP zone, 26
at medium density in the R-2-SP zone
0 12 lots designated for "mixed use" with integrated single family and business park -office
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 66-05 (VTTM #2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw)
\\SLO-SRV1\Library\ESP\SLO Co\SLO, City of\13-01615 SLO, Trcts 2353 & 2428 ISMND\Report\Admin
Draft\Appendices\Attachment 1 - Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 66-05.doc
uses on each lot in the O-SP zone
• 6 lots for exclusive business park -office use in the O-SP zone
I lot designated for condominium medium -high density residential development in the R-2-SP
zone (a portion of the required Affordable Housing Program; the other portion is proposed
in VTM #2428 (King) to be developed by the Housing Authority or other appropriate entity
• 3 lots for "greenway" park use in the R-1- and R-2-SP zones (within PG&E easement) for
common ownership by a Home Owners Association
• 2 lots for "open space -riparian " use in the C/OS-SP zone (drainage way) for common
ownership by a Home Owners Association
Approval of a vesting tentative map confers a "vested right" to develop in substantial compliance
with the ordinances, policies and standards in effect when the application was determined
complete on November 14, 2005, per Chapter 16.34 (Vesting Tentative Maps) of the City's
Municipal Code and Sections 66474.2 and 66498.1 of the California Government Code
(Subdivision Map Act).
In order to obtain public road access, and as required by the MASP, Prado Road needs to be
extended from its current easterly terminus (as a public roadway) from approximately the
southeast corner of Rancho San Luis Mobile Home Park, east to Broad Street. A priority goal of
the MASP is to establish the east -west connection of Prado Road between Broad Street and
South Higuera Street at the earliest possible stage of development. Because the three proposed
tract maps represent the first phase of proposed development in the MASP area, they are
required to design and construct Prado Road to a minimum cross-section as agreed upon by the
City Public Works Director, to provide the desired connection. According to the MASP, one
option to finance the connection is that the City will credit (or pro -rate) the design and
construction costs of the agreed -upon minimum cross section against all Margarita Area impact
fees to be collected with each respective development until the amount offees equals the amount
of construction costs. If the costs of the roadway exceed fee amounts, another financing
mechanism, such as a facilities financing district, may be necessary to complete the project.
The location of site access and internal circulation for VTM 2353 is in accordance with the
Circulation Plan of the MASP. VTM #2353 map proposes primary access initially from South
Higuera Street to the site from the planned extension of Prado Road to the east along the entire
frontage of the Western Enclave development area, and then ultimately farther east to Broad
Street, all in accordance with the requirements of the MASP. The main access will initially be
from Prado Road along proposed interim "D " Street, a proposed Residential Collector street. In
the long run this will be an interim access and "M" Street, farther to the east will become the
primary permanent access. The internal street layout for this map interconnects to the two other
adjacent Western Enclave developments (via "C" Street to VTM #2342/Cowan and via "D " and
"F" Streets to VTM #2428/King). The location of these accesses to the site as well as the other
proposed streets to complete circulation internal to the subject VTM #2428, are all located in
accordance with the Circulation Plan of the MASP). Although not specifically called for in the
MASP, this subdivision does propose a second primary access into Western Enclave area
through this site, which has been deemed suitable and desirable by the Public Works
Department. See Part 15 below for further analysis of this aspect of the proposal.
.�t�M CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 66-05 (VTTM #2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw)
\\SLO-SRV1\Library\ESP\SL0 Co\SLO, City of\13-01615 SLO, Trcts 2353 & 2428 ISMND\Report\Admin
Draft\Appendices\Attachment 1 - Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 66-05.doc
Also proposed is a 12' Class I shared pedestrian/bicycle path within Greenway Lots 131, 132, &
133 extending from the roundabout proposed at the terminus of Margarita Avenue at the west
edge of the site connecting to proposed "L " Street along the easterly edge of the site. Open
Space Lots 31 and 38 are sized to accommodate protection of or avoidance of interference with
special concern species and habitat, in accordance with biological resource protection
objectives of the MASP.
As specified in the MASP, the Affordable Housing objectives of the plan are to be achieved by
two separate parcels within the Western Enclave in order to provide a total of 47 units; Lot 105
of the subject map is proposed to provide 23 of the units. Lot 105 is being created for dedication
to the San Luis Obispo County Housing Authority or equivalent entity once the units are built.
Lot 147 of proposed VTM #2428 (King) will accommodate the other 24 units in similar fashion,
on a lot to be dedicated to the Housing Authority or equivalent once the units are built.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
The project site, 408 Prado Road, is located generally in the southern part of San Luis Obispo.
The site is situated on the north side of Prado Road east and immediately adjacent to the site for
proposed VTM #2342, and east of the existing residential subdivision along Margarita Avenue,
and south of the site proposed for VTM #2428 (King). Lands to the east (owned by Damon and
Garcia families) and south (owned by L.J. and A.P. Martinelli) are primarily undeveloped lands
or used agriculturally. The MASP/AASP EIR describes the site as lying, generally at the lower
lying slopes of the toe of South Hills in an area characterized as Perennial Grassland with
patches of Valley Needlegrass Grassland surrounding a small area of previously active
agricultural field and a related home site. The site transmits area runoff through a natural
channel or swale across the north easterly corner of the site (extending out of the proposed VTM
# 2428 (King) subdivision). This swale is well -enough defined as to be designated by the MASP
as "Open Space -Riparian " and as such, is proposed for preservation in its natural state within
the subdivision. This drainage way also contains habitat suitable for special concern species,
and is to be preserved in "open space" not only as a component of the Western Enclave
biological mitigation program, but also to function as a component of the sub -regional drainage
plan devised for the Western Enclave developments, in accordance with objectives of the MASP.
Lands to the east and south also lie within the MASP and aer currently used agriculturally or
are vacant or undeveloped.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
Approval of Vesting Tentative Map VTM #2353
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
Air Pollution Control District (Permit to Construct, Permit to Operate)
Water Quality Control Board (NPDESpermit-including Phase II & SWPPP)
California Department of Fish and Game
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 66-05 (VTTM #2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw)
\\SLO-SRV1\Library\ESP\SLO Co\SLO, City of\13-01615 SLO, Trcts 2353 & 2428 ISMND\Report\Hdmin
Draft\Hppen dices\Attachment 1 - Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 66-05.doc
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.
FISH AND GAME FEES
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a
de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
X
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has
been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
X State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 66-05 (VTTM #2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw)
\\SLO-SRV1\Library\ESP\SLO Co\SLO, City oA13-01615 SLO, Trcts 2353 & 2428 ISMND\Report\Admin
Draft\Appendices\Attachment 1 - Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 66-05.doc
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
X
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature
Ron Whisenand, Deputy Director
Printed Name
= CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Date
For: John Mandeville,
Community Development Director
INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 66-05 (VTTM #2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw)
\\SLO-SRV1\Library\ESP\SLO Co\SLO, City of\13-01615 SLO, Trcts 2353 & 2428 ISMND\Report\Admin
Draft\Appendices\Attachment 1 - Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 66-05.doc
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 analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is
based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well
as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each
issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are
one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures listed below), "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced.
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California
Code of Regulations.) Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 18 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.
C) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent
to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 66-05 (VTTM #2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw)
\\SLO-SRV1\Library\ESP\SLO Co\SLO, City of\13-01615 SLO, Trcts 2353 & 2428 ISMND\Repor Admin
Draft\Appendices\Attachment 1 - Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 66-05.doc
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
ER # 66-05
Issues
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
1. AESTHETICS. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
1, 2,
X
3,8,9
1, 2,
X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources', including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic
3, 8, 9
buildings, within a local or state scenic highway?
1, 2,
X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
9
rio
Xadversety
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
effect day or nighttime views in"the area?
, 9
Evaluation
a) The primary scenic value from within and around the Western Enclave area is the view to the north and northeast of the
South Hills. The prior MASP/AASP EIR determined that the implementation of the Specific Plan would result inevitably
in a change of character of the plan areas from a generally semi -rural to an urban developed setting. Urban development
will cause irreversible changes in the visual character from that of undeveloped and low density semi -rural area to a more
intensely developed, suburban area. The project site is situated alongside the lower slopes of the toe of the South Hills, the
upper elevations of which, together with the natural drainage ways out of the hills, are designated for "Open Space" by the
MASP in order to protect these more significant visual (and associated biological) resources. The project complies with
aesthetic -related stipulations of the MASP affecting scenic resources by designating Lots 31 and 38 as Open Space lots
alongside the natural drainage way transmitting area run-off out of the South Hills. The subject site does not contain any of
the "Open Space -Hills" designation, is proposed to be developed in accordance with land use designations of the MASP,
and therefore will not impinge on the visual resource that is the South Hills. Thus, the project will result in no impact to the
view of the South Hills.
b) See discussion a) above. There are no historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway in the project vicinity that
will be impacted by the proposed development. Thus, this impact is less than significant.
c) The existing visual character or quality of the site will change from semi -rural to urban developed as a result of
urbanization of the area pursuant to and consistent with the objectives of the MASP. The VTM project is required to be
consistent with the lay -out and distribution of land uses and design standards stated in the MASP to ensure that the
appearance of the development is acceptable and that no new buildings block scenic views. Therefore, the project as
proposed, together with conditions of approval, is consistent with the MASP. Through conditions of approval the project
will be further required to comply with City codes and standards some of which impact aesthetics. Ultimately the design of
both proposed housing and commercial buildings will require the review and approval of the Architectural Review
Commission (ARC) to ensure consistency with the City's Community Design Guidelines as well as the MASP. Impacts
resulting from the project will be less than significant.
d) The prior MASP/AASP EIR acknowledges that future development pursuant to the MASP will introduce new sources
of light, glare and nighttime illumination, as is typical with residential and commercial development. However, the
MASP/AASP EIR determined that such light and glare impacts (LU-7) can be mitigated to less than significant at the site
specific project stage through compliance with lighting design standards set forth in the MASP and with other adopted
standards as may be applicable by other City regulations. The new light source subject to mitigation will not adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the urbanized area. Therefore impacts from new sources of light or glare will be less than
significant with mitigation LU-7.1 as specified in the MASP/AASP EIR to be implemented through compliance with the
MASP Community Design standard of Section 3.3-Lighting and accompanying conditions of approval. Building and
parking lot lighting for the commercial portions of the project would also be reviewed and approved by the ARC.
1 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 66-05 (VTTM #2353-Siena Gardens/DeBlauw)
\\SLO-SRV1\Library\ESP\SLO Co\SLO, City of\13-01615 SLO, Trcts 2353 & 2428 ISMND\Repor Admin
Draft\Appendices\Attachment 1 - Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 66-05.doc
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
ER # 66-05
Issues
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Convert 'Prime Farmland, "Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
11
X
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
6
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract?
1, 2, 6
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?
Evaluation:
a) According to the prior MASP/AASP EIR, the Margarita Area (including the Western Enclave area) does not contain any
lands in the stated categories as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, consequently, the project can not result in conversion of such lands to non-agricultural uses.
Therefore, there is no impact.
b) There is no agricultural zoning or Williamson Act Contract in effect on the subject site. Therefore there is no impact..
c) No lands within the Western Enclave (and thereby within the subject site), have been actively farmed recently, so this
project will not result in any direct loss of productive farmland. Other lands in the vicinity of the project site are either
already developed or if within the Margarita Area Specific Plan and in agricultural use (farmland/grazing or open space),
are already slated by the Plan for eventual non-agricultural use whether this project proceeds or not; therefore there is no
direct correlation from this project to any further planned conversions of farmland to non-agricultural uses. The impacts of
conversion of these lands to non-agricultural uses have already been evaluated both in the environmental documents for the
City's Land Use and Circulation Elements and the MASP as significant, irreversible, adverse impacts that could not be
mitigated and the necessary Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted (Resolution No. 9615 (2004 Series) pursuant
to CEQA. Nonetheless, policies of the Land Use Element were adopted to help compensate for, and thereby reduce the
impacts from, productivity lost as a result of the conversions to non-agricultural uses. Specifically, city policy requires
direct dedication of open space areas or payment of in -lieu fees. As noted above, the subject project proposes Lots 31 and
38 as open space to be owned and maintained by a Master Home Owners Association as permanent open space pursuant to
the requirements of the MASP. Therefore, the project is self -mitigating and thus, the project impact is less than significant.
3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
1,3
X
existing or projected air quality violation?
1,3
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
1,3
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
1,3
X
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
1,3
X
e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Evaluation
a-e) According to the prior MASP/AASP EIR, project construction will generate short-term emissions of air pollutants.
w CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO
INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 66-05 (VTTM #2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw)
\\SLO-SRV1\Library\ESP\SLO Co\SLO, City of\13-01615 SLO, Trcts 2353 & 2428 ISMND\Report\Admin
Draft\Appendices\Attachment 1 - Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 66-05.doc
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
ER # 66-05
Issues
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Construction -related emissions would primarily be dust (particulates) generated from soil disturbance and combustion
emissions generated by construction equipment. Such dust generation was determined to be a potentially short-term
significant impact on air quality that could lead to exceedances of established state and federal thresholds for regional or
local air quality or otherwise conflict with City and County air quality plans or program. In addition, the project site is
situated near existing residential units thereby potentially exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations. The MASP/AASP EIR also noted long-term ("operation") air quality impacts would result from on -going
emissions generated by the project -related vehicular trips and development resulting in additional natural gas combustion
for space and water heating and additional fuel combustion at power plants for electricity consumption.
The MASP/AASP EIR concluded that implementation of the Plan, with mitigation measures AIR-1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 2.1set
forth in the EIR brought forward to apply to individual projects, is consistent with the local Clean Air Plan. The EIR also
determined that with adoption of the MASP and its accompanying EIR mitigation measures, further delays in attainment of
state and federal air quality standards would not be expected and thus, air quality impacts resulting from build -out of the
Plan were insignificant. The mitigation measures set forth in the prior MASP/AASP EIR were determined to reduce all the
following impact areas to less than significant: 1) short-term construction -related vehicle emissions and fugitive dust
(PM10), and 2.) long-term operation emissions, including increased vehicle trips resulting from new residential and
commercial development in the MASP..
During Early Consultation for the subject VTM project, the Air Pollution Control District of San Luis Obispo County
commented in a letter dated August 2, 2005 that they support the in -fill nature of the proposed development noting that
such development makes walking, bicycling and public transportation more viable, decreasing dependence on driving and
therefore reducing emissions from motor vehicles. The letter states further that such development is consistent with the land
use goals and policies of the District's Clean Air Plan, consistent with the finding of the MASP/AASP EIR.
The SLO County APCD reiterated in its letter the site mitigations as set forth in MASP/AASP EIR for dust control,
construction vehicle emission control, construction activity pollution controls, and on -gong project operation emission
controls, and noted these measures be incorporated into the project in order to maintain project -related impacts to less than
significant. These requirements will be enforced by the APCD through required Permit to Construct and Permit to Operate
permits and by recommended conditions of approval.
The proposed project is self -mitigating in these regards because the applicant has asserted his commitment by way of
notation on the preliminary grading plans submitted for the project which states: "All requirements of the APCD letter
dated 8102105 shall be complied with and incorporated into project improvement plans. " This component of the applicant's
project description/proposal together with Conditions of Approval assure mitigation measures set forth in the prior EIR are
brought forward to this project. Thus, the project is self -mitigating and the impact is less than significant.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly or '
1, 3,
X
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
12, 13
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional `
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California. Department
of Fish and Came or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
1, 3,
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
12, 13
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Came or U.S.'' Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
1, 3,
X
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
12, 13
ordinance (e.g. Heritage Trees)?
1, 3,
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or miRratory fish or wildlife shies or with established native
12, 13
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 66-05 (VTTM #2353-Sierra Cardens/DeBlauw)
\\SLO-SRV1\Library\ESP\SLO Co\SLO, City of\13-01615 SLO, Trcts 2353 & 2428 ISMND\Report\Admin
Draft\Appendices\Attachment 1 - Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 66-05.doc
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
ER # 66-05
Issues
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with the[. provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation
1, 3,
X
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
12, 13
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
1, 3,
X
f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected
wetlands as defined in Section_404 of the. Clean Water Act
12, 13
(including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
Evaluation:
c) There are no significant specimen or heritage trees on the property. Thus there is no impact from this project.
d) The Margarita Area does not contain any waterways known to be important of viable fisheries, therefore there is not
expected to be any effect on fish species. Due to the relatively poor soils, simple vegetation type (grassland), and general
lack of vegetation diversity, the Western Enclave developments of MASP are not rich in wildlife species and do not form
any kind of nursery or refugium for wildlife species. Therefore it is not expected that the development would interfere
substantially with the movement of any native wildlife species.
e) The City does not have an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan established in the City of San Luis Obispo. Thus there is no impact from
this project.
a)-b), f) The prior FIR prepared for the MASP & AASP conducted extensive biological resource impact analyses and
determined 19 areas of potential significant impact. Of these 19 impacts, 6 (BIO- 3, 4, 10, 15, 18, & 19) were determined
to not be significant and thereby, not requiring mitigation. BIO-9 was ruled out as an impact for the MASP territory, and
therefore is not an impact for the three Western Enclave project sites. The balance of 12 Impacts (BIO-1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11,
12, 13, 14, 16 & 17) were subject to MASP/AASP EIR mitigation requiring further site specific surveys and mapping to
determine if the specie of concern identified in the respective enumerated impacts might occur on the site. Mitigation
Measure 13I0-1.1 stated the performance criteria that if such specie was not found to exist then no further mitigation would
be necessary, but if the specie was found or determined to exist then Mitigation Measure BIO-6.1 outlining the performance
criteria to avoid, minimize, or compensate for significant impacts on those resources as specified by the site specific
biological surveys would be required for affected projects.
The MASP/AASP EIR-required site specific surveys were conducted for the Western Enclave properties during the winter,
spring, and summer of 2005. As a result of these surveys, EIR Impacts BIO-1, 14, & 16 were determined to not be
significant impacts requiring mitigation for the Western Enclave properties. The remaining impacts (BIO-2, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12,
13, & 17) were determined to be applicable to the Western Enclave properties, and in particular, with respect to the subject
VTM #2428, that upper portion of the site lying along the toe of the South Hills and the three drainage ways traversing the
site. Consequently the site is subject to the performance standards to avoid, minimize, or compensate for the impact as set
forth in Mitigation Measure BIO-6.1.
In compliance with one of the performance standards of this mitigation, the Western Enclave applicants have already
prepared and submitted as part of their project proposal a "Comprehensive Mitigation Program" that is applicable to all
three of the Western Enclave sites (as opposed to three individual plans). By integrating all three projects as if they were
one, impacts were able to be addressed by selectively applying mitigation where a beneficial habitat exists naturally and
could thereby be dealt with on one site to the benefit of the other two, garnering a more holistic, rather than piecemeal,
solution. The applicants propose to retain all existing natural drainage ways in their current locations and in their natural
state, as required by the MASP. In addition, the applicants are already in communication with the agencies of jurisdiction
(California Department of Fish and Game. US Fish & Wildlife Service, US Armv Corps of Engineers) regarding acquiring
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 66-05 (VTTM #2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw)
\\SLO-SRV1\Library\ESP\SLO Co\SLO, City of\13-01615 SLO, Trcts 2353 & 2428 ISMND\ReportWdmin
DraftWppendices\Attachment 1 - Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 66-05.doc
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
ER # 66-05
Issues
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
necessary permits for mitigation of impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, (Section 404, etc.) and conditions of approval are
recommended to assure compliance. The wetlands and drainages are afforded further protection as stipulated by the EIR
performance criteria, by providing necessary buffer zones around the features to be protected/preserved.
The findings and recommendations of the "Comprehensive Mitigation Program" as reviewed and modified by City staff are
summarized below:
Biological impacts fall into several categories: wetland impacts; impacts to other sensitive habitats, and impacts to sensitive
species. These are discussed in more detail below for the site specific to the subject map:
Wetland Impacts. All three subdivisions have some impacts to wetlands. Efforts have been made, especially in the King
subdivision, to minimize these through redesign of the lot layout, but there will still be impacts that cannot be avoided if the
project is to proceed as called for in the Margarita Area Specific Plan. The DeBlauw and Cowan subdivisions also have
wetland impacts but these appear to be of a different nature, impacting wetlands that have resulted from grade and drainage
changes caused by human activities in the past. The developers are working on a mitigation program for wetland impacts
that would utilize a nearby property and would meet City, State, and federal mitigation requirements.
Impacts to Sensitive Species. Several species of concern will be impacted by the project: these are mostly plant species,
but also include one potentially affected animal species. These are discussed individually below.
Congdon Tarplant (Hemizonia parryi ssp congdoni). Up to several hundred individuals have been observed in disturbed,
wet ground paralleling Prado Road on the Cowan and DeBlauw properties. This species is concentrated in the San Luis
Obispo area in vernally wet areas that are routinely disturbed, such as by agricultural operations or livestock activities, and
in vernal pools.
Impacts to Other Nesting Birds. It is possible that construction activities during the nesting season could impact nesting
birds, including inadvertent harassment of nesting pairs and destruction of nests
Mitigation Program.
Mitigation for wetland impacts. Mitigation for wetland impacts will be through a combination of on- and off -site
mitigation, approved by the City, the DEG and the Corps. Further, in compliance with the MASP/AASP EIR, the subject
VTM #2342 (Cowan) proposes the creation of Lot Z in an area designated by the MASP for "Open Space -Riparian" for the
express purposes of achieving some of the necessary wetlands replacement mitigation area, as well as preservation of
related biological habitat benefits.
Mitigation for Impacts to Sensitive Species. None of these species are expected to be difficult to establish. City staff will
work with the project sponsors in developing the details of the effort.
Congdon Tarplant. Create compensating habitat in a suitable off -site location approved by the City.
Mitigation for Impacts to Other Nesting Birds. Undertake surveys prior to initiation of construction activities; avoid
construction activities within 100 feet of active nest sites until after young have fledged.
Off Site Mitigation for Wetland Impacts. A further component of the biological mitigation program is the applicant's
proposal to acquire (by fee, easement, or eminent domain) lands outside the bounds of the Western Enclave (designated by
the MASP as "Open Space -Riparian" lands). The targeted property (lying south of Prado Road and owned by Unocal) is a
low lying area that already naturally collects some area run-off and provides valuable habitat for certain special concern and
R-T-E (rare, threatened, and endangered) species, and thus is beneficial to retain in its natural state. Pre -development run-
off has resulted in seasonal flooding of Prado Road due to they currently deficient collection/distribution system to this
natural drainage area south of Prado Road.. The Western Enclave applicants propose to acquire this off -site property
CITY OF SAN LUIS Obspo 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 66-05 (VTTM #2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw)
\\SLO-SRV1\Library\ESP\SLO Co\SLO, City of\13-01615 SLO, Trcts 2353 & 2428 ISMND\Report\Admin
Draft\Appendices\Attachment 1 - Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 66-05.doc
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
hnpact
ER # 66-05
Issues
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
designated for open space use by the MASP and utilize it beneficially for biological mitigation as well as a detention basin
for pre- and post -Western Enclave development generated run-off. It is proposed that this basin be enhanced to
accommodate the greater project -generated and pre -project run-off flows, and to increase its habitat value in the long term.
The basin is proposed to be held and maintained by a Master Home Owners Association (MHOA) established initially for
the Western Enclave area, and perhaps ultimately for the entire MASP as stipulated be done by the MASP.
As noted, the developments have been designed so as to avoid any disturbance to the natural drainage channels. In order to
accommodate this, a storm drainage system is proposed to capture all surface flow from the improvements and convey it on
through the watershed. Naturally occurring drainage from the upper reaches of the watershed will be allowed to continue to
flow through the developments via the existing natural drainage channels [proposed to be preserved in Open Space,
particularly Lots 142-146 & 148 in the subject maps. However, development -generated run-off will be conveyed via
separate installed infrastructure & treatment facilities required for the subdivisions, and transported to the proposed off -site
sub -regional drainage basin.]
The proposed off -site detention basin and drainages (preserved in common by a MHOA as open channels) will be vegetated
with local native, suitable grasses and other plant material, and with the assistance of composite turf reinforcement fabric,
will allow for the formation of additional seasonal wetlands. As the channels and basin are lined with the turf
reinforcement fabric, any additional bank stabilization that will be needed should be achieved. Additionally, outlets into the
basin will have substantial energy dissipation structures, as required to remove any erosion and sedimentation potential.
Once the wetlands within the channels and basin have been allowed to fully establish themselves, it is anticipated that some
of the wildlife, which will take seasonal refuge within these wetlands, will assist with keeping growth of the vegetation
under control.
Inclusion of the above mitigations reduce the impacts to a level of less than significant.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of'a
1, 3,
X
historic resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
10,
19,20
1, 3,
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
10,
19,20
1, 3,
X
c) -Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologicfeature?
10,
,2
1,3
X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
10,
19,20
Evaluation
(a-b) The MASP and MASP/AASP EIR determined, by way of Mitigation Measure CR-l.l that further on -site surface
surveys be done in conjunction with each site specific development proposal and that if resources are found that cannot be
avoided should be evaluated through additional research and test excavations to determine whether the resources found
meet CEQA or National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) significance criteria. The first part of this mitigation has been
satisfied for this property in two ways: 1.) The required Phase I (surface) survey for archaeological resources was
conducted by Heritage Discoveries, Inc. of San Luis Obispo, CA for the entire Western Enclave area and a written report,
dated May 31, 2005, was submitted to the City, and 2.) A Historical Evaluation of the small farm house at the subject site,
the only structures within the Western Enclave area, was also performed by Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants
of San Luis Obispo, CA and a written report dated April 2005 submitted to the City. This latter report concluded that the
research conducted on the property revealed no evidence of historical significance, and therefore there will be no significant
impact resulting from the removal of the house.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 66-05 (VTTM #2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw)
\\SLO-SRV1\Library\ESP\SLO Co\SLO, City of\13-01615 SLO, Trcts 2353 & 2428 ISMND\Report\Admin
Draft\Appendices\Attachment 1 - Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 66-05.doc
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
ER # 66-05
Issues
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
The archaeological report however, found and completed a site record for, a small archaeological site of unspecified
significance within the subject project site area. The report recommends that a Phase II subsurface test is now required at
this recorded site to complete the required mitigation, but such survey will not affect and therefore does not impact the
subject project going forward, unless the Phase II survey determines significance criteria for a unique resource (as defined
in CEQA) or evidence of a qualifying historical site per NRHP has been met. In this instance Mitigation Measure CR-1.1
states that if avoidance of the resource is not possible, then the impact to the resource shall be mitigated in consultation with
the lead agency and any or all of the following measures may be needed:
1.) A data recovery program consisting of archaeological excavation to retrieve the important data from the
archaeological site;
2.) Development and implementation ofpublic interpretation plans for both prehistoric and historic sites;
3.) Preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction of historic structures according to the Secretary of Interior
Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties;
4.) Construction of new structures in a manner consistent with the historic character of the region; and
5.) Treatment of historic landscapes according to the Secretary of Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic Landscapes.
If the project involves a federal agency, and is therefore subject to a MOA, the inventory, evaluation, and treatment
processes will be coordinated with that federal agency to ensure that the work conducted will also comply with Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act.
Thus, the project impact is potentially significant without mitigation of a Phase II subsurface survey.
c-d) The project site is located in an area that does not contain any unique geological feature and possesses no known
unique paleontological resources. The project area has been part of two general cultural resource field surveys. As a result
of these field surveys, there are no known historical or archaeological resources that are associated with the project site.
Therefore there is no impact.
d) There is no evidence available that suggests human remains are known to exist within the project boundaries. Therefore,
there is no impact.
6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
1, 2, 3
X
b) Use non-renewable resources in awasteful and inefficient
1, 2, 3
X
manner?
1, 2, 3
X
c) Result in the toss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
State?
Evaluation:
a) b) The project will not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans nor will it promote the use of non-renewable
resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. The future development of the site must comply with the policies contained
in the General Plan Energy Element that states: "New development will be encouraged to minimize the use of conventional
energy for space heating and cooling, water heating, and illumination by means of proper design and orientation, including
the provision and protection of solar exposure." The project will also be subject to Architectural Review that will ensure
consistency with City energy conservation goals and policies, and regulations. This impact is less than significant.
c) There are no known mineral resources on the project site that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
State.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject:
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 66-05 (VTTM #2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw)
\\SLO-SRV1\Library\ESP\SLO Co\SLO, City ofl13-01615 SLO, Trcts 2353 & 2428 ISMND\Report\Admin
Draft\Appendices\Attachment 1 - Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 66-05.doc
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
ER # 66-05
Issues
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
1, 2, 3,
X
effects, including risk of loss, injury or deathinvolving:
5, 7, 17
1, 2, 3,
X
1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated in the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
5, 7, 17
issued by, the State Geologist for the area, or based on other
substantial' evidence' of a known fault?
1, 2, 3,
X
II. Strong seismic ground shaking?
5, 7, 17
1, 2, 3,
X
III. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
5, 7, 17
1, 2, 3,
X
IV. Landslides or mudflows?
5, 7, 17
1, 2, 3,
X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
5, 7, 17
1, 2, 3,
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 ;;
5, 7, 17
result in on or off site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
1, 2, 3,
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),'creating substantial risks to life
5, 7, 17
or property?
Evaluation:
a)-d): The initial study prepared for the MASP/AASP projects found that all the above -stated effects from implementation
of both plans would be less than significant and therefore the MASP/AASP EIR conducted no further evaluations. There is
no new evidence to suggest there would be any site specific impacts that were not adequately anticipated or evaluated in the
prior environmental documents. The preliminary grading plan prepared for the subdivision is consistent with City code.
The final grading plan of the proposed subdivision will be in accordance with the Geotechnical Engineer's
recommendations and the California Building Code adopted by the City and modified by City regulations. Thus, the
project impact is less than significant.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pro'ect:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
1, 3,
X
through the routine use, transport or disposal of hazardous
14
materials?
1, 3,
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
14
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
1, 3,
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter
14
mile of an existing or proposed school?
1, 3,
X
d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous
emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
14
substances, or waste?
1, 3,
X
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
14
65962.5 and, as a result, it would create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
1 1, 2, 1
1
1
X
f) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or within
INITIAL
STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
CITY OF SAN LUIS Omspo 15
ER 66-05 (VTTM #2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw)
\\SLO-SRV1\Library\ESP\SLO Co\SLO, City of\13-01615 SLO, Trcts 2353 & 2428 ISMND\Report\Admin
Draft\Appendices\Attachment 1 - Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 66-05.doc
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
ER # 66-05
Issues
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
two miles of a public airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for the people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with, the
3,14
1, 2,
X
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
3,14
plan?
1, 2,
X
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose, injury,
or death, involving wildland fires; including where wildlands
3, 14
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are
intermixed with wildlands?
Evaluation:
a), b), d): The prior EIR determined that historical agricultural activities and surrounding industrial activities of the
Margarita Area may have released hazardous materials into the environment. Hazardous materials releases may have
involved leaking underground or aboveground storage tanks, or similar events from other nearby properties that store or
handle hazardous or toxic materials. Construction -related and ground disturbing activities may involve the use of materials
that could contaminate nearby soils and water resources in the project area. Existence of such potential hazards could cause
construction workers and other people to be exposed to dust or emissions containing such hazardous materials or to organic
pesticides, herbicides, and other hazardous materials. The prior MASP/AASP EIR further determined impacts related to
development of allowed business park land uses could result in operations -related exposures to hazardous materials and
short-term surface water quality degradation from accidental release of hazardous materials during construction; areas of
concern within the Margarita Area included mention of Acacia Creek. The prior MASP/AASP EIR required the following
mitigation measures that would reduce such impacts to less than significant:
HAZ-1.1: Implement a construction -related hazardous materials management plan
HAZ-1.2: If presence of hazardous materials is suspected or encountered during construction -related
activities,
conduct a Phase I and possibly Phase II Environmental Site Assessment to determine soil or
groundwater contamination.
HAZ-2.1: Implement an operations -related hazardous materials management plan.
With respect to required mitigation measure HAZ-1.1, the applicant already prepared and submitted the results of Phase I
ESA for the subject site, as required by City application submittal requirements. Said Assessment, dated June 30, 2005,
was prepared by Geo-Solutions, Inc., a firm qualified to prepare such assessments. The Assessment found that there are no
recognized environmental conditions at the site or in connection with the site that could be affected by roadway or utility
alignments, and in the author's expert judgment, no further inquiry regarding potential or recognized environmental
conditions is required for past uses of the site (No Phase II ESA, required.) The site investigation revealed the presence of
a residential structure, older vehicles, vehicle parts, miscellaneous furniture around the structure. North of the structure two
55-gallon barrels, empty fuel tanks, car batteries, used plaster, automobiles, and scrap wood were observed. The report
acknowledges the presence of potential historical off -site contamination concerns to the west of the site involving the site of
proposed VTM #2342 (please refer to Initial Study for that project for further information), but notes the corrective action
plans achieved in regard to that contamination together with the 500-foot separation between that site and the subject site,
groundwater gradient direction (away from the subject site) and current below threshold concentration levels, this effects to
the subject site are considered low. The report conclusion recommended that the two 55-gallon barrels, fuel tanks,
automobile parts, and household trash be removed from the site and properly disposed of at an approved landfill site. This
can all be accomplished in conjunction with demolition/removal of the existing structures during site preparation activities
for construction of the subdivision. The conclusions of this professionally prepared Phase I assessment confirms there is no
impact with regard to any existing known conditions at the site. However, as a further precaution, as noted by
MASP/AASP EIR Mitigation HAZ-1.1, if during construction activities suspected or actual hazardous materials are
encountered, then the mitigation stipulated by HAZ-1.2 is required. This impact is therefore less than significant with
mitijzation.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 66-05 (VTTM #2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw)
\\SLO-SRV1\Library\ESP\SLO Co\SLO, City of\13-01615 SLO, Trcts 2353 & 2428 ISMND\Report\Admin
Draft\Appendices\Attachment 1 - Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 66-05.doc
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
ER # 66-05
Issues
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Since the subject project involves development of business park -office uses there is, as stated in the MASP/AASP EIR
potential for impacts related to business park office development or uses that would involve the handling or disposal of
materials used onsite, or the delivery, use, manufacture and/or storage of various chemicals necessary to perform
manufacturing and business park activities. Therefore, Mitigation Measure HAZ-2.1 above is applicable to the subject
project and therefore is required to be brought forward as a condition of approval. Thus, this impact is less than significant
with miti ation.
Although Acacia Creek does not lie within the Western Enclave area of the MASP, there are other natural drainage ways
within this and the two other related Western Enclave development sites that contain biological resource values required by
the MASP to be protected and preserved. Therefore, there is still potential for on -site construction of roadways,
infrastructure and building sites to involve handling and disposal of materials used or produced onsite, such as petroleum
products, concrete, and sanitary waste that have the potential to adversely impact these drainages if proper precautions are
not implemented. Therefore, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.1 above is applicable to the subject site and is therefore required
to be brought forward as a condition of approval. According to the MASP/AASP EIR, said Construction -Related
Hazardous Materials Management Plan is required to outline specific protocol to identify health risks associated with
presence and handling of chemical compounds and identify specific protective measures to be followed by the workers in
the work area to prevent or avoid improper release or accidental disposals that would result in soil and/or groundwater
contamination. By incorporating the stated mitigation HAZ-1.1 above as condition of approval this impact will remain less
than significant with mitigation.
c) The project site is not located within a one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Thus, there is no impact.
e) The project site is not 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 not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
Thus, there is no impact.
f) The project site is located in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, and is subject to the County
Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). In its adoption of the MASP, the City Council already found the MASP to be consistent
with the ALUP. It follows, therefore, that because the subject project and proposed residential uses and densities are
compliant with the MASP, the project is also compatible with the policies and objectives of the Airport Land Use Plan.
Thus there is no impact.
g) The project and its proposed circulation and land use plan has been reviewed by the Fire Marshall who has
recommended conditions of approval which will assure compliance with adopted fire/emergency-related codes. The Fire
Marshall has provided no expert evidence that said proposal will impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, the
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plans of the City. Thus, the impact is less than significant.
h) The project site is not in an area identified as subject to wildland fire hazards. Thus there is no impact.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
1, 2,
X
requirements?
3, 16
1, 2,
X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
3, 16
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level ('e.g. The production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses for which permits have been granted)?
1, 2,
1
X
c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or
3, 16
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 66-05 (VTTM #2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw)
\\SLO-SRV1\Library\ESP\SLO Co\SLO, City ofl13-01615 SLO, Trcts 2353 & 2428 ISMND\Report\Admin
Draft\Appendices\Attachment 1 - Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 66-05.doc
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
ER # 66-05
Issues
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
(including, but not limit
springs, creeks, streams,
bays, ocean, etc.)?
d)
Substantially alter the e
area in a manner which
siltation onsite or offsit
e)
Substantially alter the e
area in a manner which
onsite or offsite?
f)
Place housing within a
on a Federal Flood Haz
Map or other flood haza
g)
Place within a 100-year
would impede or redire
h)
Will the project introdu
ground or surface water
i)
Will the project alter gr(
a) The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. According to the prior
MASP/AASP EIR, development associated with the project will require issuance of an NPDES general construction
activity storm water permit by the Central Coast RWQCB. Completion of this project would ensure that construction -
related discharges are limited or adequately accommodated by properly engineered infrastructure design. Thus, the impact
is considered less than significant.
b) The project will be served by the City's sewer and water systems and will not use or 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 .
c), e) According to the prior MASP/AASP EIR, construction of the proposed project as part of the urbanization of the
Western Enclave Area would result in an increase of impervious surfaces that would cause the timing and amount of
surface water runoff to increase. However, the project is subject to the revised City Storm Drain Master Plan/Waterways
Management Plan that discusses the necessary improvements that would ensure adequate transmission and detention of
storm water flow created by any new development and thus potential impacts resulting from increased development -related
run-off was determined by the MASP/AASP EIR to be less than significant, and no mitigation required. To ensure that
runoff levels will be equal to or less than existing levels, all storm water runoff will be contained in detention basins and
drained at a rate not to exceed the 2-year undeveloped flow rate. In addition, according to the MASP a series of basins will
be constructed to detain storm water runoff within the area. In this instance the Western Enclave developers propose one
off -site detention basin to accept development -generated run-off from all three subdivisions, together with existing area
run-off that historically creates flooding at the concrete box culvert under Prado Road that is insufficient to accept and
transmit existing area run-off. The design, location, and maintenance of the detention basins will be subject to the approval
of the City Engineer. In the event such off -site basin cannot be achieved, then, alternately, each subdivision will be
responsible for providing its own on -site basin to the approval of the City Engineer as stipulated in the MASP. Thus, the
impact of the project is less than significant.
f), g) The project does not 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 nor will it impede or redirect water flows
that will cause a flood hazard to surrounding areas. Thus, there is no impact.
to the mior MASP/AASP EIR, the vroiect could Dotentially introduce tvvical storm water vollutants into
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 66-05 (VTTM #2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw)
\\SLO-SRV1\Library\ESP\SLO Co\SLO, City of\13-01615 SLO, Trcts 2353 & 2428 ISMND\ReportWdmin
DraftWppendicesWttachment 1 - Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 66-05.doc
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
ER # 66-05
Issues
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
ground or surface waters during construction activities and as a result of ongoing use of the project area. As a result, the
development would require issuance of an NPDES general construction activity permit by the Central Coast RWQCB.
Completion of this permit process would ensure that construction -related discharges were limited. Because ongoing use of
the project area for residential and commercial uses would also increase the potential for discharge of chemicals, oils and
fuels, and waste into projected waterways; the requirement for the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs)
must be established to greatly reduce the potential for unwanted runoff. Therefore, implementation of the BMPs on the
project will reduce impact to less than significant level.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with applicableland use plan, policy, or regulation of
1, 2, 3
X
an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
1, 2, 3
X
b) Physically divide an established community?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
1, 2, 3
X
community conservationplans?
Evaluation:
a) The project is located in an area designated by the MASP for low density residential, medium density residential,
medium high density & business park office uses. The City's Open Space Element requires developments to include buffer
areas next to wetlands and creeks to protect riparian habitat. The project is providing the minimum required setback for the
small creek located along the northeast corner of the project site. The subdivision of the property residential uses and
business park office uses does not conflict with any plan or policy adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect. Thus there is no impact. (See related discussion above under Part 4. Biological Resources.)
b) The project will not physically divide an established community, because the project is a logical and orderly extension of
the planned land uses and development that are already established and planned for within the surrounding area. The
project area will result in business park offices along Prado Road and low -density residential alongside existing residential
units on the northern end of the project site, all as specified by the MASP. Thus, there is no impact.
c) The project site is not located within a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Thus, there is
no impact. (See related discussion above under Part 4. Biological Resources.)
11. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of people to or generation of "unacceptable" noise
1, 2, 3
X
levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise
Element, or general noise levels in excess of standards
established in the Noise Ordinance?
1, 2, 3
X
b) A substantial temporary, periodic,' or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
1, 2, 3
X
c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
1, 2, 3
X
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or 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?
luation:ccording
r
to the previous MASP/AASP EIR, the proposed project is located in an area zoned for residential and
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 66-05 (VTTM #2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw)
\\SL0-SRV1\Library\ESP\SL0 Co\SLO, City of\13-01615 SLO, Trcts 2353 & 2428 ISMND\Report\Admin
Draft\Appendices\Attachment 1 - Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 66-05.doc
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
ER # 66-05
Issues
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
business land uses that are predicted to be exposed to traffic noise levels that exceed the Noise Element standard of 60
decibels (dB). This is particularly true for lots adjacent to Prado Road which will function, when fully built, as a major
east -west arterial, connecting South Higuera and Broad Street and will carry large volumes of traffic. Consequently, to
avoid the effects of such traffic related noise to sensitive residential receptors, the MASP established a setback for
residential uses of 157 feet measured from the centerline of Prado Road, the projected location of the 60 dB CNEL noise
level contour, considered the acceptable threshold for residential uses by the City Noise Element. Consequently, although
the MASP would otherwise allow mixed use office and residential within the BP-O zone, the site specific project proposes
no residential uses mixed with business park -office uses in the lots 1-6 fronting on Prado Road, as nearly all portions of
these lots lie within the 157 foot setback. The remaining Lots 7-18 will be able to contain the desired mix of residential and
office uses as they have suitable building areas that lie outside the required 157-foot setback that can be utilized for the
residential uses. In this regard the project proposal and design is self -mitigating. Thus there is no impact.
According to the MASP/AASP EIR, the proposed project is located in an area zoned for residential land uses that are
predicted to be exposed to traffic noise levels resulting from new roadways within the development. Such traffic -related
noise levels are expected to exceed the maximum exterior noise planning standard of 60 Ld /CNEL dB (day -night average
sound level; or 24-hour average community noise equivalent level, in decibels) or to exceed allowable thresholds of
stationary noise sources as set forth in Table 2 of the Noise Element. However, the EIR concludes that this impact is less -
than -significant since in order for a subdivision map to be approved it must be fully compliant with the entirety of the
City's General Plan. As such, the project is required to be consistent with the Specific Plan standards for road noise
mitigation and outdoor noise reduction as well as subject to mitigation measures listed and already adopted in the City's
General Plan Noise Element. The applicable mitigation measures are any or all of those listed in Policy 8 of the Noise
Element which, based upon the conclusions of a site specific noise measurement, are shown by a qualified expert
performing said study are necessary to achieve the 60 Ld /CNEL dB standard within the outdoor activity exposure area.
Conditions of approval require that measures contained in the City's Noise Guidebook and as deemed necessary by the
qualified acoustic consultant shall be incorporated into the design of the buildings to ensure that noise impacts are reduced
to achieve the performance thresholds set forth herein and in the City Noise Element.. Implementation of this condition
will assure the impact remains less -than -significant.
b) Site development will result in increases in ambient noise levels, but not to significant levels, since by operation of
mitigation requirements set forth in a) above, noise increases that would affect ambient levels are to be reduced to
thresholds determined to be acceptable in residential areas. Therefore, impacts to permanent ambient noise levels are less
than significant.
Project construction or other temporary or periodic noise generation may result in temporary increases (spikes) inn ambient
noise levels. Since there is no way to predict the origin or duration of these types of noise sources for this development, it
can only be regulated if found to be a nuisance by the City's Noise Ordinance. If noise levels exceed the Noise Ordinance
thresholds, the property owner would be subject to possible citations and corrective actions to eliminate or reduce such
noise to non -nuisance levels. The significance of this impact is too speculative to determine; compliance with the Noise
Ordinance is presumed to adequately abate potential periodic nuisance noise. Thus, there is no impact.
c) The project will not expose people to the generation of excessive groundborne noise levels or vibrations. Thus, there is
no impact.
d) The project is located in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, and is subject to the County
Airport Land Use Plan. According to the prior MASP/AASP EIR, the project is not within the 60 or 65 dBA-CNEL
contour line. However, due to projected future aircraft over flight, the project is required by the MASP/AASP EIR and
MASP to implement design features to ensure compatibility with the Airport and thereby control indoor noise levels.
Design features must control for indoor noise to not exceed 45 dB Community Noise Equivalent Level, and a 60 dB
maximum for aircraft single events. Implementation of mitigation as specified in the MASP/AASP EIR and Plan will
result in the impact being less -than -significant.
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 66-05 (VTTM #2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw)
\\SLO-SRV1\Library\ESP\SLO Co\SLO, City of\13-01615 SLO, Trcts 2353 & 2428 ISMND\Report\Admin
Draft\Appendices\Attachment 1 - Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 66-05.doc
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
ER # 66-05
Issues
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
1, 2, 3
X
(for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through', extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
1, 2, 3
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Evaluation:
a) The added population growth caused by this project is within the General Plan's projection and will not result in
population exceeding local and regional growth projections. Therefore, the impact of inducing substantial population
growth to the planning area would be less than significant.
b) The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped land; therefore, housing or people will not be displaced as a result of
the project. Thus, there is no impact.
13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision, or need, of new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
1, 2, 3
X
1, 2, 3
X
b) Police protection?
1, 2, 3
X
c) Schools?
1, 2, 3
X
d), Parks?
1, 2, 3
X
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure?
1, 2, 3
X
Other public facilities?
Evaluation:
a), b), d), e), & f) The MASP/AASP EIR determined that implementation and build out of the MASP will not result in any
significant impacts related to any of the above -listed services due to the ability to off -set service needs through the City's
Development Impact Fee program established via the City General Plan and augmented by the development fee program in
the MASP and concluded that no mitigation was necessary. There is no new evidence that the subject project, proposed to
carry out the development intended by the MASP as evaluated by the MASP/AASP FIR will result in any adverse impacts
to these services. And further, the project will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of, or need for, new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which might have the potential
to cause significant environmental impacts. In accordance with the MASP, the project is subject to City and MASP
established Development Impact Fees that are charged in conjunction with approval of development projects to offset costs
associated with increases in demand of public services. Thus, the impact is less than significant.
c) The school districts in the state have the authority to collect fees at the time of building permits to offset the costs to
finance school site acquisition and school construction, and said fees, when collected by local school districts, are deemed
by State law constitute adequate mitigation for all school facility requirements.. Section 65955 of the Government Code
prohibits the City from denying a subdivision or collecting any fees beyond those required by the school district to mitigate
effects associated with inadequate school facilities. Any increases in demand on school facilities caused by the project are
considered to be mitigated by the district's collection of adopted fees at the time of building permit issuance for each
residential and commercial building. Thus, there is no impact.
14. RECREATION. Would theproject:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or X
M CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 21 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 66-05 (VTTM #2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw)
\\SLO-SRV1\Library\ESP\SLO Co\SLO, City of\13-01615 SLO, Trcts 2353 & 2428 ISMND\Report\Admin
Draft\Appendices\Attachment 1 - Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 66-05.doc
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
ER # 66-05
Issues
Unaess
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
other recreationalfacilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational' facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
Evaluation:
a) & b) The build -out of the project will add to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. The MASP has
anticipated this demand by designating certain lands within the Plan area for "Sports Fields" (already built) and
"Neighborhood Park" for active recreational use and other areas for "Open Space -Hills" or "Open Space -Riparian" for
more passive recreation/aesthetic amenities (e.g. walking or bicycling paths and trails) intended more for use by adjacent or
nearby residents. No portions of the subject site are designated by the MASP for either of the active recreation land use
designations. The project is consistent with MASP insofar as said plan does designate a portion of the subject site for
"Open Space -Riparian" which the proposal meets by designating that area (proposed Lot 31 & 38) for open space use. The
MASP/AASP EIR determined that while build -out of the MASP will generate increased demand for recreational facilities,
the impact is less than significant due to the adoption through the MASP of 533 acres of additional parks and open space
land use designations (lying outside the Western Enclave development area.)
The MASP also specifies that developers will contribute to the construction of public park facilities through the payment of
City-, as well as, MASP-adopted Park Improvement Fees to offset costs associated with increases in demand and services
as it relates to maintaining City-wide public park areas. Thus_, the construction of the project will have a less than
significant impact on parks or other recreational facilities.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to
1, 2,
X
the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system?
3,4
1, 2,
X
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management
3,4
agency for designated roads and highways?
1, 2,
X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.
3,4
farm equipment)?
1, 2, 3
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite?''
1, 2, 3
X
1, 2, 3
X
f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
1, 2, 3
X
g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land
Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,
noise, or a change in air trafficpatterns?
Evaluation:
a), b) The subject project proposed in accordance to the MASP and AASP and the City General Plan will increase traffic in
the area, but not in relation to load and capacity of project area streets, existing or as projected currently, nor will increased
traffic exceed established acceptable level of service (LOS) threshold (adopted at LOS "D" by the City General Plan) for
San Luis Obispo as discussed in the MASP/AASP EIR, except for the Prado Road/South Higuera Street intersection. The
Circulation Plan of the MASP (as well as the Circulation Plan of the AASP and Circulation Element of the City General
Plan) identifies the essential primary road system that will be needed to accommodate development within the plan area and
surrounding growth areas of the City at this threshold. The MASP/AASP EIR determined that the circulation plans of these
planning documents are for the most part self -mitigating in that 1.) Roadway alignments, road extensions, and new
intersections are designed and will be built in response to traffic projected at build -out and, 2.) Development projects in the
Airport and Margarita Specific Plan areas will also contribute their fair share either through adopted Traffic Impact Fees,
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 22 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 66-05 (VTTM #2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw)
\\SLO-SRV1\Library\ESP\SLO Co\SLO, City ot\13-01615 SLO, Trcts 2353 & 2428 ISMND\Report\Admin
Draft\Appendices\A tachment 1 - Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 66-05.doc
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
ER # 66-05
Issues
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
MASP development impact fees, assessments or dedications to specified roadway improvements (EIR page 3D-29). The
primary self -mitigating traffic feature of the MASP is the Plan's requirement that Prado Road be extended easterly, from its
current terminus just east of South Higuera Street, all the way to Broad Street, thus providing a major new divided 4-lane
east -west cross town arterial connector in the southerly area of San Luis Obispo. Conditions of approval are recommended
that would require improvements to Prado Road as stipulated by the MASP and MASP/AASP EIR. The project will be
conditioned to provide build -out of Prado Road commensurate with the development of the subject site together with the
other two developments within the Western Enclave, as required by the MASP and as recommended by the City Public
Works Dept. In addition, the subject proposal's proposed street system internal to the subdivision conforms to the MASP
Circulation Plan.
The extension of Prado Road, as a designated "highway/regional route", together with AASP required roadway
improvements (particularly Tank Farm Road) will accommodate cumulative traffic increases in the area and will mostly
maintain at the acceptable LOS of "D" or better, except as noted above regarding the intersection of Prado Road and South
Higuera Street. At the time of adoption of the Airport Area Specific Plan (Ref. Resolution 9726-2205 Series) adopted by
the City Council August 23, 2005, almost a year after the adoption of the MASP, it was determined potential and proposed
development circumstances had changed sufficiently in the Airport Area since the adoption of the MASP, such that Level
of Service (LOS) at the intersection of Prado Road and South Higuera Street would decline from LOS "D" (as found in the
MASP/AASP EIR) to LOS "E". As a result, the City Council Resolution No. 9726 (2005 Series) found that additional
mitigation T-2.1 was necessary to lessen the effects of the significant impact at this intersection. This mitigation requires
that the threshold for Transportation Demand Management (TDM) requirements shall be reduced to apply to employers
with 25 or more employees. It is appropriate, therefore, that this mitigation measure applies to commercial development
within the MASP to cumulatively contribute to the mitigation.
In summary, the proposed project would add vehicular trips to streets that serve as entry/exit routes to the project site.
These streets with the given improvements specified in the City's adopted planning documents and with the addition of new
TDM requirements will serve to accommodate the added vehicular traffic. Thus, the impact from this project is less than
significant.
c) d) The Margarita Area Specific Plan will require that the project provides roadways that are designed and developed in
accordance with adopted city standards thereby assuring predetermined standards necessary to limit safety hazards and
provide adequate emergency access. Thus, there is no impact as result of the project.
e) The project is subject to the City's parking requirements as it is outlined in the Margarita Area Specific Plan for each
varying land use. The project build -out is required to fulfill all necessary parking requirements and therefore there is no
evidence of inability to comply with onsite or offsite parking standards. Thus, there is no impact.
f) The MASP/AASP EIR identified certain secondary impacts to pedestrians and bicyclists that could result from road
improvements needed to achieve vehicular flow at intersections noted in Table 3D-10 (namely, with respect to the Western
Enclave developments, the intersections of Prado Road/South Higuera Street and Prado Road/Broad Street). Such
secondary impacts relate to increased crossing distances from road widening at intersections and introducing conflicts at
intersections with multiple turning lanes. The MASP/AASP EIR notes such impacts can be adequately avoided by
implementation of Mitigations Measures T-1.1 Design Features which, in summary, incorporate the following:
1. Sidewalks along both sides of all newly constructed streets and reconstructed streets,
2. Crosswalks (pursuant to the City's adopted "Pedestrian Crosswalk Guidelines-2000") at new and
reconstructed intersections,
3. Pedestrian signals at all new and reconstructed signalized intersections, and
4. Class II bike lanes on all new and reconstructed streets per the City Bicycle Transportation Plan and MASP.
The three Western Enclave development projects are not directly responsible for the construction of the above described
off -site intersections except through payment of City adopted Traffic and Development Impact Fees which contribute their
respective calculated fair share of the cost. This funding source will contribute to the construction of said intersection at a
��..M�l CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 23 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 66-05 (VTTM #2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw)
\\SLO-SRV1\Library\ESP\SLO Co\SLO, City of\13-01615 SLO, Trcts 2353 & 2428 ISMND\Report\Admin
Draft\Appendices\Attachment 1 - Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 66-05.doc
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
ER # 66-05
Issues
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
later time to be determined by the City. Thus, this impact is less than significant.
g) The MASP has already been found to not conflict with the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP).
Therefore, as the subject project complies with the pertinent requirements of the MASP regarding allowed land uses and
development densities and standards, the project is not in conflict with the ALUP. Thus, there is no impact from this
project
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
1, 2, 3
X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
1, 2, 3
X
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water
treatment, waste water treatment, water quality control, or storm -
drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
1, 2, 3
X
c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and
expanded water resources needed?
1, 2, 3
X
d) 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 commitment?
1, 2, 3
X
e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project''s solid waste disposal needs?
1, 2, 3
X
f) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
Evaluation:
a) b) The MASP/AASP EIR determined that implementation and build out of the MASP will not result in any significant
impacts related to delivery of domestic water, wastewater collection or treatment, or storm water drainage/retention and
concluded that such impacts related to build -out of the MASP were less than significant and no mitigation was deemed
necessary. The build -out under the MASP will be similar to that anticipated and projected in the City General Plan. The
subject project proposes to provide all water, sewer and storm drain facilities necessary to adequately serve the subject
project, including distribution, collection and other infrastructure capacity as required by the MASP facility master plan and
the City's Storm Drain Master Plan. There is no new evidence that the subject project, as intended by the MASP will result
in any adverse impacts to these service systems nor result in any exceedances of RWQCB wastewater treatment
requirements. In addition to the on -site utility service infrastructure required with the development, the project is subject to
City and MASP established Development Impact Fees that are charged in conjunction with approval of development
projects to offset costs associated with off -site city-wide utility system impacts related to needed periodic maintenance and
upgrades. Thus, there is no impact.
c) Provisions in the City General Plan and MASP ensure that an adequate quantity of water will exist before any
development is allowed. Moreover, the City has adopted the Water Allocation Regulations to insure that increased water
use by new development will not cause inadequate water service to existing and future customers. Section 17.89.030 of the
Water Allocation Regulation states that a water allocation shall be required to obtain a connection to the city water system
for a structure or facility not previously connected. This project is also subject to water impact fees which were adopted to
ensure that new development pays its share of constructing additional infrastructure needed to support additional facilities.
More specifically, the project is subject to both the citywide water impact fees and the MASP-specific water add -on fees.
Thus, compliance with the City and State standards and requirements will assure that impacts related to water supplies are
less than significant.
d) The City wastewater treatment plant and existing and proposed ewer lines in the vicinity and within the project site have
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 24 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 66-05 (VTTM #2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw)
\\SLO-SRV1\Library\ESP\SLO Co\SLO, City of\13-01615 SLO, Trcts 2353 & 2428 ISMND\Report\Admin
Draft\Appendices\Attachment 1 - Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 66-05.doc
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
ER # 66-05
Issues
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
sufficient capacity to serve the project site. The developer will be required to construct on -site sewer facilities according to
the Uniform Plumbing Code standards. Impact fees are also collected when building permits are issued to pay for capacity
at the City's Water Reclamation Facility. The fees are set to offset potential impacts associated with increases in demand
and use by each new residential unit in the project. Thus, there is no impact.
e) Solid waste collection within the City will be provided by a private operator under a City franchise and disposal is
expected to continue at Cold Canyon Landfill until 2018. The project must be consistent with the City's Source Reduction
and Recycling Element which requires that recycling facilities 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 The
project is also required by the ordinance to include facilities for recycling to reduce the waste stream generated by the
project. Thus, there is no impact.
f) The project will fully comply with existing federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Thus
there is no impact.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
1, 2,
X
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
3, 12,
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
13
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?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
1, 2,
X
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
3,4
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
futureprojects)-
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
1, 2,
X
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
3,4
indirectly?
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 25 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 66-05 (VTTM #2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw)
\\SLO-SRV1\Library\ESP\SLO Co\SLO, City of\13-01615 SLO, Trcts 2353 & 2428 ISMND\Report\Admin
Draft\Appendices\Attachment 1 - Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 66-05.doc
18. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items;
a Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
In 2004 the City of San Luis Obispo certified an Environmental Impact Report for the Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP),
the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) and the related Facilities Master Plan. The subject proposed VTM #2353 property
lies within the boundaries of the MASP. Therefore, this prior MASP/AASP EIR evaluation considered impacts and
mitigation related generally to potential development of the subject site and others pursuant to the MASP and related
Facilities Master Plan. The prior FIR, certified by the City Council along with the adoption of the MASP, AASP, and
Facilities Master Plan on October 12, 2004, by Resolution No. 9615 (2004 Series) contained a variety of mitigation measures
to be incorporated as discrete components of the MASP or as policies or development standards to be implemented through
site specific development proposals. Further on August 23, 2005, by Resolution No. 9726 (2005 Series), the City Council
re -certified, with additional mitigation, the MASP/AASP EIR for the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP), and adopted the
Plan.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) allows Lead Agencies (the City) to use the analysis of general matters
contained in a broader EIR, such as for a general or specific plan, with later EIRs or Negative Declarations on narrower
projects; incorporating by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR, and concentrating the later EIR or
Negative Declaration solely on the issues specific to the later project. The environmental assessment approach is refereed to
as "tiering".
The environmental analyses above for VTM #2353 take into account the environmental conclusions of the prior EIR as they
are applicable to the proposed site specific project. As such, mitigation measures adopted in the prior EIR that are
applicable to the subject site -specific project, and therefore must be incorporated into the proposed project to effectively
mitigate the prior identified impacts, are listed below. Some of these mitigation measures are verbatim from the prior EIR,
others have been refined to more specifically clarify how they are applicable to the site specific project by way of Conditions
of Approval, in order to be properly implemented. Lastly many of the applicable mitigation measures required by provisions
of the MASP have been incorporated by the applicant into the actual project subdivision design, making the project "self -
mitigating" in these instances.
The Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and Related Facilities Master Plan Final Program EIR is
available for review at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, CA 93402-3249.
b) Impacfs adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlierdocument pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addresseiby mitigation measures' based on the earlier analysis.
The MASP/AASP EIR (prior EIR), (which included the sites of the three proposed subdivisions within the Western Enclave
area,) was certified by the City Council on October 12, 2004, thereby determining that the EIR adequately analyzed the
impacts listed in Column No. 1 and that mitigation was required for certain identified impacts, as noted. (If a potential
impact was found by the MASP to not be significant, or has been found by the above -stated analyses to not be significant for
the subject project, it is noted with strikethrough text. One impact/mitigation originating from the Certified EIR for the
AASP—Impact T-2 regarding Transportation Demand Management for exceeding LOS "D", is also applicable to the MASP.
Column No. 2 indicates whether mitigations were required due to the impact being significant. Column No. 3 indicates
status of impact after mitigation specified in the prior EIR. Column No. 4 indicates if there is a specific provision of the
MASP that serves to implement or achieve the required mitigation. Column No. 5 reflects whether the site specific VTM, as
designed or proposed, complies with the MASP mitigation ("complies") or whether a Condition of Approval ("COA") is
required to bring a required mitigation forward through the project approval or subsequent permits:
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
ER # 66-05
Issues
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
MASP/AASP EIR-Identified
Mitigation
Impact after
Areas of Potential Impact
Required?
Mitigation
MASP Provision?
Site Specific?
1.) Land Use and Aesthetics
- LU-6 Change in Views
"none feasible"
SU
Open Space & Parks
complies
- LU-7 Increased light & glare
yes
L-T-S
Lighting Stnd. 3.3
COA
2.) Hydrology and Water Quality
- H-4 Changes in course or
"none feasible"
SU
Drainage 7.3
complies, COA
direction of water move-
ment
3.) Biological Resources
- BIO-2 Valley Needlegrass
yes
L-T-S
Open Space & Parks
complies, COA
- BIO-5 Open Water Habitat
yes
L-T-S
Open Space & Parks
complies, COA
- BIO-6 Freshwater Marsh
yes
L-T-S
Open Space & Parks
complies, COA
- BIO-7 Seasonal Wetlands
yes
L-T-S
Open Space & Parks
complies, COA
- BIO-11 Special -Status Plants
yes
L-T-S
Open Space & Parks
complies, COA
- BIO-12 Non -listed Special -Status
yes
L-T-S
Open Space & Parks
complies, COA
Wildlife
- BIO-13 Calif. red -legged frog
yes
L-T-S
Open Space & Parks
complies, COA
- BIO-17 Southwestern pond turtle
yes
L-T-S
Open Space & Parks
complies, COA
4.) Traffic and Circulation
- T-1 Secondary Impacts: Peds/Cyclists
yes (MASP EIR)
L-T-S
off -site, not specified
- T-2 LOS in Excess of LOS "D"
5.3 Aif Quality
berm Ee>?stf'n Effliss.
yes (AASP EIR)
SU
l
Chapter 6, new standard
net speei
-SIR-1
yes
-T-S
Terfn Opefatien misses
L 4' S
net speeified
Peff. Stnd. 4.21.
-AIR -2hefig
6.) Neise
L TT S
7.) Hazardous Materials
no
- HAZA Construction Related
yes
L-T-S
not specified
- HAZ-2 Operations Related
yes
L-T-S
not specified
- HAZ-3 Accidental Releases
8) Publie Serviees Utilities
yes
L-T-S
L T S
not specified
and
9.) Cultural Resources
He
- CR-1 Phase II dig, if site unavoidable
yes
L-T-S
not specified
COA
COA
self-mitig., COA
self-mitig., COA
COA
COA
COA
COA
COA
COA
Notes: SU=Significant, Unavoidable (Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted), L-T-S=Less than Significant
Each of these impacts listed is also relative to the subject project. No new impacts for the subject project have been
identified and no new mitigation measures are needed.
19. SOURCE
REFERENCES.
1.
Margarita Area Specific Plan / Airport Area Specific Plan, and Final EIR
2.
The City of San Luis Obispo 2004 General Plan / EIR and all its adopted Elements
3.
City Council Resolution #9615, 2004 Series
4.
City Council Resolution #9726, 2005 Series
5.
SLO Municipal Code
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 27 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 66-05 (VTTM #2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw)
\\SLO-SRV1\Library\ESP\SLO Co\SLO, City oA13-01615 SLO, Trcts 2353 & 2428 ISMND\ReportWdmin
DraftWppendicesWttachment 1 - Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 66-05.doc
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
ER # 66-05
Issues
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
6.
SLO Zoning Ordinance, 2004
7.
SLO Construction Codes, 2002
8.
SLO Community Design Guidelines, 2003
9.
SLO Subdivision Regulations, 1985, 1993
10.
SLO Archaeological Resources Preservation Guidelines, 1995
11.
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency
12.
Biological Assessment for Sierra Gardens Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2353
APN: 076-341-010 & 076-341-011, City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California, Althouse &
Meade, Inc., July, 2005.
13.
Wetland Delineation for Sierra Gardens Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2353, APN: 076-341-010 & 076-341 -
01 1,City of San Luis Obis o San Luis Obispo Count California, Althouse & Meade, Inc., July, 2005.
14.
Phase I Environmental Site assessment 408 Prado Road, APNs: 053-022-014 & 053-022-015 San Luis Obispo,
California Project No. SL04922-11 GeoSolutions, Inc., June 30, 2005
15.
Affordable Housing Project; Margarita Annexation and Specific Plan Area, San Luis Obispo, California, Dave
Watson, AICP, June, 2005
16.
Addendum and Update to Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Report for the Margarita Area, San Luis Obispo
County, TEC Civil Engineering Consultants, October, 2005
17.
Soils En ing eering Report 408 Prado Road APNs 053-022-014 & 015, San Luis Obispo, California, project No.
SLO 4922-1, GeoSolutions, Inc., July 12, 2005.
19.
An Archaeological Survey for the Margarita Area Specific Plan, Western Enclave Area, San Luis Obispo, San
Luis Obispo Count California, Heritage Discoveries, Inc., May, 2005
20.
Historical Evaluation for a House at 408 Prado Road, City of San Luis Obispo, California, The Terra/DeBlauw
Property, APN 076-341-011, Bertranado & Bertranado Research Consultants, April, 2005
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Vicinity Map
Attachment 2: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2342 (City File No. TR 63-05)
Attachment 3: Biological Assessment for Sierra Gardens Vestine Tentative Tract Man No. 2353
APN: 076-341-010 & 076-341-011, City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California,
Althouse & Meade, Inc., July, 2005.
Attachment 4: Wetland Delineation for Sierra Gardens Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2353, APN: 076-341-010 &
076-341-011,City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California, Althouse & Meade, Inc., July,
2005.
Attachment 5: Addendum and Update to Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysiseport for the Margarita Area, San Luis
Obispo County, TEC, Civil Engineering Consultants, October 20, 2005 (Technical Appendices available
for inspection at City Hall, Community Development Department, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA)
Attachment 6: Historical Evaluation for a House at 408 Prado Road. Citv of San Luis Obispo. California. the
Terra/DeBlauw Property, APN 076-341-0111 Bertranado & Bertranado Research Consultants, April, 2005
Other source documents listed above which are not included as attachments are available upon request from or may be
viewed at City Hall, Community Development Department, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401
REQUIRED MITIGATIONS AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
Reduction of Light and Glare
In order for MASP/AASP EIR Mitigation Measure LU-7.1 as implemented by the MASP to be carried through to
lot -specific development stage, applicants, at the time of building permit application, shall submit for review by the
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 28 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 66-05 (VTTM #2353-Siena Gardens/DeBlauw)
\\SLO-SRV1\Library\ESP\SLO Co\SLO, City ofi13-01615 SLO, Trats 2353 & 2428 ISMND\Report\Admin
Draft\Appendices\Attachment 1 - Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 66-05.doc
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
ER # 66-05
Issues
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
City Community Development Department, a lighting plan that demonstrates compliance with Community Design
Section 3.3 Lighting requirements of the MASP shall be submitted with other required plans for both the residential
and commercial components of the project to the review and approval of the Architectural Re -view Commission
(ARC). The lighting plan shall propose specific measures to limit the amount of light trespass associated with
development within the project area including shielding and/or directional lighting methods to ensure that spillover
light does not exceed 0.5 foot-candles at adjacent property lines.
• Monitoring Program:
The ARC will review development plans for both the residential and commercial components of the project. City
staff, including Planning and other departments, will review plans to assure that all of the ARC's requirements
related to lighting and compliant with the MASP provisions have been incorporated into working drawings. City
building inspectors will be responsible for assuring that all lighting is installed pursuant to the approved lighting
plan.
2. Preparation and Implementation of "Comprehensive Biological Mitigation Program
Mitigation for wetland impacts. Mitigation for wetland impacts will be through a combination of on- and off -site
mitigation, approved by the City, the DFG and the Corps. Further, in compliance with the MASP/AASP EIR, the
subject VTM #2342 (Cowan) proposes the creation of Lot Z in an area designated by the MASP for "Open Space -
Riparian" for the express purposes of achieving some of the necessary wetlands replacement mitigation area, as well
as preservation of related biological habitat benefits.
Mitigation for Impacts to Sensitive Species. None of these species are expected to be difficult to establish. City staff
will work with the project sponsors in developing the details of the effort.
Congdon Tarplant. Create compensating habitat in a suitable off -site location approved by the City.
Mitigation for Impacts to Other Nesting Birds. Undertake surveys prior to initiation of construction activities; avoid
construction activities within 100 feet of active nest sites until after young have fledged.
Off Site Mitigation for Wetland Impacts. A further component of the biological mitigation program is the
applicant's proposal to acquire (by fee, easement, or eminent domain) lands outside the bounds of the Western
Enclave (designated by the MASP as "Open Space -Riparian" lands). The targeted property (lying south of Prado
Road and owned by Unocal) is a low lying area that already naturally collects some area run-off and provides
valuable habitat for certain special concern and R-T-E (rare, threatened, and endangered) species, and thus is
beneficial to retain in its natural state. Pre -development run-off has resulted in seasonal flooding of Prado Road due
to they currently deficient collection/distribution system to this natural drainage area south of Prado Road.. The
Western Enclave applicants propose to acquire this off -site property designated for open space use by the MASP and
utilize it beneficially for biological mitigation as well as a detention basin for pre- and post -Western Enclave
development generated run-off. It is proposed that this basin be enhanced to accommodate the greater project -
generated and pre -project run-off flows, and to increase its habitat value in the long term. The basin is proposed to
be held and maintained by a Master Home Owners Association (MHOA) established initially for the Western
Enclave area, and perhaps ultimately for the entire MASP as stipulated be done by the MASP.
• Monitoring Program:
Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall contact the City Natural Resource Manager for review and
approval of the final lot and street design to assure that on -site natural resources are protected and preserved to the
greatest extent required by the mitigation measures and consistent with requirements of the MASP and MASP/AASP
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 29 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 66-05 (VTTM #2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw)
\\SLO-SRV1\Library\ESP\SLO Co\SLO, City ofl13-01615 SLO, Trcts 2353 & 2428 ISMND\ReportWdmin
DraftWppendicesWttachment 1 - Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 66-05.doc
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
ER # 66-05
Issues
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
FIR. Said design shall also be consistent with approvals required subsequent to this Tentative Map from State Dept.
of Fish and Game and Army Corps of Engineers. Prior to any site preparation or construction activities, the applicant
shall also initiate and complete for approval by the City pre -construction surveys for nesting birds and adhere to
performance standard specified in the mitigation. Provisions for required off -site mitigation shall be coordinated with
and approved by the City Natural Resource Manager prior to recordation of the Final Map. Periodic field inspections
by City Staff during construction will be necessary to assure site development conforms to mitigation measures and
conditions of approval.
Preparation and Implementation of "Traffic Reduction Program"
In order for MASP/AASP EIR Mitigation Measure T-2.1 adopted with the certification of the MASP/AASP
EIR in conjunction with the approval of the AASP in August, 2005 (Ref. City Council Resolution No.
9726, 2005 Series) to be brought forward to this site specific project stage, a transportation demand
management program that demonstrates reduction of peak period travel by single -occupant vehicles shall be required
of any employer within the subdivision with 25 or more employees. Said program shall incorporate all reasonably
feasible measures or techniques, including those listed in the MASP/AASP EIR/General Plan Circulation, that
encourage alternate modes other than single -occupant vehicles as the primary mode of transportation to the
workplace and to travel during non -peak times.
• Monitoring Program:
Each business owner, upon employment of 25 or more employees, shall immediately prepare and submit, obtain
approval from the City Public Works Director and implement the provisions of a Traffic Reduction Plan which
demonstrates reduction of peak period travel consistent with requirements of the City General Plan Circulation
Element Policies and Programs. City Staff shall periodically inspect the business to observe and assure that
reduction techniques approved by the City are in place and adhered to by the business. Staff shall take any corrective
or enforcement actions authorized by law to achieve compliance.
4. Preparation of Phase II Archaeological Subsurface Survey
In order to achieve complete mitigation for the archaeological resource found on the subject site, this survey is
required if the site cannot be avoided. The Phase II survey is to determine if significance criteria of CEQA and/or
NRHP are met. The survey must be completed and results submitted to City for determination whether mitigation
measures below, as specified in EIR, are needed.
1.) A data recovery program consisting of archaeological excavation to retrieve the important data from the
archaeological site;
2.) Development and implementation of public interpretation plans for both prehistoric and historic sites;
3.) Preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction of historic structures according to the Secretary of
Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties;
4.) Construction of new structures in a manner consistent with the historic character of the region; and
5.) Treatment of historic landscapes according to the Secretary of Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic
Landscapes.
If the project involves a federal agency, and is therefore subject to a MOA, the inventory, evaluation, and treatment
processes will be coordinated with that federal agency to ensure that the work conducted will also comply with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
• Monitoring Program:
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 30 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 66-05 (VTTM #2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw)
\\SLO-SRV1\Library\ESP\SLO Co\SLO, City of\13-01615 SLO, Trcts 2353 & 2428 ISMND\Report\Admin
Draft\Appendices\Attachment 1 - Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 66-05.doc
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
ER # 66-05
Issues
Unless
hnpact
Mitigation
Incorporated
If the survey results reveal that the archaeological resource does meet the significance criteria set forth in CEQA or
NRHP, then no further mitigation is required. However if the significance criteria is met, then the lead agency in
coordination with the agency with jurisdiction over the resources shall jointly determine which of the above stated
mitigation are appropriate for the resource status. The applicant shall provide evidence to the City that the mitigation
has been achieved prior to recordation of the final subdivision map.
Preparation and Implementation of a "Construction -Related Hazardous Materials Management
Plan"
As stipulated in the MASP/AASP EIR, this would be a plan identifying, when they are known, site/development-
specific construction activities that will involve the hazardous materials. The plan shall be prepared before
construction activities begin that involve hazardous materials and shall discuss proper handling and disposal of
materials used or produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste. The plan will also
outline a specific protocol to identify health risks associated with the presence of chemical compounds in the soil
and/or groundwater and identify specific protective measures to be followed by the workers entering the work area.
If the presence of hazardous materials is suspected or encountered during construction -related activities, the project
proponent will cause Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2 to be activated. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2 states:
"The project proponent will complete a Phase I environmental site assessment for each
proposed public facility (e.g. streets and buried infrastructure). If Phase I site
assessments indicate a potential for soil and/or groundwater contamination within or
adjacent to the road or utility alignments, a Phase II site assessment will be completed.
The following Phase II environmental site assessments will be prepared specific to soil
and/or groundwater contamination.
a. Soil Contamination. For soil contamination, the Phase II site assessment will include
soil sampling and analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If soil
contamination is exposed during construction, the San Luis Obispo Fire Department
(SLOFD) will be notified and a work plan to characterize and possibly remove
contaminated soil will be prepared, submitted and approved.
b. Groundwater Contamination. For groundwater contamination, the Phase II assessment
may include monitoring well installation, groundwater sampling, and analysis for anticipated
contaminating substances. If groundwater contaminated by potentially hazardous materials is
expected to be extracted during dewatering, the SLOFD and the Central Coast RWQCB will be
notified. A contingency plan to dispose of contaminated groundwater will be developed in
agreement with the SLOFD and Central Coast RWQCB.
• Monitoring Program:
The "Construction -Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan" will be required to be submitted to the City
Community Development Department and Fire Department for review prior to commencement of any site
preparation or construction work involving hazardous materials. No site preparation or construction work may
commence before said plan has been approved by the City. Any site work commenced without City approval of said
Plan will be subject to "Stop Work" (cease and desist) orders as may be issued under the authority of The City Fire
Department.
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 31 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 66-05 (VTTM #2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw)
\\SLO-SRV1\Library\ESP\SL0 Co\SLO, City of\13-01615 SLO, Trcts 2353 & 2428 ISMND\Report\Ndmin
Draft\Appendices\Attachment 1 - Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 66-05.doc
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
ER # 66-05
Issues
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
6. Preparation and Implementation of an "Operations -Related Hazardous Materials Management
Plan"
As stipulated in the MASP/AASP EIR, this would be a plan prepared by a project proponent identifying hazardous
materials management practices as might be required by state and local laws and regulations regarding delivery, use,
manufacture, and storage of any such regulated materials might be present on site for any operations -related
activities. This plan would identify the proper handling and disposal of materials uses or produced onsite, such as
petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste. By the filing of said Plan, the City Fire Department will be on
notice to provide regular and routine fire and life -safety inspections to determine compliance with applicable health
and safety codes.
• Monitoring Program:
The "Operations -Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan" will be required to be submitted by a project
proponent to the City Community Development Department and City Fire Department for review prior to the
establishment of any operations -related activities.
��.�+...... . CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 32 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 66-05 (VTTM #2353-Siena Gardens/DeBlauw)
\\SLO-SRV1\Library\ESP\SLO Co\SLO, City of\13-01615 SLO, Trcts 2353 & 2428 ISMND\Report\Admin
Draft\Appendices\Attachment 1 - Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 66-05.doc
Attachment 2
Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2353
9£0£LOL 'aN qof
CL
A r v
0,0 OIF
m CD
E 5 s ov'
F
i M € o t
E m W
` N _
m i N
>tu o
EL,
LLI
Lo
o
OUj
O
Uy� in iswss�aa nwa �a ��.ic�va�
� U nlsvea°vravan V/
ZLij
_ O i
W 0 a QI
� o
Q J
(�
w wcc
k
�`�VJV HI Y Q Yb
i _ Q ' w
O
" �I aR
q Q o Q
�0 3ae
ao �wwa ; a >�
LLJ
E
LLJ
WLij —S—x. 0 's—ate,,- w=Q i �� �,-Y�i
Lu P
iE (n U of `Y U
Lij
C/)
'P
na o �
5<w
w
a C)F-
Z� o�
Zo
ma
QV� ZUm
O�Q
Z
' J W x W N N Zd Z o
1�0�0< O Farr r ma a o
3
O J ti a' 001. W r 0 0 0 N 0 0 a
2
�2m =2m� Z wN(n WO-F ou z<E2-
c>O�Oa m O N'o K 2000
w OQI� U M FyY �r rr W ZO55
U o < z Q O� mmQzz w I"zz
3N
3 - U z� U Z-m Fv°pro 0 m:<:i i
wpz J >>Z wuyo aO—
>>>>
a 6y3�NbOy��s��')QJ o e°� got �b�/y ry3n�iys ~J JZa�UY= Qtr LO?Ll woom rzz W°Qa FW'aw0KWm
uWrnrr-
OQ?K K
OO Z (LL7KW zrm
> m zUuz-Z0Qxm<OOWxw»ww r... Zx
oDo-1ow
100wCL
MzQ2
�O W zZzS0�� �0 ~i_Q Ll OOWZ : ¢�aa �rwxr
` Ercrc
z a Z w 0 = Sri wiYri O oto W y E W Zrw W W m 1w
> Q <�o " 66606 2 Do < xwoZ waao�m F-ru.�a wf-uovi3
9EOE101 :*ON qor
Ln
m
4-1
9E0£ LO L :'ON qof
�• M
CL v
OQ E t; v
§ W
M'O
� Nipv
Al
w
�
U
�Q
•}�
Vl
>
o
I
�
W
9
O
V
O
U.
n
LL
n
LL
n
U.
y
U.
n
U.
y
U.
n
U.
n
LL
n
LL
n
LL
n
LL
y
LL
n
LL
n
LL
n
LL
n
LL
n
LL
y
LL
n
LL
y
LL
n
LL
n
LL
n
LL
n
LL
n
LL
n
LL
n
LL
n
LL
n
LL
n
LL
n
U.
n
U.
n
U.
n
U.
n
U.
n
U.
y
LL
n
U.
n
LL
n
U.
y
LL
n
LL LL
n n
U.
y
q
_C
0
0
W
N
0
0
0
n
r
O
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
1:
Ol
O
O
O
O
n
m
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
a
=
O
N
*
a�
O
O
O
O
O1
O
O
O
O
O
n
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
!•7
O
O
O
O
co
ID
10
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
YI
N
O
O
O O
n
m
a
n
Pl
W
to
n
n
Ol
a
In
In
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
N
n
a
N
NW)
n
n
co
W
1+J
a
n
n
In
In
In
n
n
�lq
n
a
�Iq
ton
�C?
n
a n
n
3
C
E
n
n
N
N
n
0
W
n
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
a
n
n
n
n
n
0
0
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
P.
n
M
N O
m
_
O1
Pl
Pl
Pl
V
v
v
ai
m
ai
ai
ai
ai
0
0
0
9
V
U.LL
LL
LL
U.
LL
U.
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
�LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
O
N
n
y
n
y
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
y
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n Vin
to
in
n
y
y
n
7
c
E
"
m
rn
o
0
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
a
o
o
a
o
0
0
o
n
n
oGoo
�'o
rn
m
=
ao
v
v
v
v
0
0
o
vi
m
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
M
N
N
ri
o
r
�o
o
r
N
o;» ; vi
w
o
P.
�'i
�,R
vim I �11�
Ml
ii
�
�
tl
���I�IANIAII�
_
!!
!�
9CO E L 0 L qof
rn
Ln
rn
rj
4-0
77
4-0
m
4-;
Cy
F
777aR
..............................
. ....... . ... . .............
Q
9g
y�
bgin' `gLg p
a
Y U
c
i
O
Z /
k r
k@
W
9£0£ 101 :'ON qOf
l
MV
—IOI— a it, Ln
M
A ,� N
Attachment 3
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation Plan
Comprehensive
Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
For
Vesting Tentative Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park:
Stormwater and Wetland Mitigation Basin
Existing Prado Road wetland on Prado Park parcel. View south.
Located in the
City of San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo County
California
Prepared by
ALTHOUSE AND MEADE, INC.
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1875 Wellsona Road
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805)467-1041
August 2007
494.01
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 494.01
Table of Contents
I.
Introduction............................................................................................................. 1
II.
Description of the Project/Impact Site....................................................................
2
A.
Responsible Parties and Contact Information.........................................................
2
B.
Location of Projects................................................................................................
3
C.
Brief Summary of Overall Projects.........................................................................
4
D.
Jurisdictional Areas to be Filled..............................................................................
5
E.
Type(s), Functions, and Values of the Jurisdictional Areas to be Directly and
IndirectlyImpacted.................................................................................................
5
II1.
Goals of the Compensatory Mitigation Project ......................................................
8
A.
Types and Areas of Habitat to be Established, Restored, and/or Enhanced ...........
8
B.
Specific Functions and Values of Habitat Type(s) to be Established, Restored,
and/or Enhanced......................................................................................................
9
C.
Target Hydrological Regime.................................................................................
10
D.
Time Lapse Between Jurisdictional Impacts and Expected Compensatory
MitigationSuccess................................................................................................
10
E.
Estimated Total Cost (includes all compensatory mitigation site preparation,
planting, maintenance, and monitoring)...............................................................
11
F.
Overall Watershed Improvements to be Gained ....................................................
11
IV.
Description of the Compensatory Mitigation Sites ...............................................
11
A.
Process of Selecting Proposed Mitigation Sites ....................................................
11
B.
Location and Size of Compensatory Mitigation Sites ...........................................
13
C.
Ownership Status...................................................................................................
13
D.
Existing Functions and Values of the Compensatory Mitigation Sites - Baseline
14
E.
Jurisdictional Delineation......................................................................................
14
F.
Present and Proposed Uses of the Compensatory Mitigation Site and All Adjacent
Areas.....................................................................................................................
15
G.
Reference Site.......................................................................................................
15
V.
Implementation Plan for Compensatory Mitigation Site ......................................
16
A.
Rationale for Expecting Implementation Success ................................................
16
B.
Responsible Parties...............................................................................................
16
C.
Financial Assurances.............................................................................................
16
D.
Schedule................................................................................................................16
E.
Site Preparation.....................................................................................................
16
F.
Planting Plan..........................................................................................................
17
G.
Irrigation Plan.......................................................................................................
19
H.
As -Built Conditions (to be certified by a professional engineer and submitted to
the Corps within 45 days of fully implementing the compensatory mitigation) ..
19
1.
Compliance Visit from Corps Project Manager .....................................................
19
VI.
Maintenance activities during the monitoring period ...........................................
20
A.
Maintenance Activities.........................................................................................
20
B.
Responsible Parties...............................................................................................
20
C.
Schedule................................................................................................................
20
D.
Maintenance Tasks................................................................................................
20
VII.
Monitoring Plan for the Compensatory Mitigation site ........................................
22
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
Margarita Specific Planning Area Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park 11
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 494.01
A.
Performance Standards for Target Dates and Success Criteria .............................
22
B.
Target Functions and Values.................................................................................
23
C.
Target Jurisdictional and Non -Jurisdictional Acreages to be Established, Restored,
and/or Enhanced....................................................................................................
23
D.
Monitoring Methods.............................................................................................
23
E.
Monitoring Schedule.............................................................................................
25
F.
Annual Monitoring Reports...................................................................................
25
VIII.
Completion of Compensatory Mitigation.............................................................
26
A.
Notification of Completion...................................................................................
26
B.
Agency Confirmation............................................................................................
26
IX.
Contingency Measures..........................................................................................
27
A.
Initiating Procedures.............................................................................................
27
B.
Remedial Action Onsite........................................................................................
27
X.
References.............................................................................................................28
XI.
Exhibit A — Figures...............................................................................................
29
XII.
Exhibit B — Compensatory Mitigation Site Plans .................................................
32
XIII.
Exhibit C — Wetland Evaluation Techniques (WET) Definitions .......................
33
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
Margarita Specific Planning Area Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park 111
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 494.01
List of Tables
Table 1. Summary of existing wetlands and waters on each property ............................... 4
Table 2. Temporary and permanent impacts to federal and state wetlands and non -
wetlandwaters........................................................................................................
5
Table 3. Functions of impacted federal wetlands are listed with our assessment of
effectiveness, opportunity and social significance..................................................
6
Table 4. Functions of impacted non-federal state wetlands are listed with our assessment
of effectiveness, opportunity and social significance .............................................
7
Table 5. Mitigation requirements for wetland impacts from Margarita Area projects......
8
Table 6. Types and areas of habitat to be established, restored, and/or enhanced in the
stormwater detention/wetland mitigation basin ......................................................
8
Table 7. Functions and values improved upon mitigation completion ............................
10
Table 8. Estimated total cost for compensatory mitigation on the Prado Basin and Tract
2342 Lot 67 sites...................................................................................................
11
Table 9. Mitigation locations and sizes............................................................................
13
Table 10. Current ownership of compensatory mitigation sites ......................................
13
Table 11. Ownership of compensatory mitigation sites at project completion ................
13
Table 12. Current condition of compensatory mitigation sites ........................................
14
Table 13. Present and proposed use of mitigation sites and surrounding land ................
15
Table 14. Salvaged plant materials to be installed in the mitigation basin at locations
designated by the project biologist.......................................................................
17
Table 15. Seed mix #1, for compensatory federal wetland mitigation area (basin floor).
17
Table 16. Seed mix #2, for non-federal wetland mitigation area (basin slopes) .............
18
Table 17. Container stock for riparian and upland buffer (upper basin slopes) ..............
19
Table 18. Performance Standards....................................................................................
22
Table 19. Mitigation features monitored each year .........................................................
24
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
Margarita Specific Planning Area Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park iv
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 494.01
I. Introduction
This comprehensive mitigation and monitoring plan addresses compensatory mitigation
required for issuance of federal, state, and city permits to develop Tracts 2342, 2353,
2428, Prado Park commercial development, and a stormwater/wetland mitigation basin in
the City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Permits are required
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Regional Water Quality Control Board
for impacts to Clean Water Act section 401 and 404 jurisdictional waters and wetlands.
Permits from the California Department of Fish and Game (Code section 1600) are
required for impacts to State wetlands and stream channels. No federal or state listed
endangered or threatened species occur on the subject parcels.
This report was prepared for Prado Basin LLC, the owner and developer of the
stormwater detention/wetland mitigation basin project. The wetland mitigation project
provides mitigation for three mixed use developments and a commercial development
planned for the Margarita Specific Planning Area. Tract 2342 and Tract 2353 are
scheduled to begin construction in 2007.
Tract 2428 (King Ventures) and Prado Park LLC (Byron Davis) are not yet scheduled for
development. These projects will participate in the mitigation project and remunerate the
owners (Prado Basin LLC) as each project is permitted.
This plan has been prepared in accordance with the Corps of Los Angeles District
Mitigation and Monitoring Guidelines, effective April 19, 2004.
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
Margarita Specific Planning Area Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 494.01
II. Description of the Project/Impact Site
A. Responsible Parties and Contact Information
Project Owner Tract 2342 Lot 67
(formerly Lot Z) Easement; North
Mitigation Site (APN 053-022-013)
Prado Basin LLC
3580 Sacramento Dr.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805)543-5717
Craig Cowan
Project Owner — Stormwater/Mitigation
(Prado Basin) Easement
(APN 076-341-012)
Prado Basin LLC
3580 Sacramento Dr.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805)543-5717
Craig Cowan
Project Owner — Tract 2428
(APN 053-022-016)
King Ventures
285 Bridge Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805)544-4444
David Watson
Design Engineers — Basin Design
Westland Engineering, Inc.
3480 S. Higuera, Suite 130
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805)
Bill Rebik, engineer
Lead Agency — Coordination
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805)781-7100
Neil Havlik, Ph.D., Natural Resources Manager
Project Owner — Tract 2353
(APNs 054-022-014 and 054-022-015)
Sierra Gardens of SLO Limited
411 El Camino Real
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
(805) 489-7448
Richard DeBlauw, G.P.
Project Owner — Prado Park
Commercial Development
(APN 076-341-012)
Prado Park LLC
925 Sheridan Road
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
(805)260-6008
Byron Davis
Design Engineers — Hydrology
TEC Civil Engineering Consultants
4115 Broad Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805)541-2114
Cyle Coles, engineer
Consulting Biologist
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
1875 Wellsona Road
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805)467-1041
LynneDee Althouse
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 2
Margarita Specific Planning Area Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 494.01
B. Location of Projects
Three tracts, Tracts 2342 (Cowan), 2353 (Sierra Gardens), and 2428 (King Ventures) are
contiguous properties located within the Margarita Specific Planning Area. A proposed
commercial development, Prado Park, is located due south of Tract 2342 on the south
side of Prado Road. The proposed stormwater facility and wetland mitigation site for
these Margarita Specific Planning Area tracts includes a lot on Tract 2342 and an
easement over the western portion of Prado Park, owned by Prado Park LLC. The
easement is owned by Prado Basin LLC, and encompasses approximately 5 acres along
the western boundary of the property. Figures 1 and 2 show locations of involved
properties (Exhibit A). Elevations of the proposed projects vary from 250 feet (T2428) to
123 feet above sea level (Prado Basin).
Tract 2342, the Cowan Trust property, consists of a 15-acre rectangular shaped property
located within the City of San Luis Obispo adjacent to the eastern boundary of Tract
2353. The property is east of South Higuera Street and north of Prado Road, at about 130
feet in elevation. Approximate coordinates for the property are N35° 15' 18" W120° 39'
43" in the San Luis Obispo USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle, San Luis Obispo County,
California.
Tract 2353, the 30-acre Sierra Gardens property, is located on the north side of Prado
Road in the City of San Luis Obispo. Approximate coordinates for the center of Sierra
Garden property are N35° 15' 21" W120° 39' 32", in the San Luis Obispo USGS 7.5
minute quadrangle, San Luis Obispo County, California. The elevation is approximately
150 feet above sea level. The property includes APN 054-022-014 and 054-022-015.
Tract 2428, the 27-acre King Ventures development, is situated on a rocky south -facing
slope of the South Hills in the City of San Luis Obispo. The proposed development is
adjacent to existing residential development on Margarita Avenue and extends to the
lower slope of the South Hills. Approximate coordinates for the center of the project site
are N35° 15' 32" W120° 39' 44", in the San Luis Obispo USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle,
San Luis Obispo County, California. The elevation ranges between 150 feet in the
southwest corner to approximately 250 feet above sea level in the northeast corner. The
area to be developed is approximately 27 acres of a 98 acre parcel (APN 053-022-016).
Permanent open space is proposed for the remaining undeveloped portion of the parcel
(71 acres, South Hills Open Space). Some mitigation (wetland enhancement) may occur
within drainageways on Tract 2428 and within the open space area, as needed.
Prado Park consists of an approximately 20-acre parcel (APN 076-341-012) that
contains a portion of the proposed wetland mitigation basin. A commercial development
in keeping with the Margarita Area Specific Plan standards has been proposed east of the
basin and north of a "no -development line" (airport building restrictions). The proposed
stormwater basin/wetland mitigation area would include approximately five acres of the
Prado Park property. An easement has been placed over the basin area; the basin
easement is owned by Prado Basin LLC.
The proposed wetland mitigation site for the four projects above begins on Lot 67 of
Tract 2342 (Cowan, APN 053-022-013) north of Prado Road and includes the Prado
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 3
Margarita Specific Planning Area Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 494.01
Basin easement on the west side of Prado Park. The wetland mitigation area on Tract
2342 is approximately 0.25 acre; on the Prado Basin easement, the wetland mitigation
area is approximately 3 acres. In addition, the mitigation site has room for riparian buffer
vegetation, with 0.26 acre available on Tract 2342 and 1.33 acre available on the Prado
Basin Site. Elevation of Tract 2342 Lot 67 basin varies from 126 to 132 feet; the Prado
Basin portion ranges from 123 to 129 feet. Stormwater detention/wetland mitigation
basin plans for Lot 67 and Prado Basin are included in Exhibit B.
C. Brief Summary of Overall Projects
Proposed Tract 2353, Tract 2428, and Tract 2342 are subdivisions designed to existing
City standards for mixed use residential/commercial development. Proposed Prado Park
commercial project is in the design phase; this project will meet City and Margarita
Specific Planning Area standards for commercial development. Project activities include
construction of streets, utilities, storm drains, residences, and fences. A stormwater
detention/wetland mitigation basin is proposed on the south and west sides of the Prado
Park property. An easement owned by Prado Basin LLC has been placed over the area
proposed for the stormwater detention/wetland mitigation basin. Federal wetlands,
waters, and/or state wetlands are present on properties as shown in Table 1. Mitigation
for impacts to wetlands and waters of the U.S. will occur on Tract 2342 Lot 67 and the
Prado Basin easement south of Prado Road (See Figures 1 and 2, Exhibit A).
TABLE 1. Summary of existing wetlands and waters on each property.
Project
State Wetland
Federal Wetland
Waters of the U.S.
(acres)
(acres)
(non -wetland
Tract 2342
0
0.92
0
Cowan
Tract 2353
Sierra Gardens
0
0.10
530 linear feet
DeBlauw
1307 sq. ft. (0.03 acre)
Tract 2428
0.81
0.58
435 linear feet
King Ventures
1536 sq. ft. (0.035 acre)
Prado Park Property
and Prado Basin
0.01
2.56
580 linear feet
Easement
1742 sq. ft. (0.04 acre)
1545 linear feet
Total
0.82 acres
4.16 acres
4585 sq, ft. 0.11 acre
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 4
Margarita Specific Planning Area Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 494.01
D. Jurisdictional Areas to be Filled
Construction of proposed mixed use developments, commercial development, and the
stormwater detention/wetland mitigation basin will result in unavoidable temporary and
permanent impacts to federal and state wetland and non -wetland waters. A summary of
impact type and area by project is provided in Table 2.
TABLE 2. Temporary and permanent impacts to federal and state wetlands and non -
wetland waters.
Impacts
Project Type and
Location
Federal Wetland—
Federal Wetland—
State wetland
Non -wetland
Permanent (acre)
Temporary (acre)
(acre)
Waters (linear ft.;
acre
Residential/Commercial,
0.92
0
0
0
Tract 2342
Residential/Commercial,
0.10
0
0
530; 0.03
Tract 2353
Residential/Commercial,
Tract 2428
0.05
0
0.77
0.01
Prado Park LLC Commercial
Development,
0.44
0
0.01
0.00
APN 076-341-012
Prado Basin, APN 076-341-
012
0.22
0.50
0
0.04
Total Impacts
1.73
0.50
0.78
530; 0.08
E. Type(s), Functions, and Values of the Jurisdictional Areas to be Directly and
Indirectly Impacted.
The direct impact of the projects is to permanently fill 1.73 acres of moderate to low -
function Clean Water Act section 404 wetland habitat, 0.08 acre of low -function section
404 non -wetland waters, and 0.78 acre of low -function state wetland habitat. Some of
the state wetland was created by a leaky water line from a stock water system. An
additional approximately 0.5 acre of low -function section 404 wetland will be
temporarily disturbed during grading activities associated with creation of the basin.
Wetlands on the subject parcels are features in grassland habitat that contain wetland
vegetation. Wetlands on Tracts 2342, 2353, and 2428 are currently grazed by horses
and/or cattle. No riparian shrubs or trees are currently associated with wetlands on the
project sites.
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 5
Margarita Specific Planning Area Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 494.01
The Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET) was adapted to assess the function and values
of wetlands to be impacted (Adamus et a. 1991).
Wetland functions in the impacted area have been assigned an effectiveness probability
rating (i.e. low, moderate, or high). This rating is an estimate of the likelihood that a
wetland will perform a certain function based on its characteristics.
4'Opportunity" is a measure of the probability that a wetland has the chance to perform a
function. "Social Significance" is a measure of the probability that a wetland is of value
to society because of its natural features, economic value, official status, and strategic
location. Definitions of functions and related terms used in the WET evaluation are listed
in Exhibit C.
TABLE 3. Functions of impacted federal' wetlands are listed with our assessment of
effectiveness, opportunity and social significance.
Function
Effectiveness
Opportunity
Social Significance
Ground -water recharge
Low
Low
Low
Ground -water discharge
Low
Low
Low
Floodflow alteration
Low
Low
Low
Sediment stabilization
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Sediment/toxicant
Low
Low
Low
retention
Nutrient removal/
Moderate
Moderate
Low
transformation
Production export — cattle
and horses
Low
Low
Low
Wildlife diversity/
Low
Moderate
Low
abundance
Recreation — passive
Low
Low
Low
Uniqueness/ heritage
Low
Low
Low
Aesthetics
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
1 Non-federal state wetlands may have only one or two wetland characteristics: Hydrology, soils, and/or
vegetation.
z Definitions of functions are provided in Appendix C.
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 6
Margarita Specific Planning Area Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 494.01
TABLE 4. Functions of impacted non-federal state wetlands are listed with our
assessment of effectiveness, opportunity and social significance.
Function
Effectiveness
Opportunity
Social Significance
Ground -water recharge
Low
Low
Low
Ground -water discharge
Low
Low
Low
Floodflow alteration
Low
Low
Low
Sediment stabilization
Low
Low
Low
Sediment/toxicant
Low
Low
Low
retention
Nutrient removal/
transformation
Low
Low
Low
Production export — cattle
and horses
Low
Low
Low
Wildlife and plant
diversity/ abundance
Low
Moderate
Low
Recreation — passive
Low
Low
Low
Uniqueness/ heritage
Low
Low
Low
Aesthetics
Low
Low
Low
The existing wetlands on site provide low biodiversity value. Neither shrubs nor trees are
associated with wetlands on the project sites. The federal wetlands are self-perpetuating.
Some of the non-federal state wetlands are not self-perpetuating (i.e. will transition to
meadow if a leaky water line is repaired). Some of the state wetlands appear to form in
response to above -average rainfall years, and diminish in dry years. The impacted
wetlands have some external value for livestock watering, livestock forage, and minimal
water quality improvement. Overall, the value of the impacted wetlands is low.
s Federal wetlands are also within the state's jurisdiction, and have three wetland characteristics:
Hydrology, soils, and vegetation.
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 7
Margarita Specific Planning Area Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 494.01
III. Goals of the Compensatory Mitigation Project
The first goal of the mitigation project is to convert parts of former agricultural fields and
vacant oil tank farm property into functional wetland habitat for native plants and
animals. The second goal is stormwater biofiltration, detention, and infiltration.
The mitigation project will have additional beneficial uses. External wetland values will
increase with the addition of the planned trail system and flood peak reduction. Internal
wetland values will increase with improved sediment trapping and improved habitat for
plants and animals.
A. Types and Areas of Habitat to be Established, Restored, and/or Enhanced
Impacts from the proposed projects will be mitigated via creation of federal wetlands and
waters on the floor of the stormwater basin, establishment of state wetlands at the
margins of the basin floor, and creation of riparian and upland buffer on the slopes and
upper edges of the basin. A conceptual illustration of type and location of mitigation
habitats in the basin is provided as Figure 3.
TABLE 5. Mitigation requirements for wetland impacts from Margarita Area projects.
Mitigation Requirement Calculation
Type of Impact
Impact: Basin plus
Mitigation area
adjacent projects (acre)
Tical mitiation ratio
ypg
required acre
Federal Wetland—
2:1 (for permanent impacts to
Permanent [acre]
173
low function/value wetland)
3.46
Federal Wetland-
0.50
l :l for temporary impacts
0.50
Temporary facre
State wetland [acre]
0.78
1:1 (no net loss; may include
0.78
riparian enhancement)
Non -wetland Waters [acre]
0.08
l A for permanent impacts
0.08
Totals
3.09
n/a
4.82
TABLE 6. Types and areas of habitat to be established, restored, and/or enhanced in the
stormwater detention/wetland mitigation basin.
Total Mitigation
Tract 2342 Portion of
Prado Park Portion of
Habitat Created
Area
Basin (acre)
Basin (acre)
acre
Federal Wetland
0.23
3.04
3.27
State Wetland, Riparian,
0.41
I.98
2.39
and Upland Buffer
Total Area
0.64
5.02
5.66
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
Margarita Specific Planning Area Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 494.01
A two to one (2:1) replacement ratio for permanent impacts and one to one (1:1)
replacement ratio for temporary impacts to federal wetland would require total mitigation
area of 3.96 acres of federal wetland established and/or restored. The proposed
mitigation project is expected to result in only 3.27 acres of federal wetland, a net deficit
of 0.69 acre. The deficit will be made up via establishment of 1.53 acre of state wetland,
riparian, and upland buffer.
B. Specific Functions and Values of Habitat Type(s) to be Established, Restored,
and/or Enhanced
The enhanced wetland area, combined with close proximity to open space north of the
compensatory mitigation area will increase the wetland's social value. The wetland will
be close to an open space area with potential nature walk opportunities for residents,
workers, and visitors.
Basin creation combined with wetland establishment and enhancement on the basin floor
(federal wetland) will improve the sediment stabilization and toxicant retention
functions of the basin. The addition of hardscape (e.g. driveways, roads, homes) upslope
from the enhanced wetlands will increase the opportunity for sediment and toxicant
retention; consequently, the improved function is necessary. In addition, the proposed
basin will include a designated sediment clean -out area outside the area designated as
wetland. The cleanout area will function as a sediment trap, and will also provide access
to clear blockages and maintain culverts without disturbing wetland habitat within the
basin. This will allow the basin to perform dual functions as detention basin and wetland
habitat.
Installation of facultative vegetation along the margins and lower slopes of the basin
(state wetland) will provide slope stabilization and increase plant diversity in the basin.
This fringe of herbaceous wetland will help filter water without impeding or accelerating
flow of stormwater at peak flow during and after storms.
Riparian buffer planned for the upper slopes and outer edge of the basin will provide a
physical barrier between wetlands and uplands. This buffer will discourage unauthorized
entry into the basin. The riparian plant palette consists of locally native tree and shrub
species, thereby improving diversity of plant species and communities as well as adding
aesthetic value by providing a screen between the basin and adjacent structures. Presence
of shrubs and trees will be attractive to more species of birds and small wildlife species,
enhancing habitat value of the mitigation wetlands.
The table below indicates the functions of the wetland areas that will be improved upon
mitigation completion. Bolded measures indicate improvements from the present
condition.
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 9
Margarita Specific Planning Area Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park
Althonse and Meade, Inc. - 494.01
TABLE 7. Functions and values improved upon mitigation completion.
Function
Effectiveness
Opportunity
Social Significance
Ground -water recharge
Moderate
Moderate
High
Ground -water discharge
Low
Low
Low
Floodflow alteration
High
High
High
Sediment stabilization
High
High
Moderate
Sediment/toxicant
retention
Moderate
High
Moderate
Nutrient removal/
transformation
Moderate
High
Moderate
Production export
Low
Low
Low
Wildlife diversity/
abundance
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Recreation
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Uniqueness/ heritage
High
Moderate
Moderate
C. Target Hydrological Regime
The target hydrologic regime for the wetland mitigation area will create saturated soil
conditions in the wetland basin during the winter months (at least five percent of the
growing season). Indicators of wetland hydrology will include periodic occurrence of
drift lines, sediment deposition, watermarks, and soil saturation.
D. Time Lapse Between Jurisdictional Impacts and Expected Compensatory
Mitigation Success
Approximately three years after completion of installation will be required to attain
compensatory mitigation success. If success criteria have not been met within three
years, the applicant will have another two years to achieve compliance with the
mitigation plan. If success criteria have not been met within five years, an alternate plan
will be submitted to and approved by the Corps, and implemented by the applicant.
4 Definitions of functions are provided in Appendix C.
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 10
Margarita Specific Planning Area Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 494.01
E. Estimated Total Cost (includes all compensatory mitigation site preparation,
planting, maintenance, and monitoring)
TABLE 8. Estimated total cost for compensatory mitigation on the Prado Basin and Tract
2342 Lot 67 sites.
Item
Estimated Cost
Site preparation — stockpile topsoil, grade, replace topsoil
Seed with native mix (hydroseed with —500 lbs mulch/acre)
9,000
Hydroseed tops of bank with native mix and 2500 lbs mulch/acre
7,000
Plant container stock and willow stakes
Install temporary irrigation for container stock
Maintenance (5 years) — mow, weed, protect, rodent control,
check irrigation, remove trash, fertilize
36,000
Monitoring and reporting (5 years)
16,000
Estimated Total
F. Overall Watershed Improvements to be Gained
The proposed mitigation will result in an increase in wetland vegetation and habitat.
Riparian canopy previously absent from the mitigation site and the impacted wetlands
will be created, thereby improving diversity of plant species and habitat niches associated
with the Margarita Area upper watershed. Presence of shrubs and trees will be attractive
to more species of birds and small wildlife species than currently frequent degraded
wetlands in the watershed. The basin will also perform stormwater detention, sediment
catchment, toxicant trapping, and water filtration functions that will improve quality of
water leaving the mitigation site. These improvements to water quality will benefit the
watershed downstream of the basin.
Wetland function and habitat diversity will improve and both the ecological and social
value of the wetland will increase. Consequently, watershed function and value will
increase.
IV. Description of the Compensatory Mitigation Sites
A. Process of Selecting Proposed Mitigation Sites
The stormwater basin/wetland mitigation site was selected based on the following
characteristics:
• Low relief and gentle slopes adjacent to Prado Road, compared to hilly
terrain and steeper slopes in Tracts 2428 and 2353, are more conducive to
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 11
Margarita Specific Planning Area Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 494.01
creation of lowland. Gentle slopes and low relief will favor more
persistent inundation, provide more time for infiltration, and improve
probability of wetland formation.
• Minimal grading requirement because site is already relatively flat.
• Existing drainages and culverts on the proposed project sites converge and
transport water onto the proposed Prado Basin site. Thus, use of the Prado
Basin property will maintain connectivity similar to the existing pattern
within minimal realignment.
• Water from existing stormdrains in neighborhoods adjacent to the
proposed projects will be rerouted into the stormwater detention/wetland
mitigation basin, damping the "flashy" nature of urban runoff. Sediment,
nutrient, and pollutant loads will be reduced due to slower velocity of
water moving through the basin and physical and biological filtration by
wetland plant species.
• Similar soil conditions occur on project sites and proposed mitigation
sites.
• City of San Luis Obispo's approved Margarita Area Specific Plan
recommends the Prado Basin site (formerly referred to as Unocal
Martinelli Property) for a stormwater basin and/or wetland mitigation
activities.
• Small amounts of degraded wetland already present at the Prado Basin
provide an opportunity for wetland preservation and enhancement.
• The proposed location is best suited to ameliorate potential stormwater
increases from construction of the proposed projects. Impervious urban
sites typically accelerate runoff and direct water away more quickly than
vegetated natural sites. The proposed basin counteracts this effect by
providing a low gradient, high capacity area to collect water and allow
infiltration before water leaves the watershed.
Compensatory mitigation for impacts to federal wetlands and waters will occur on the
basin floor. The basin floor has the lowest gradient, and is most likely to be inundated or
saturated for long periods of time, allowing hydric soil conditions to develop. A low -
flow Swale created in the basin floor will replace non -wetland waters disturbed by
projects.
State wetland mitigation will consist of margins and slopes of the basin. This area will be
subject to occasional inundation, and is expected to support hydrophytic vegetation but
may not be wet enough to develop true wetland hydrology and/or hydric soils. A riparian
buffer will be installed on the upper banks and outer edge of the basin. The buffer will
include native riparian and wetland trees and shrubs, and will create new wildlife habitat
value in addition to protecting wetland habitat on the basin floor.
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 12
Margarita Specific Planning Area Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 494.01
B. Location and Size of Compensatory Mitigation Sites
TABLE 9. Mitigation locations and sizes.
Mitigation Site Location
Area
Unit
Wetlands
Prado Basin Easement
3.04
Acre
Tract 2342 Lot 67
0.23
Acre
Wetland total
3.27
acres
Waters of the U.S.
Prado Basin Thalweg
530
linear feet
Tract 2342 Lot 67 Thalweg
420
linear feet
Waters total
950
linear feet
State Wetlands, Riparian, and
Upland Buffer
Prado Basin
1.98
Acres
Tract 2342 Lot 67
0.41
Acres
Buffer Total
2.39
Acres
C. Ownership Status
TABLE 10. Current ownership of compensatory mitigation sites.
Site Owner
Contact Information
Prado Basin (Basin
3580 Sacramento Dr.
south of Prado Prado Basin LLC
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Road)
(80„ 5) 543-5717 _
Tract 2342 Lot 67
3580 Sacramento Dr.
(Basin north of Prado Basin LLC
'San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Prado Road) !
! (805) 543-5717
TABLE 11. Ownership of compensatory mitigation sites at project completion.
Site
Owner
Contact Information
Prado Basin
MASP HOMEOWNERS
To Be Determined
Easement
ASSOCIATION
Tract 2342 Lot 67
MASP HOMEOWNERS
To Be Determined
ASSOCIATION
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 13
Margarita Specific Planning Area Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 494.01
D. Existing Functions and Values of the Compensatory Mitigation Sites - Baseline
The current condition of the compensatory mitigation site for wetland habitat is an upland
vegetated area with non-native grasses dominant. The area was farmed in past years and
is dominated by introduced Mediterranean grass species. Federal wetlands occur within
and adjacent to the mitigation site.
TABLE 12. Current condition of compensatory mitigation sites.
Function
Effectiveness
Opportunity
Social Significance
Ground -water recharge
Low
Moderate
Low
Ground -water discharge
Low
Low
Low
Floodflow alteration
Low
Low
Low
Sediment stabilization
Low
Low
Low
Sediment/toxicant
retention
Low
Low
Low
Nutrient removal/
transformation
Low
Low
Low
Production export
Low
Low
Low
Wildlife diversity/
abundance
Moderate
Low
Low
Recreation
Low
Low
Low
Uniqueness/ heritage
Low
Low
Low
E. Jurisdictional Delineation
Jurisdictional delineations of section 404 waters and wetlands on compensatory
mitigation properties were conducted between October 2004 and June 2005. The
delineations were completed as follows: Tract 2342 by Rincon Consultants, Inc. (June
2005); Unocal Martinelli Site (now Prado Park) by David Wolff Environmental (October
2004; amendment May 2005). These delineations were submitted with permit
application packages in early 2007 and were reviewed by Bruce Henderson, USACE
Project Manager.
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 14
Margarita Specific Planning Area Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 494.01
F. Present and Proposed Uses of the Compensatory Mitigation Site and All
Adjacent Areas
TABLE 13. Present and proposed use of mitigation sites and surrounding land.
Site
Present Use
Proposed Use
Wetland mitigation area — Prado Basin
Vacant field
Seasonal wetland habitat
(compensatory mitigation)
Wetland mitigation area - Tract 2342
Grazing land
Seasonal wetland habitat
(compensatory mitigation)
State wetland mitigation area — Prado
Vacant field
Seasonal wetland habitat
Basin (compensatory mitigation)
Tract 2428 Project
Grazing land
Residential development
Tract 2353 Project
Grazing land
Residential development
Tract 2342 Project
Grazing land
Residential development
Prado Park Commercial Site
Vacant field
Commercial development
Areas west and north of proposed Tract
Residential
No change proposed
2342 development
Area north of proposed Tract 2353
Grazing land
City Open Space
develo ment
Area west of proposed Tract 2353
Residential
No change proposed
development
Area east of proposed Tract 2353
Grazing land
Residential development
development
Area west of Prado Basin mitigation area
Commercial
No change proposed
G. Reference Site
Prior to monitoring, a reference site shall be established for the compensatory wetland
area. The sampling areas shall be similar to the compensatory mitigation site with
respect to vegetation, elevation, slope, aspect, size and soil type. Photo documentation
will be made at the time of baseline data collection. The reference sites will be sampled
in the same manner described in Section VII.
Data collected from the reference sites will be compared to performance criteria
developed for the restoration sites in Section VIII.A. This will ensure that the
performance criteria are appropriate and reasonable. Performance targets may be
modified by the project restoration biologist at this time.
An appropriate reference site for the compensatory mitigation site is located at Laguna
Lake Park (located at approximately N350 16' 07" W1200 41' 24").
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 15
Margarita Specific Planning Area Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 494.01
V. Implementation Plan for Compensatory Mitigation Site
A. Rationale for Expecting Implementation Success
The mitigation site elevation will be lowered by minimal grading to allow water to spread
and saturate soil. The mitigation area will be seeded with a palette of native plant species
that includes native species present in adjacent drainages. Additional wetland species
will recruit to the site from the natural seed bank (i.e., rabbit's foot grass, rye-grass and
meadow barley). The establishment of these species is reasonably expected if site
grading is accomplished as per this plan, and if one normal rainfall year occurs within
three subsequent years.
For additional reasons implementation of the project is expected to succeed, please refer
to section IV -A, Process of Selecting Proposed Mitigation Sites. This compensatory
mitigation project is proposed for the location deemed best for establishment of wetland
habitat and stormwater detention as a combined project to benefit water quality in the
Margarita Area.
B. Responsible Parties
Project developers: Prado Basin LLC
Project biological consultant: Althouse and Meade, Inc.
The project engineers: Westland Engineering, Inc.
The landscape architect: Wallace Group
The lead agency: The City of San Luis Obispo
C. Financial Assurances
The applicant will bond with the City of San Luis Obispo for wetland mitigation as
proposed.
D. Schedule
The applicant will not begin construction of compensatory mitigation wetlands until the
Corps approves of the final compensatory mitigation and monitoring plan. The project
owners plan to begin installation of the basins before fall rains in 2007. After the site has
been graded and planted, the maintenance and monitoring phase of the compensatory
mitigation begins immediately.
E. Site Preparation
All work will be conducted under supervision of a qualified restoration biologist. Areas
of wetland habitat to remain intact will be flagged prior to grading for basin creation.
The site of the wetland mitigation area will be prepared in accordance with the approved
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 16
Margarita Specific Planning Area Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 494.01
project grading plan by Westland Engineering, Inc. and planting plans by the Wallace
Group (Exhibit B). The plans specify appropriate site slope and drainage, and
appropriate soil conditioning and preparation.
Site preparation requires salvage and soil stockpile activities for areas of wetland habitat
that will be temporarily impacted. Wetland plants and topsoil will be salvaged under
supervision of a qualified biologist according to specifications that will be included on
the construction documents (see Exhibit B).
F. Planting Plan
The wetland mitigation area will be planted using two seed mixes, salvaged materials
saved from original wetlands on project sites, and container stock. Planting will be
supervised by the restoration biologist to ensure plantings are arranged in an appropriate,
naturalistic (i.e., no straight lines) manner.
Salvaged plant materials saved from the original wetlands will be installed first, prior to
hydroseed application. Salvaged plant materials shall be installed in patches along the
basin floor margins. Exact planting locations will be chosen in the field by the project
biologist and site manager, and flagged for planting crews. Salvaged plant materials will
include the following species:
TABLE 14. Salvaged plant materials to be installed in the mitigation basin at locations
designated by the project biologist.
Scientific name Common name
Eleocharis macrostachya Spikerush
_ _.... _ .. .........
Juncus phaeocephalus Flat -stem rush
Following installation of salvaged materials, the entire federal wetland compensatory
mitigation area (basin floor) will be hydroseeded with a seed mix as follows:
TABLE 15. Seed mix #1, for compensatory federal wetland mitigation area (basin floor).
lbs/acre
Scientific name
Common name
0.5
Asclepias fascicularis
........_ _ _
Narrow -leafed milkweed
........- -
I
Carex praegracilis _
.. .. _ ._...._ .._..._ ... _
Sedge
.. _ _ _
2
Distichlis spicata ..... _ ..... _ ....__..._...._...
_._ Salt grass
I
Eleocharis macrostachya
_...__..... _.... _..._... _..._.._
. Spike-rush
10
........... _.._ ..._ ...._......
. .
6
Hordeum d pressum
_.._. _..__... _ _ . ...._......
__ ..... _ , Alkali barley
_ 0.5
Juncus bufonius
_.._ _ . _ . __..... _ . _ ......_ ..... _
j Toad rush
..... ........ ........ ........ .....
0.5
Juncus balticus
Baltic rush
_
6
.. ..
Leymus tritcoides
...
Creeping, wild -rye
0.5 _..
Mimulus guttatus
_....._..._. ._......._.......__ .... _........--
Stream monkeyflower
2
Sisyrinchium bellum
.... _ ... _ .._._ _ .
Blue-eyed grass .... .... ---
3
Tri olium obtusi orum
Creek clover
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 17
Margarita Specific Planning Area Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 494.01
If material is not available, substitutions may be made with the prior approval of the project
restoration biologist. Hydroseed application on the basin floor will also include the
following:
Hydromulch mix should be combined on site with no more than one-half hour between
seed addition and application. Coverage must be even over the designated seeding area.
Adjacent areas of non-federal, state wetland mitigation (lower basin slopes) will be
seeded with a different mix that includes species tolerant of drier conditions.
TABLE 16. Seed mix #2, for non-federal wetland mitigation area (basin slopes).
Ibs/acre
Scientific name
Common name
1
Achillea mille�blium
Yarrow
2
r...,. .. ..__... ... .. _ .. ....
Elymus glaucus
.....
E Blue wild -rye
_ 2
.... _...
Eschscholzia calif rmca
... .........
.... _.
California poppy
._ . ....
6
Hordeum ...... _ ...
.....
4
Hordeum depressum
Alkali barley
1 _
._. -
Lasthenia califor•nica
; Goldfields
1
_.....__....- . _. .._
6 Layia platyglossa
..
Tidy tips
_ _.. 2
... ... ..... _
Leymus triticoi......... _........... .
..........
..._....
1
i Lupinus nanus
' Sky lupine
_
3
.......... ...._ ... _ . _. _ ............ ._....... _.... _ ..._.. _ .. -. ...
1 Vul is microstach s
_............ .. ......... .........
Annual fescue
If material is not available, substitutions may be made with the prior approval of the project
restoration biologist. Hydroseed application on the basin floor will also include the
following:
Hydromulch mix should be combined on site with no more than one-half hour between
seed addition and application. Coverage must be even and bare ground should not be
visible for mulch application at 2500 lb/acre.
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 18
Margarita Specific Planning Area Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 494.01
The buffer adjacent to the wetland, on upper basin slopes and outer edges, will be planted
with container stock and cuttings, as appropriate, from local material. Willow stakes will
be planted along margins of the basin floor and lower basin slopes.
TABLE 17. Container stock for riparian and upland buffer (upper basin slopes).
Stock Size Quantity Scientific name Common name
TREES
5-gal
13
Platanus racemosa
Sycamore
cuttings
144
Populus balsamifera spp.
trichocar a
Black cottonwood
5-gal
9
uercus a ri olia
Coast live oak
5-gal
20
Quercus lobata
Valley oak
cuttings
208
Salix lasiole is
Arroyo willow
SHRUBS
1- al
231
Arctosta h los obis oensis
Obispo manzanita
1-gal
285
Ceanothus cuneatus
Buckbrush
I - al
216
Ceanothus th rsi onus
Blue -blossom
1- al
419
Erio onum asciculatum
California buckwheat
1-gal
628
Mimulus aurantiacus
Sticky monke flower
1-gal
568
Muhlenber is ri ens
Deer grass
1- al
182
Rhamnus calf ornica
Coffeeberry
1-gal
409
Ribes malvaceum
Chaparral current
1- al
400
Ribes s eciosum
Fuschia flowered gooseberry
1- al
300
Rosa calf ornica
California wild rose
1- al
400
Rubus ursinus
California blackberry
Container stock will be of local origin from local genotypes.
G. Irrigation Plan
Temporary irrigation will be provided to trees and shrubs for three years (See Plan Sheets
11-14 of 14, Exhibit B).
H. As -Built Conditions (to be certified by a professional engineer and submitted to
the Corps within 45 days of fully implementing the compensatory mitigation)
A final set of as -built plans will be provided to the Corps within 45 days of mitigation
implementation.
I. Compliance Visit from Corps Project Manager
A site visit with the appropriate Corps Project Manager is recommended but not required.
This site visit should be scheduled within 90 days of project installation to confirm the
site has been installed and planted adequately.
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 19
Margarita Specific Planning Area Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 494.01
VI. Maintenance activities during the monitoring period
A. Maintenance Activities
The compensatory mitigation areas shall be maintained after installation and wetland
mitigation project completion by Prado Basin LLC until such time as maintenance
activities are turned over to the Homeowners' Association. Maintenance activities will
be consistent with Performance Criteria described in this plan, Section VII (A).
B. Responsible Parties
Compensatory mitigation site installation: Prado Basin LLC
Site maintenance: Prado Basin LLC / Homeowners' Association
C. Schedule
The contractor shall maintain the installation for 3 to 5 years following implementation to
meet performance criteria. The wetland mitigation site shall be maintained on a monthly
basis during the establishment phase, a minimum of one year, with two additional years
to be added if necessary after evaluation of the site at the end of the first year. The
project biological monitor shall coordinate with the site owner and maintenance
contractor to schedule additional maintenance as required.
D. Maintenance Tasks
Maintenance tasks shall include the following items, to be performed as needed.
• Remove weeds via hand weeding and weed whip, as necessary. An action
list of priority weeds for removal is provided below.
Check and maintain irrigation system.
o Repair leaks, replace broken parts, ensure schedule/timing is
season -appropriate.
Check tree stakes. Ensure stakes are appropriately secured and are not
rubbing tree trunks or branches. Replace broken stakes and ties.
• Prune off broken or damaged branches
• Remove trash.
Additional maintenance activities to be scheduled as needed by the restoration biologist
shall include the following:
• Remove construction and erosion control debris as needed. This includes
removal of rebar, construction debris, and non -biodegradable plastic
remnants from fencing, erosion control materials, and packaging as
necessary.
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 20
Margarita Specific Planning Area Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 494.01
• Plant replacement container stock as needed.
• Remove tree stakes when trees are deemed stable and sturdy enough to
remove supports (likely at the end of 5 years or as determined by project
biologist).
• Remove trash and debris after major storm events.
• If necessary, repair erosion features developing from unexpected early
storm events prior to establishment of vegetation.
The biological monitor for the project has the authority to require additional maintenance
items when such action is necessary to guide the project toward meeting success criteria.
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 21
Margarita Specific Planning Area Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park
04
5
id
00
w
H
In
!, U n
O
v>
O
O
O
`O
o o.
n
n
n
n
°
o
n
n
n
A
r
o
0
0
0
\
M
^
c�
n
n
n
n
y
it
f"7
� _'
O
O
�
O
o
o
•--•
[�
O
y
n
n
n
n
l\
o
0
c
n
n
n
n
U
y
y
a
o
>
>
�•+
E
U I
E
U
O.
U
U
N
C
�
F."
.Y
.Y
U
U
-v
7o
7o
7o
on .J
on N
N
N
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 494.01
B. Target Functions and Values
The compensatory wetland area shall function as seasonal wetland habitat with aesthetic
and wildlife habitat values. It shall function to filter stormwater from the developments,
slow the rate of flow in the drainage, and increase infiltration. Refer to Table 7 for target
functions and values.
C. Target Jurisdictional and Non -Jurisdictional Acreages to be Established,
Restored, and/or Enhanced
Target mitigation acreage should meet or exceed 5.66 acres total. Jurisdictional federal
wetland in basin bottom should equal at least 3.27 acres and adjacent state wetland and
buffer should be 2.39 acres in size.
D. Monitoring Methods
The biologist who prepares the annual report will use the following methods to measure
parameters on the site. The site monitor will indicate on a site map where any problem
areas are located. In Year 1, the actual area of each mitigation site will be measured and
reported. If the size of each mitigation area is consistent with the table above, no
additional measurement of site dimensions will be necessary in subsequent years.
Photo points will be established after implementation. Photo points shall be chosen in
locations that accurately capture condition of the site in the minimum number of photos.
Photo point location shall be recorded on a site plan and used for each subsequent
monitoring visit.
In addition to formal monitoring visits, the site will be inspected monthly for the first
year to document site conditions and identify maintenance items. These visits shall be
used to schedule maintenance and correct problems in a timely fashion. In particular the
following items should be noted during monthly site visits:
• Note presence/absence of water onsite
o If present, estimated depth, flow, and location of water
• Monitor seed germination
• Check for problems with temporary irrigation system
• Note establishment of cuttings and salvaged plants
o Note which species are thriving and which, if any, are struggling
• Identify stressed, dying, and dead plant material
o Determine cause if possible and make recommendations to rectify
o Determine quantity of replacement plantings required.
o Information on success/failure of each species and type of stock
(container, cutting, salvage) shall be taken into consideration when
recommending replacement plantings. A species that is not thriving
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 23
Margarita Specific Planning Area Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 494.01
overall may be replaced with a different species with the approval of the
restoration biologist.
• Check weed removal status/maintenance requirements
• Check condition of tree support stakes. Nate any stakes that need to be replaced
or relocated. Note locations of trees that no longer need stakes or need a different
stake system.
TABLE 19. Mitigation features monitored each year.
Feature
Performance Criteria
Monitoring Method
Trees
Survival and growth
Count and measure height.
Shrubs
Survival and growth
Count and measure height.
To be planted above
Count and report total surviving
Willow stakes
and below mitigation
willow stakes.
site
Sample and report estimated average
Salvaged herbaceous
Establishment/
cover. Use a minimum of 10 1-
plants
Vegetative cover
meter quadrat samples distributed
among areas planted with salvaged
plants.
Measure and report percent cover
Hydroseed
Vegetative cover
and range of values. Use a
before winter rains
minimum of 10, 1-meter quadrat
random samples.
Other
Trash
Inspect visually and report.
Other
Erosion
Inspect visually and report.
Other
Human
intrusion disturbance
Inspect visually and report.
Other
Pest damage
Inspect visually and report.
When wetland mitigation project is nearing completion, a wetland delineation shall be
performed to determine presence and extent of jurisdictional wetlands on the mitigation
site. Delineation shall be performed according the USACE 2006 Arid West Supplement
and the 1987 Corps Manual for Wetland Delineation or most current accepted method
and forms. Wetland shall be sampled in at least two locations. Delineation may be
performed at any time between years three and five when mitigation appears to be
nearing completion.
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 24
Margarita Specific Planning Area Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 494.01
E. Monitoring Schedule
The site will be monitored during the fall and mid winter (September and February) for
five years. If the project meets the success criteria by year 3, monitoring may be
suspended and a final report prepared for the City Natural Resources Manager and the
Corps of Engineers. If the project does not meet the success criteria by year 5,
remediation will be continued and the project monitored until success is met.
In addition the project restoration biologist shall monitor the site once per month for the
first twelve months at a minimum to identify potential problems and recommend
corrective action during this critical establishment period. Frequent monitoring visits
during the first year shall be conducted as described above to ensure that potential
problems do not have time to escalate.
F. Annual Monitoring Reports
Annual monitoring reports will be submitted to the City Natural Resources Manager and
to the Corps by December 15 of each year. The report will include a site map where any
problem areas are located. A summary table and discussion shall compare performance
standards and success criteria with the annual monitoring data.
The following information will be included in the monitoring reports for the project.
Submit reports unbound for inclusion into the official case file. Electronic copies of the
reports can be submitted in lieu of written reports.
Pages 1-2
A. Project Information
1. Project Name
2. Applicant name, address, and phone number
3. Consultant name, address, and phone number (for permit applications if
necessary)
4. Corps permit file number
5. Acres of impact and type(s) of habitat impacted
6. Date project construction commenced
7. Location of the project and directions to site (including latitude/longitude
or UTM coordinates)
8. Date of the report and the corresponding permit conditions pertaining to
the compensatory mitigation
9. Amount and information on any required performance bond or surety.
B. Compensatory Mitigation Site Information
1. Location and directions to the site (including latitude/longitude or UTM
coordinates)
2. Size and type(s) of habitat existing at the site and proposed for restoration,
enhancement, establishment (creation), and/or preservation
3. Specific purpose / goals for the compensatory mitigation site
4. Date site construction and planting completed (fully implemented)
5. Dates of previous maintenance and monitoring visits
6. Name, address, and contact number of responsible parties for the site
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 25
Margarita Specific Planning Area Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 494.01
7. Name, address, and contact number for designer
C. Brief Summary of Remedial Action(s) and Maintenance of the Compensatory
Mitigation Site
Page 2 or 3
A. Map of the compensatory mitigation sites
1. 8 '/2 by 11 diagram of the site including:
a. Habitat types (as constructed)
b. Locations of photographic record stations
c. Landmarks
d. Inset defining location of the site
Page 3 or 4
A. List of Corps approved success criteria
B. Table of results form the monitoring visits versus performance standards for
specified target dates
Page 5, 6 or 7.-
A. Summary of field data taken to determine compliance with performance standards
and success criteria (at least one page, no more than two pages)
Page 6, 7, or 8 (if needed). -
A. Summary of any significant events that occurred on the site that may affect
ultimate compensatory mitigation success.
VIII. Completion of Compensatory Mitigation
A. Notification of Completion
The applicant should notify the Corps in writing when the monitoring period is complete
and the Corps approved success criteria have been met. When applicable, a formal
jurisdictional delineation of established wetlands should be submitted with the report
(this delineation shall be accompanied by legible copies of all field data sheets). If
wetlands are not established, a delineation of non -wetland waters of the U.S. and other
areas enhanced, restored, established, or preserved as part of the compensatory mitigation
program shall be submitted to the Corps LAD. Following receipt of the final report, the
Corps LAD will contact the applicant (or agent) as soon as possible to schedule a site
visit to confirm the completion of the compensatory mitigation effort and any
jurisdictional delineation. The compensatory mitigation will not be considered complete
without an on -site inspection by a Corps Project Manager and written confirmation that
approved success criteria was achieved.
B. Agency Confirmation
The compensatory mitigation is not complete until a Corps Los Angeles District Project
Manager confirms it is complete during a site inspection.
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 26
Margarita Specific Planning Area Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 494.01
IX. Contingency Measures
A. Initiating Procedures
If a performance standard is not met for all or any portion of the compensatory mitigation
project in any year, or if the approved success criteria are not met, the applicant shall
prepare an analysis of the cause(s) or failure(s) and, if determined necessary by the
Corps, propose remedial actions for approval. If the compensatory mitigation site has not
met one or more of the success criteria or performance standards, the responsible party's
maintenance and monitoring obligations shall continue until the Corps gives final
approval and the compensatory mitigation obligations have been satisfied.
B. Remedial Action Onsite
Prado Basin LLC will be responsible for any required remediation. Remediation will be
conducted onsite at Prado Basin and/or Tract 2342 Lot 67 as appropriate.
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 27
Margarita Specific Planning Area Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 494.01
X. References
Adamus, P. R., Stockwell, L. T., Clairain, E. J., Jr., Morrow, M. E., Rozas, L. P., and
Smith, D. R. (1991). "Wetland evaluation technique (WET); Volume I: Literature
review and evaluation rationale," Technical Report WRP-DE-2, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS., NTIS No. AD A251
739, Vol I; NTIS No. AD A189 986, Vol II.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. 2003. Wetland Delineation for Tract 2270, Valle Vista Ranch
LLC, 444 Higuera Street, Suite 200, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401. Revised April
29, 2004.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.
Oasis Landscape Architecture and Planning. 2004. Landscape Planting Plan, for Tract
2270, Valle Vista Ranch LLC, 444 Higuera Street, Suite 200, San Luis Obispo,
CA 93401
Rincon Consultants. 2005. Tract 2342 of the Margarita Specific Plan Area, Focused
Biological Studies and Wetland Delineations. San Luis Obispo, California. June.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1991. Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Proposal
Guidelines. San Francisco District, CA.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Mitigation Guidelines and Monitoring
Requirements, Special Public Notice. Los Angeles District, CA. January 27.
Novitzki, Richard P., R. Daniel Smith, Judy D. Fretwell. 1997. National Water
Summary on Wetland Resources United States Geological Survey Water Supply
Paper 2425. Web Version by Kim Fry Last Modified: 1345 20Oct97
klfhttp://water.usgs.gov/nwsum/WSP2425/functions.html. Accessed 27Sep05.
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 28
Margarita Specific Planning Area Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 494.01
XI. Exhibit A — Figures
FIGURE 1. Approximate boundaries of the projects with wetland impacts to be mitigated
within T2342 Lot 67 and Prado Basin stormwater detention/wetland mitigation basin.
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 29
Margarita Specific Planning Area Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 494.01
3 D 7q a(Mkvls Oppngld ,#, "llelmiw Yuwidh ME M,% ;:orate Rua LTNGS F--1 R ft Sok, I : U*D I RAI 144 hahm N.4I1='
FIGURE 2. Approximate locations of compensatory wetland mitigation sites: Tract 2342
Lot 67 and Prado Basin LLC Easement.
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 30
Margarita Specific Planning Area Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park
lip
7
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 494.01
XII. Exhibit B — Compensatory Mitigation Site Plans
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 32
Margarita Specific Planning Area Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park
Rra�a��
LU
F
41
xauowxx�u9FF
xx xawwxx$95g
d'
;
a
d
U
9
H
¢
ZO'1-1133HS 33S
a�n
m
n
n
o o
m m
a u
U
w S
Z ¢
¢ ¢ m
�j0 Q (a)a0 0 0000
— — —
b0' l-1 133HS 33S '3NIlHOiVW
H
u� o
i `$n
4
L
_ - - :. w _ _ -
_ - _ _ _ _ - _ _
- F
5
p10 a� N�o®o®o o®oo
0
1h
A
5
3 r:
J
w
:_
o .. ..u,
+' NVId JNUNVId
o,(o(ua a�doad sauawuainua 6wjean
p
dnoa2 lll,l,l Ztl£Z iov2ji
MEN
co
I
Q
0
Z
LU
F
8 F
g - € €
m n a o o a m< u u � f f rc a rc rc
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 494.01
XIII. Exhibit C — Wetland Evaluation Techniques (WET)
Definitions
From: Adamus, P. R., Stockwell, L. T., Clairain, E. J., Jr., Morrow, M. E., Rozas, L. P.,
and Smith, D. R. (1991). "Wetland evaluation technique (WET); Volume I:
Literature review and evaluation rationale," Technical Report WRP-DE-2, U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS., NTIS No. AD
A251 739, Vol I; NTIS No. AD Al89 986, Vol II.
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 33
Margarita Specific Planning Area Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 494.01
Aquatic Diversity/Abundance: A HIGH rating for an area means that, at least seasonally,
the AA supports a notably great on -site diversity of fish or invertebrates (i.e.,
most trophic groups of secondary consumers with complex food webs). Other
aquatic animals (e.g., waterfowl) are covered under other functions.
Assessment Area (AA): Assessment Area
Effectiveness: Effectiveness is a measure of the probability that a wetland has the
capability to perform a function.
Floodflow Alteration: Floodflow alteration occurs in those areas where surface water is
stored or its velocity is attenuated to a greater degree than typically occurs in a
terrestrial environments. No judgment is made as to the value of such flow
alteration; in fact, there may be situations in which reduction off low velocity
causes increased flooding due to the flow synchronization.
Ground Water Recharge: Recharge AA's or wetlands are considered to be those where:
(a) recharge to underlying materials or round water (deep or shallow) exceeds
ground water discharge to the wet depression on a net annual basis, and/or (b) the
rate of recharge typically exceeds the rate of recharge from terrestrial
environments.
Ground Water Discharge: Ground water discharge areas are those where the rate of
discharge from ground water (deep or shallow) into the wetland exceeds the rate
of recharge to the underlying ground water from the wetland on a net annual
basis.
Nutrient Removal/Transformation: A HIGH nutrient removal/transformation areas are
those which retain or transform inorganic phosphorus and /or nitrogen into their
organic forms or transform (remove) nitrogen in its gaseous form, on either a net
annual basis or during the growing season, and which are generally more effective
at doing so than typical upland environments.
Opportunity: Opportunity is a measure of the probability that a wetland has the chance to
perform a function.
Product Export: A HIGH production export is the flushing of relatively large amounts of
organic plant material (specifically, net annual primary production) from the AA
into down slope waters. No judgment is made as to the value off such export;
indeed, there may be instances where such export represents a nutrient loss to the
exporting system or where such exported material causes water quality problems
down slope.
Qualitative Probability Ratings: Qualitative probability ratings of HIGH (H),
MODERATE (M), and LOW (L) are assigned by this method. These ratings are
not direct estimates of the magnitude off a wetland function or value. The ratings
are an estimate of the probability that a function or value will exist or occur in the
wetland.
Recreation: Recreational areas are those that are regularly used for recreational or
consumptive activities, which opportunities are otherwise locally deficient as
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 34
Margarita Specific Planning Area Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 494.01
recognized by a local or state recreational plan, or as a major public access point
to a recreational waterway.
Sediment Stabilization: A HIGH sediment stabilization areas are those which are more
effective for binding soil and dissipation erosive forces than are typical upland
environments.
Sediment/Toxicant Retention: A HIGH sediment/toxicant retention areas are those which
physically (or chemically in the case of toxicants) trap and retain on a net annual
basis the inorganic sediments and/or chemical substances generally toxic to
aquatic life.
Social Significance: Social Significance is a measure of the probability that a wetland is
of value to society because of its natural features, economic value, official status,
and strategic location.
Uniqueness/Heritage: Uniqueness/heritage areas include those that, 1) are regularly used
by Federal or State endangered or threatened species, 2) owned by an organized
conservation group, 3) are included in a statewide listing of historical or
archaeological sites, 4) known to have ecological or geological features
consistently considered by regional scientists to be unusual or rare for wetlands in
the region, 5) represent most or all of this wetland type in the locality, 6) the
closest wetland with parking to a nature center, 7) is essential to on -going, long-
term environmental research, and/or 8) is within an pristine watershed natural
area.
Wildlife Diversity/Abundance for Breeding: A HIGH rating for a wetland means that
during the breeding season the wetland normally supports a notably great on -site
diversity and/or abundance of wetland -dependent birds. This definition does not
take into account the contribution of the AA to off -site (regional) faunal richness
or the uniqueness/rarity of the species.
Wildlife Diversity/Abundance for Migration and Wintering: A HIGH rating for a wetland
means that during migration or winter, the wetland normally supports a notably
great on -site diversity and/or abundance of wetland -dependent birds.
Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 35
Margarita Specific Planning Area Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park
Attachment 4
Tract 2353 Swale - Brief Biological Resource Review
ALTHOUSE AND MEADE, INC.
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1602 Spring Street • Paso Robles, CA 93446 • Telephone (805) 237-9626 • Fax (805) 237-9181
January 17, 2014
753.04
Stephen J. Peck, AICP
Project Manager
Mangano Homes, Inc.
Central Coast Division
735 Tank Farm Road
San Luis Obispo, CA
Cell: (559) 731-5778
Re: Tract 2353 Swale — Brief Biological Resource Review
Dear Mr. Peck:
This letter summarizes our historic and recent observations of an ephemeral drainage
located in the northern part of Tract 2353. We also summarize requested modifications
to the Swale feature and mitigations currently implemented that would compensate for
any potential loss of waters of the state or U.S.
Existing Conditions: The drainage feature was identified in 2005 as a potential Clean
Water Act Section 404 water of the U.S. and a water of the state. Its dimensions were
described as about 530 linear feet and 1,352 square feet (ordinary high water was
approximately 2 to 3 feet wide). The feature only carries water during and shortly after
storm events. During our winter 2014 site visit, biologist Mike Hill and I observed no
evidence of a stream bed or bank, and no evidence of drift or ordinary high water.
Upstream from the property, a channel is still evident where water flows down a
relatively steep slope to Tract 2353, into a swale that had been historically farmed. The
downstream end of the swale terminates at a drop inlet box that leads to a small
(approximately 12 inch) pipe that travels through the neighbor's yard toward stormwater
pipes under Calle Jazmin.
Vegetation in the swale is characteristic of California annual grassland growing on heavy
clay soil (photos attached). Species composition is dominated by non-native species such
as rye-grass (Lolium multiflorum) and brome (Bromus hordeaceus). Rare plants were not
observed during previous surveys, and are not expected in this drainage feature. It does
not contain potential ponded habitat, therefore aquatic organisms, including fairy shrimp,
would not occur in this swale.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. 2005. Biological Assessment for Sierra Gardens, Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 2353, City of San Luis Obispo, CA. Prepared for Sierra Gardens of SLO Limited, Arroyo Grande.
July.
Tract 2353 Swale — Brief Biological Resource Review January 17, 2014
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 753.04
We also reviewed the California Natural Diversity Database' to verify that no rare
species have been reported from this location (attached exhibits). Rare plants occur on
neighboring properties where rock outcrops and seeps are common. There are no rock
outcrops or seeps in the vicinity of the subject swale.
Proposed Impacts: Conversion of a drainage segment 104 feet long between the
proposed north -south road and the neighbor's existing yard would impact approximately
260 square feet of potential non -wetland waters of the U.S. and waters of the state.
Mitigation: We reviewed the Comprehensive Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
for Vesting Tentative Tracts 2342, 2353, 2428, and Prado Park: Stormwater and Wetland
Mitigation Basin (Althouse and Meade, Inc. 2007) that was approved by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California
Department of Fish and Game. That plan included impacts to the entire drainage (530
feet; 0.03 acre) on Tract 2353 (Table 2, page 5).
Mitigation Area Verification: On January 10, 2014, biologist Mike Hill and GIS
specialist John Burman conducted a field investigation of the basin areas completed for
the comprehensive mitigation plan. We confirmed that 3.32 acres of basin wetland area
were created.
Conclusion: The proposed project impacts to the drainage will be substantially less than
included in the comprehensive mitigation plan implemented by construction of the Prado
Basin and the basin on Tract 2342. The proposed project would not affect sensitive plant
or wildlife species.
Sincerely,
LynneDee Althouse, Principal Scientist
Copy: Hal Hannula and Pam Ricci, City of San Luis Obispo
Attachments: Photographs
Location Map
CNDDB (Plants and Animals)
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Rarefind. 2014. The California Department of Fish and
Game Natural Diversity Data Base, version 3.1.1. January 3, 2014 data.
Tract 2353 Swale — Brief Biological Resource Review January 17, 2014 2
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 753.04
PHOTOGRAPHS
JANUARY 7, 2014
Photo 1. View southwest downstream in Swale.
Photo 2. Grasses and heavy clay in Swale.
Tract 2353 Swale — Brief Biological Resource Review January 17, 2014
Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 753.04
Photo 3. View upstream to neighbor's property and South
Hills.
Photo 4. Drop inlet a downstream terminus of Swale.
Stormwater flows through pipes under the house to Calle
Jazmin.
Tract 2353 Swale — Brief Biological Resource Review January 17, 2014 4
Aerial Photograph
N
,. Swale
E Parcel Boundary
0 200 400 800
S Feet
2012 San Luis Obispo County Althouse and Meade, Inc.
Tract 2353 NAIP Aerial Photography 1602 Spring Street
Map Updated: January 17, 2014, 11:55AM Paso Robles, CA 93446
CNDDB & FWS Critical Habitat Map (Plants)
Legend
5-mile buffer
µ'
Cuesta Ridge thistle
Pecho manzanita
adobe sanicle
Central Maritime Chaparral
Eastwood's larkspur
Pismo clarkia
black -flowered figwort
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh WAI
Hoover's bent grass
San Benito fritillary
j chaparral ragwort
Serpentine Bunchgrass
Hoover's button -celery
San Luis Obispo County lupine
® dune larkspur
Arroyo de la Cruz manzanita
�`':
Indian Knob mountainbalm
San Luis Obispo fountain thistle
dwarf soaproot
Betty's dudleya
Jones' layia
San Luis Obispo owl's -clover
mesa horkelia
Blochman's dudleya
La Panza mariposa -lily
San Luis Obispo sedge
ti^ most beautiful jewelflower
Brewer's spineflower
®
Miles' milk -vetch
San Luis mariposa -lily
mouse -gray dudleya
ii. Cambria morning-glory
Morro manzanita
Santa Lucia manzanita
saline clover
Congdon's tarplant
INS
Palmer's monardella
Santa Margarita manzanita
0 Parcels
CNDDB Data from January 1, 2014 Althouse and Meade, Inc.
2012 San Luis Obispo County
Tract 2353 NAIPAerial Photography 1602 Spring Street
Map Updated: January 17, 2014 09:54 AM Paso Robles, CA 93446
CNDDB & FWS Critical Habitat Map (Animals)
Legend
_J 5-mile buffer
coast homed lizard
® prairie falcon
western yellow -billed cuckoo
American badger
ferruginous hawk
steelhead - south/central California coast DPS
western mastiff bat
Atascadero June beetle
California red -legged frog foothill yellow -legged frog
tidewater goby
steelhead critical habitat
Coast Range newt
loggerhead shrike
vernal pool fairy shrimp
California red -legged frog critical habitat
San Luis Obispo pyrg
monarch butterfly
western pond turtle
Parcels
black legless lizard
pallid bat
white-tailed kite
W
4
Wiles
CNDDB Data from January 1, 2014 Althouse and Meade, Inc.
Tract 2353 2012 San Luis Obispo County 1602 Spring Street
NAIPAerial Photography
Map Updated: January 17, 2014 09:44 AM Paso Robles, CA 93446
Attachment 5
Traffic Study
January 6, 2014
Timothy Bochum, PE
Deputy Director of Public Works
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Mr. Bochum:
This study evaluates traffic conditions with development of the Western Enclave of the Margarita Area Specific
Plan (�L-1SP) and other near -term projects without the Prado Road extension to Broad Street.
SUMMARY
Table 1 summarizes the level of service (LOS) at the study intersections, which would operate acceptably at
LOS D or better under all study scenarios. Some locations would experience queue spillback with the addition
of near -term project traffic, which could be addressed by the recommendations at the end of this letter.
Existing
Scenario A
Scenario B
Delay
Delay
Delay
Intersection Peak Hour
(sec/veh) LOS
(sec/veh) LOS
(sec/veh) LOS
1. S, Higuera St/ AM
19.5 B
20.2 C
21.8 C
South St PM
22.0 C
22.7 C
24.1 C
2. S Higuera St/ AM
17.4 B
18.1 B
18.2 B
Madonna Rd PM
26.3 C
27.8 C
47.5 D
3. S Higuera St/ AM
9.5 A
11.5 B
11.5 B
Margarita Ave PM
10.0 A
10.4 B
10.5 B
4. S Higuera St/ AM
17.3 B
19.0 B
20.0 C
Prado Rd PM
21.0 C
23.9 C
25.4 C
5. S Higuera St/ AM
21.8 C
22.7 C
25.9 C
Tank Farm Rd PM
29.1C
30.5 C
33.9 C
1. I ICM 2000 avera c ocmtrol delay in seconds pervehide.
Deferring the Prado Road extension will result in higher volumes along South Street and Tank Farm Road.
South Street currently operates near the daily threshold noted in the Circulation Element, and is forecast to
exceed that threshold by approximately 15 percent with near -term projects in place. This is not expected to
result in a breakdown in flow, but would reduce available gaps for turning vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists.
Tank Farm Road currently operates above the daily threshold, but would be well below the threshold when it
is widened to four lanes.
Margarita -Avenue was reviewed in the context of daily traffic levels based on Circulation Element guidelines
which specify a desired maximum of 3,000 daily vehicles. With development of the Western Enclave, daily
traffic would grow to approximately 2,900 daily vehicles. Traffic along Margarita Avenue should be monitored
(805) 316-0101
14 N Ocean Avenue, Suite 132, Cayucos, CA 93430
M ASP Western Enclave Traffic Analysis Ammumm
by the City and the area may qualify for the City's Neighborhood Traffic Management Program if desired by
local residents.
ANALYSIS APDILnACH
These study roadway segments were evaluated using average daily traffic (.CDT) volumes, shown on Figure 1:
• South Street west of King Street
• Margarita Avenue east of South Higuera Street
• Prado Road east of South Higuera Street
• Tank Farm Road west of Santa Fe Road
Roadway segment threshold volumes are approximate and serve as a general guide for determining if a roadway
is below or over capacity, and are typically used for long-range planning purposes. Intersections are usually the
constraint points in urban environments, causing capacity issues before the roadway segment flow breaks down.
The following intersections were evaluated during the weekday morning (7-9 AM) and evening (4-6 PM) time
periods. The peak hour volumes are shown on Figure 2.
1. South Higuera Street/South Street
2. South Higuera Street/Madonna _venue
3. South Higuera Street/Margarita _venue
4. South Higuera Street/Prado Road
5. South Higuera Street/Tank Farm Road
The analysis scenarios are described below. Figure 3 shows the projects included in each scenario.
• Existing Conditions reflect recently collected (2012) traffic counts.
• Scenario A adds traffic expected from Tracts 2342, 2353, and 2428 (all located in the Western
Enclave) to Existing Conditions volumes. This scenario assumes that Tank Farm Road is widened to
four lanes.
• Scenario B includes near -term approved and pending projects in the study area and the Western
Enclave projects. This scenario also assumes that Tank Farm Road is widened to four lanes.
Further details of each of these scenarios and the analysis results are provided in the forecasting section.
The City of San Luis Obispo's Circulation Element calls for LOS D as the minimum acceptable service
condition for signalized intersections. Average daily traffic (.CDT) volumes were analyzed based on thresholds
in the Circulation Element. Table 2 shows the LOS thresholds for signalized intersections and the :CDT
thresholds from the City's Circulation Element.
Signalized Intersectioust
Control Delay
(seconds/vehicle)', Level of Service
`10 A
> 10 20 B
> 20 - 35 C
>35-55 D
> 55 - 80 1;
> 80 F
1. Based on 2(X)0 I lrohwy Cufiacily A4anrrul.
Two-lane Arterial Streets
Dour -lane Parkway .Arterial Streets
Residential Collector Streets
tyTraffic Thresholds?
Desired Maximum
ADT/LO S
15,200/1)
33,030/D
Desired Maximum
Speeds
40 mph
45 mph
25 mph
2. Maximum Desired ADT and speeds perTable 6.2 of the 2006 Circulation Flcmcnt. Arterial streets
have a maximum of LOS D, which corresponds to an ADT of 15,200 vchides for 2-lane sections per
1,IDOTs ADT tables (Class II signalized arterial, 2lanes undi\-ided). Four -lane partway arterial capacities
are calculated as a Class I arterial with capacity lowered 10"'�, because it is a major City (not State) roadway .
Central Coast Transportation Consulting January 6, 2014
ILASP Western Enclave Traffic Analysis
EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section describes existing conditions in the study area.
Traffic Operations
Traffic counts from May 2012 were used to analyze weekday A'M and PM peak hour conditions. Figure 2 shows
the peak hour traffic volumes under the analysis scenarios. Table 1 shows that the intersections operate at LOS
C or better under existing conditions. The detailed LOS calculation sheets are included as Appendix A.
Table 3 summarizes the average daily traffic levels on key roadways in the area. Tank Farm Road currently
exceeds the daily volume desired in the Circulation Element. Margarita Avenue and Prado Road are both well
below their desired thresholds identified in the Circulation Element. South Street is within three percent of the
desired maximum volume. As noted above, these are approximate thresholds generally used for planning future
roadway expansions, and operational issues would occur at intersections rather than along the roadway
segments.
EMMUMM
Segment
Existing
Scenario A
Scenario B
Margarita Avenue
1,190
2,900
2,900
Prado Road
3,302
6,100
7,500
South Street
14,854
15,300
17,300
Tank Farm Road
19,576
20,100
23,700
Margarita Neighhorhood Traffic
Traffic Speeds: The City collects vehicle speed data as a part of setting speed limits. Speed surveys were
conducted in 2010 for the eastbound and westbound segments of Margarita Avenue. Traffic speeds are typically
expressed in terms of the 8511� percentile speeds, which is the speed that is not exceeded by 85 percent of drivers.
The 85th percentile speeds on Margarita .Avenue are 28 mph in the westbound direction and 29 mph in the
eastbound direction. The posted speed is 25 mph. This data would not support a change to the speed limit
based on the California Vehicle Code.
Collision History: The City prepares a Traffic Safety Report every year to identify high collision locations
within the City and monitor mitigation measures intended to reduce collision rates. Margarita avenue has not
been identified as having high collision rates in any of the Traffic Safety Reports prepared since 2005. The
calculated collision rate at the intersection of South Higuera Street/;Margarita Avenue is 0.83 collisions per
million entering vehicles. This is below the statewide and SLO County average collision rates for two-lane
facilities.
Daily Volumes: ;Margarita Avenue has a maximum desired ADT of 3,000 daily vehicles per Table 6.2 of the
City's Circulation Element. The existing ADT of this segment is 1,190 daily vehicles.
Central Coast Transportation Consulting January 6, 2014
\L\SP Western Enclave Traffic Analysis
TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
The amount of project traffic affecting the study intersections is estimated in three steps: trip generation, trip
distribution, and trip assignment. Trip generation refers to the total number of new trips generated by the site.
Trip distribution identifies the general origins and destination of these trips, and trip assignment identifies the
specific routes taken to reach these origins and destinations.
The City of San Luis Obispo's Travel Demand \Iodel (TD1\1) incorporates these steps, and was used to develop
forecasts for Scenarios B. The TD\I was used because it includes locally valid trip generation rates and captures
the interaction between different land uses.
Model Applica Lion Approach
A list of approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable projects was obtained from City staff. These projects,
shown on Figure 3, were added to the TDM. Trip generation rates produced by the City's TDM were compared
to rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Manual for PM peak hour conditions. The
TDM's trip generation for the Scenario B land uses was 11 percent lower than the generic ITE rates. The ITE
rates were not adjusted to reflect higher than average levels of cycling and transit usage in the City, nor were
they adjusted to reflect pass -by trip reductions. This comparison indicates that the model outputs are reasonable
and appropriate for use. Appendix B shows the model's trip generation compared to ITE rates.
Scenario A
This scenario adds traffic from Western Enclave Tracts 2342, 2353, and 2428 to existing traffic volumes. The
TD\I does not include detailed loading for individual parcels, such as those in the Western Enclave where
detailed site layouts affect the portion of traffic assigned to Margarita Avenue and Prado Road. Trips from the
Western Enclave tracts were manually added to the network using standard ITE rates based on the site plans
contained in the Prado Road Delivery Plan. This manual assignment used ITE rates to present a conservative
analysis, since the ITE rates for residential uses are higher than the comparable rates in the TD\I.
Development of the Western Enclave Tracts would include new road connections between Margarita Avenue
and Prado Road. These connections would be used by some of the existing residents along Margarita Avenue,
shifting some existing traffic to Prado Road. These shifts are not reflected in the analysis to present a
conservative analysis of forecast conditions along \fargarita Avenue.
Scenario B
Scenario B reflects conditions with near -term projects plus the Western Enclave Tracts in place. The location
of near -term projects are shown on Figure 3, and near -term project details are provided in Appendix B. Trips
from approved/pending/reasonably foreseeable projects were assigned by the TD\I, which provides a post -
processing module applying NCHRP 255 forecasting methods to produce turning movement forecasts.
Central Coast Transportation Consulting January 6, 2014
\LNSP Western Enclave Traffic Analysis
ANALYSIS RESULTS
The analysis results are summarized in Tables 1, 3, and 4. The study intersections operate acceptably at LOS D
or better during the AM and PM periods under all scenarios. The study segments of Margarita Avenue, Prado
Road, and Tank Farm Road are forecast to have volumes below the desired maximum daily volumes. South
Street would exceed its daily volume threshold by approximately 15 percent. As noted above, this is not
expected to result in a breakdown in flow, but would offer fewer gaps for turning traffic and pedestrians
crossing South Street between Broad Street and South Higuera Street. Because traffic operations are constrained
by the intersections at both ends of South Street, the widening of South Street is not recommended.
Margarita avenue has a maximum desired _CDT of 3,000 daily vehicles per Table 6.2 of the City's Circulation
Element. The existing ADT of this segment is 1,190 daily vehicles, and the addition of near -term traffic
increases the forecast _',DT to 2,900 daily vehicles. The all -way stop controlled intersections on Margarita
_-',venue would continue to operate at LOS A during peak hours with the addition of near -term traffic.
Queue Analysis
Queues were evaluated using the 95t1, percentile values, which would not be exceeded 95 percent of the time.
Table 3 summarizes 95th percentile queues for turning movements that would exceed storage capacity.
95th Percentile Queues (feet)
Storage
Peak
Scenario B w/
Intersection
Movement
Length
Hour
Existing
Scenario A
Scenario B
improvement
Wcstbound Left
13o ft
',M
172
175
238
1?xtend turn Pocket to
1. S I ligucra St/ South St
M1 1
236
242
284
300 ft.
#140
#140
#140
No improvement
MINI
Southbound Left
100 ft
PINI
104
104
#113
recommended.
2. S I [igucra St/ Madonna Rd
Northbound 1,eft
160 ft
PiAf
#310
#323
#495
Dual left- queue #212
feet
3. S [ligucra St/ Margarita Ave
Southbound ],eft
100 ft
13l`1
63
109
111
No improvement
recommended.
Dual left queue 156
Northbound LJC
250 ft
PM
351
358
385
4. S f ligucra St/ Prado Rd
feet
116
156
196
lixtend turn pocket to
AM
Southbound LefC
125 ft
I'M
104
189
202
250 feet.
5. S I li ucra St Tank farm Rd
g / �
Southbound Left"
165 ft
ANI
200
232
276
Dual left- queue 135
PM
#306
#347
#387
159 feet AM 11M
1. Queue length that would not be ecceeded
95 pereent of the time Queues are reported
only for turning movements where
queues esceed storage capacity.
2. Length of marked pocket. Queues spilling out of podet would
be stored in
a two-way
left -turn lane.
#. 95th percentile volume esceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Recommendations
1. South Higuera Street/South Street: Caltrans recently ceded control of this intersection to the City
of San Luis Obispo. The City is in the process of upgrading the signal control equipment to meet City
standards, which may include signal timing changes. The City has a project underway to prohibit left
turns from South Street to Parker Street in an effort to improve safety at that location. This turn
prohibition would also extend the westbound left turn lane at South Higuera Street/South Street to
approximately 300 feet, which would accommodate the projected queues under all scenarios. The
southbound left turn queue spillback is not expected to change substantially from existing conditions
(approximately two vehicles), so no further improvements are recommended.
Central Coast Transportation Consulting January 6, 2014
AIASP Western Enclave Traffic .Analysis
2. South Higuera Street/Madonna Avenue: This intersection also was recently controlled by Caltrans
and is now controlled by the City. The northbound left turn queue is expected to increase from
approximately 300 feet under existing conditions to nearly 500 feet with near -term projects. Traffic
from the Western Enclave Tracts 2342, 2353, and 2428 represents less than ten percent of the near -
term growth contributing to this deficiency. The conversion of one northbound through lane to a left
turn lane (resulting in two northbound left turn lanes and one shared through/right turn lane) would
reduce this queue to approximately 200 feet and would reduce overall intersection delay. This project
is not currently programmed, and would require further operational study and geometric review before
implementation.
3. South Higuera Street/Margarita Avenue: Southbound left turn queues are projected to spill out of
the turn pocket by less than one vehicle length. The queue would spill back into a two-way left -turn
lane, not the through lanes, so no improvements are recommended for this location. Queues on the
eastbound approach PT\IV driveway) would remain under two vehicles with near -term projects in
place.
4. South Higuera Street/Prado Road:
a. Queues from the northbound left turn lane currently spill back out of the turn pocket, and
the addition of near -term traffic will increase these queues. While the Western Enclave tracts
do not add traffic to this movement, the Prado Road extension is expected to shift traffic
patterns and reduce the demand for this movement. Deferring the Prado Road extension
would prolong the time that this left turn movement experiences queue spillback. The addition
of a second northbound left turn lane would reduce queues for this movement to less than
200 feet. This improvement would also require widening of the Prado Road bridge west of
South Higuera Street to provide two receiving lanes. _1 project study report is currently
underway for the bridge widening, and the second left turn lane is expected to be amended
into the City's Traffic Impact Fee program during its next update.
b. The southbound left turn lane would also experience queue spillback. While the marked
pocket is relatively short, queues can spill back into a two-way left -turn lane. This TWLTL
serves a driveway approximately 275 feet north of Prado Road, so the effective storage length
is longer than the marked turn lane. The projected queues for the southbound left turn
movement would be accommodated in the TWLTL without blocking access to the driveway.
Re -striping the TWL,TL as a 250 foot pocket would accommodate the projected queues.
c. The westbound approach is not expected to have queue spillback. The installation of
pedestrian countdown heads on the South Higuera Street crossings would improve pedestrian
conditions by showing how much time remains to complete the crossing, which provides
access to the Bob Jones Trail.
5. South Higuera Street/Tank Farm Road: The southbound left turn queues at this intersection
currently exceed the storage capacity, and would lengthen with near -term traffic. The installation of a
second southbound left turn lane would reduce queues to an acceptable level. Cost estimates have
recently been prepared for this projects, and it is expected to be amended into the City's Traffic Impact
Fee program in the next TIF update..A related project is the installation of a westbound right turn
overlap phase, which would further improve traffic operations at this location.
Central Coast Transportation Consulting January 6, 2014
\LaSP Western Enclave Traffic analysis
6. Margarita Neighborhood: Margarita avenue has a maximum desired ADT of 3,000 daily vehicles
per Table 6.2 of the City's Circulation Element. The existing ADT of this segment is 1,190 daily
vehicles, and the addition of near -term traffic increases the forecast aDT to 2,900 daily vehicles. Traffic
speeds and volumes along Margarita avenue should be monitored upon occupancy of Western
Enclave tracts, and neighborhood issues evaluated in the context of the City's Neighborhood Traffic
Management program. This is consistent with the conditions of approval (per Resolution No. 9776
(2006 Series), condition Streets 6) requiring monitoring of traffic volume and speeds in the area once
development occurs and installation of traffic calming measures if necessary. alternatively, the
Resolution allows for payment of a one-time contribution to the City's Neighborhood Traffic
\lanagement program in the amount of $130,000. This condition should remain in place to ensure
neighborhood traffic issues are addressed.
Traffic Share Calculations
Table 5 summarizes the portion of traffic generated by individual \LISP projects. Standard ITE rates were
used to develop daily trip estimates using the land uses in the Margarita Area Specific Plan Reimbursement, Fiscal,
and EconomicAnalsis Final Report (Goodwin Consulting Group, January 4, 2013).
Project Land Use
Size
Daily Trips
% of MASP Trips
Single family Residential'
"Tract
165 units
1,665
2428 (King)
0
8 /o
Multi -family Residential1
32 units
213
Single family Residential'
121 units
1,252
Tract 2353 (Serra Meadows) Mulri-Family Residential'
23 units
153
7%
Business Park'
18,290 s.f.
228
Single family Rcsidcntial2
56 units
616
Tract 2342 (Mangano)
4%
Business Park'
20,119 s.f.
250
Byron Davis Business Park
160,000 s.f.
1,990
8%
Single Family Residential'
355 units
3,369
Residential'
84 units
559
Damon & GarciaMulti-Family
58%
Business Park
405,108 s.f.
5,040
Retail'
65,000 s.f.
5,133
1,J Martinelli, Jr Business Park
200,000 s.f.
2,488
10%
U' Martinelli Business Park
100,000 s.f.
1,244
5%
Total
24,200
100%
1. Iistimatcs based on Institute of Transportation Engineers"Frip Generation
manual, using most applicable
generic land use
types.
2. ITI: Land Use Code 211), Singe -Family Detached I-Iousing. fitted curve equations
used.
3. PIT. Land Use Code 220, Apartment. Average rates used.
4. ITE Land Use Code 770, 13usiness Park. Average rates used.
5. ITE Land Use Code 820, Shopping Center. Fitted Came equations used.
Source. Trio Generation_ 9th Edition. ITE (20121 and CCl'G 2013
Central Coast Transportation Consulting January 6, 2014
HASP Western Enclave Traffic analysis
CONCLUSIONS
The development of Western Enclave tracts and near -term projects would not result in LOS deficiencies at the
study intersections. Near -term traffic increases will cause operational issues at the study intersections which can
be addressed by the following actions: -
• South Higuera Street/South Street: the City shall implement the planned westbound left turn lane
extension and associated left turn prohibition to/from Parker Street.
• South Higuera Street/Madonna Avenue: the City shall monitor traffic operations at this location
and evaluate the need and feasibility of converting a northbound through lane to a second northbound
left turn lane.
• South Higuera Street/Prado Road: the City shall amend the Traffic Impact Fee to include the
second northbound left turn lane at this location. The City shall enter into a cost sharing agreement
with the Western Enclave applicants to re -stripe the southbound left turn lane and install pedestrian
countdown heads at this intersection.
• South Higuera Street/Tank Farm Road: the City shall amend the Traffic Impact Fee to include
the second southbound left turn lane at this location.
• Margarita Neighborhood: the previously adopted Condition of approval requiring monitoring of
traffic conditions or a one-time Neighborhood Traffic Management contribution should be included
in the revised Conditions of approval.
• The Western Enclave projects shall pay the amended Traffic Impact Fee as their fair share
contribution to the deficiencies identified in this report. If at the time of building permit issuance the
City's TIF has not been amended to accommodate these projects, or Prado Road has not been
connected to Broad Street, the Western Enclave project applicants will be responsible for paying a
pro rata share of said improvements subject to approval of the City's Public Work Director.
Please let me know if you have any questions. I appreciate the opportunity to assist with this project.
Sincerely,
Joe Fernandez, PE aICP
e�QFESS/C)F
Principal
�? O 2
a
Enclosures:
o C 70594
* EXF htie 30, 20'S
Figure 1: Study area and Daily Volumes
Figure 2: Peak Hour Volume Summary
Figure 3: approved/Pending Projects Summary
Appendix A: LOS/Queue Calculation Sheets
Appendix B: Trip Generation Comparison
Central Coast Transportation Consulting January 6, 2014
Figure 1: Study Locations and Daily Volumes
December 2013
7o-"
Study Locations
MASP Western Enclave Traffic Analysis
Figure 2: Peak Hour Volumes
1.
00
Co rn in
0D
+-65(91)
O m N m
CO N — - -
-4-29(15)
.J y L►'
J-449(609)
South St.
22(25) -#
14(16)--,-.
N
17(18)-*
M
N d'
,'
V CO
+-10(13)
v M
8(64)
.� �
` 3(5)
Madonna Rd.
1
558(574) #
25(23)--,--
N
436(311)-*
rn
N
3.
M C.0 00
C0
+- 51(48 )
vLO
C(0 CO
.�
53(39)
Margarita Ave.
3(22) -#
1(0) --'►
CO CNo v
14(31)-+
Ln v o
N � N
4.
Cfl LO u>
� v 2
+- 32(50)
00 v N m
.-36(96)
EI L. T
`31(43)
Prado Rd.
55(54)-#
O
81(17)�
M v
84(99)-,
o 00 N
N N
5.
ovCO
N co � o
Z 214(294)
CO M m
`V _
,`276(570)
Tank Farm Rd.
� t
22(16)-#
o N T
13(10)�
v v
5(3)�
- LO
CO Ln
December 2013
LO 00 2 Z65(91)
o v N S �29(15)
CO A
�
,`456(622)
South St. t
22(25)-# N o
14(16)�
17(18)-* CO LO CO
M Ln
2. M
+-10(13)
0 00
N rn
F 8(64)
V CO j -� � _
�3(5)
Madonna Rd.
t
558(574) #
rn j
25(23)—
c°'v L`O
443(324)-,
o
`- CO
3.
CO O �
Z 97(79)
v � LMn
.� Lo. :c
1-91(64)
Margarita Ave.
3(22) J
1(0)->►
MN00
�--
Ln
14(31)
r`nt M
N
4. Ln Co
v Ln =
+-112(117)
v �
�65(120)
LO
,`67(73)
Prado Rd.
61(72) -+
95(45)->
M
84(99)-+
0
'CO:) 'COO v
CV N
5. N �;
N (6 N 2
Z228(325)
C.0 N 2)
�10(11)
`V `V =
276(570)
Tank Farm Rd.
22(16) -#
o o
13(10)-->
5(3)
CO �
" M
I. M
CO Ln
C° +-66(84)
°Lr�i
o N -t-29(15)
.J L. 1-613(716)
South St.
22(25)_+
14(16),�t�C`t�o
17(18) -+ °' L(OO o
CO Ln
a' CO
Ln
Z10(13)
t`
('00m
-E--8(64)
.� T-
j-3(5)
Madonna Rd.
t
588(793) _#
N
25(23)->
487(389) -+
M rn
M
3. i
Ln O
o Z91(77)
O O N
00 Ln .2') �1 1
'IT( )
.J � L, = f-92(67)
Margarita Ave. t
3(22) -#
1(0) O rn
14(31) -+ N o
M
4. o Coo
+-113(152)
v N = F66(157)
.j � L,. ,`76(98)
Prado Rd.
50(73)
129(46)--► 6i L- �
84(94)-+ N LO
CV
5.
M 00
270(389)
`VLc,LLO v'F10(11)
`V `N _
,`322(732)
Tank Farm Rd.
22(16) -+
13(10) --►
r v CIO
5(3)-,
M
ti
.R.
xx(yy) - AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic
Volumes
MASP Western Enclave Traffic Analysis
Figure 3: Near Term Projects
December 2013
N
O
W
rz
W
a
Attachment 4
U
M
Lri
4
COfV
4-1
t
o
•
z
W
F—
J
(30VMOVd IWMd ONKrvvo
31Vil1/d38 338
NIBV8.3f1VN11/!IO
N)
3®M ALNf1111100 M3
v
E
Q
>< a@
a Q zQ p
w=>
W i wy i wciQ t, ai
�wH !� - w S k g
~ dY Z gg 9� (n Z K x o Yt U
o
iEFY N m= !! N LP
Jhi b8 U G H d d
Q gzw
U
ui
mL)m
4- m
5
5
a
a0
H
w »
�HNCC
wNwOQi�
J W F W W
F<�aa
I+000U
Q
Yl a
s
0 U U
O
U F O 0 0
g N N
W 3w='3
=Wzz
H O U W W
Q -zoo
ww
LL g�g H U U
Q�iooxx
a gUNHf
i i
11y1 W
W HU ID
m
0
N
N
E
v
9£0£ LO L :'oN qof
N
U
Z'I'
II �4 Ialnl 'rg iA
a.
k
ANW993DVW
rr
—__—
t 'pi
Ipi a
f h„ iAI
IAI ? E
AIA R
f � IIA
�J
ap
ON
i y
__-
F
--_
I I;
R icn 'n
Ji
i
sous
_-T
i A7 I R IAI
A' �r
IAIbI 'rp, ivy ie
A f a'.,
IAIA' qay, A
cz� tIATM�
An
F
�
lUl.muo
IAA
H
14 �- •�/
a
}
/ - i
Itt
I
_
s
II
__r—__�I
AI
?r} fi. la d
Fry.
I
7 t
IA '''b
IAI
°',.
"�
,a
__
--__
I IAI ■
I'
IA' f"
I .
IAI:
P's
.A
R'
•�
iAIA' `°;�, �A�
ZO—
1+11i
I
AI
li q'ry
A
A i
�@
Ialai �@ A.
■
■
y
l�
2
JUNMFRO
■
F
t
-.-_;---.- - ;-- - ;------ ---------------- r, Y---
t C[ CC ccCC---�---�---
■q 0. BAQj AIAFa AIA Aj nln sa a!e 51 t 'JIa 9 aln a ein a ala a eln d ala a nln f a eln eln
_I I` I ___ ala-_-al� __> IAIAI ` @IAr 9IA� alga AIAy AIA L AIA A 3 �A "i @6 gIg'9
j_—rrr-'owL- = --A—r 7�o. j_ Aro--o_. aor-]___ w _a= --
Am— Av Av rl'3
�q � r
R�
gg II
-- E�------I--i --------- •E -----{--- ------- ------_-�-----�r� E l
w.1Ki:•.1Y«a.aai�r�r-..«tti.r+rwF'"ji.s�rr.:..��i��r •� ;�A
--------- ----- r—ia----------------------- ----L-
9EOE 101 'oN qof
FEW a M
U
same
d i � 6
=
I i M O w
bC_4 a [!jP Ln a 0
In �9 t Qi (n h m
N = 7al
N O
4 co V 1 J
J N o
N
A 1 Q CO
W ; N
•� 'u 0
1 j
jj 4�1
M
O
Illi �D
v
L
N ! F
W � v
0
j
E
i
W
,
LL LL LL LL LL LL� LL LL LL LL�� LL LL LL��� LL LL LL U. U. U. U.LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL m H 'A
LL
n
m
m
H
H
m
H
m
H
m
CC
CCm
H
m
m
m
m`
H
H
CC
CC
m
toH
H
H
H
H
m
m
m
m
m
H
m
m
m
m
O
O
O
m
�•
i
L
�
F
a
IHfI
pOp
n
pOp
f
pOp
n
pOp
n•
aq
ymy��
a
aOa
N
aOa
N
aOa
N
aOa
N
aOa
N
aOa
N
O
A
O
A
O
A
m
A
mm�p
N
jjH
1�
O
H
O
Infl
O
N
pH
H
�
IHfI
pOp
n
pOp
n
pOp
n
O
H
O
H
aOa
N
pOp
f
aOa
N
yAy��
a
EO
H
O
H
O
N
O
IHfI
O
IHfI
pH
10
O
H
3
W
G
�
pA
1aa0
O
prOpr
�o
Ci
Ofml
Ofml
0fm1
Ofml
Ofml
0pr1
{yHp�
O
IAO
p^
N
gyp
fmm7
01
pA
O
NV
V.-
a
A
��Opp
�Ap
imp
I{Hf�I
1'fl
�Np
fm7
Ipmfl
NS
�
O
YAl
N
C
N
10
N•
H�
n
H
g
q
q
q
q
H
1�
01
�
m
m
N
10
m
m
W�
OW
ww
N
v
1+!
v
Iwo
WWI�
O
LLa
LLa
LLa
mLL6
��
LL
LL��
LL��
LL
LL
LL�
LL�
LL
LL
LL
LL
m
ee
111�
Eli
-IIS�I
I�
HE
I
II
"
�RI
I
-
•
I
11
"riall
•
-
�!►i
((/jrt
!kl
1
q
lip
�
oil
�11'lll� 11.1
NO
i.a.-."�,�, I�►ate _._._.
��......... III'I
T
Attachment 5
N
C
fa
U
c
O
a
0
U
O
E
E
J
a
E
U
Q
L C
7
C
C
p
y
y O
O
p O
N
y 7
c U
c
c>
a
y
a
E
U
y
3
C
3. >
L
a
N
1] y
o5
DID
o5
`ooEo
cL
N Cb=
>
MESS
O O
2 U 2
'o N
Q 0
O
U 2
O W t6 W W
2 0 0 0 H U
Co
fn
Co
N
l6
H
O
Q w
N
S N
m E
O
y U
fJ C 5
m=O 3
N X y
N C C
C l6 /0 C �y
w E 1p >
111 C U N
y m O N
r
O O W N
J N O
3 c W W .2
J C O 2'
m N � m m LLI
E fa c E E ap
O L O O
y
C y j C C y
E d E E O
E c O E E a
cgca88CM
U o 06
U fn NUUU
mfn> fafaU
O a jO O o N�
y C M
Oil C d N N N 20'OJOQ 20'20'H
n
> 4) y y G1 N N O y 0 y N N N y N y N N N y N foil y N N O O y y O N N y y
•� •j •> 01 "' 01 01 :.. .� : Ol 01 Ol Ol Ol '� 01 Ol .� 01 .� .� •� .O 01 CM ... « .> .> « Ol Ol •�CM
pCO f0 f0 pCO pCO f0 f0 f0 f0 f0 L f0 f0 N •O• (Cp •O• L �) �` f0 f0 pCO pCp pCO M M L T L T O L G)
U U U y U ?' U U y U U U y U y ?' U U �' y U y Y Y Y y U U U U—T•—T• U U U—T• U U U U y
U M t t t O 0; o o 0; t; 0 0 0 O O% 0 0 0 L o o t 0 o 0 L L L 0 c o c o C;; L L; o o L O C O C; o 0
y ��0Z N22 NLMG72 ZZ2N 2 0Z2rn 2 ��0 y2 R 2N N N�� N 225M2 y z A z
a U U U 2 2 to 2 a to <n to to to a n a 2 2 y to 2 N n a 2
� <n in in N N tq
_ C 8�
(D N
N y Ol N C y j. C Ol Ol y �, y C N C« y U fJ C_ C C C C
E a E o C O O a C fo O C n n fo C y r // f0 y O O O C L C C y C U p
y O. l6 C f0 d Ol C .y. ; N C N y fy tq >. N C .� C C y y .L... Ol C ' OJ fo Y y O O
o —y •C 4) E C a C E w ul m y Q Cl > -V O j GZ f0 y O � U E O .d. .0. �. �. ul y f0 S C L U y C
o O y N y o E> N N N N `��' ..d. C `• C C C o L N 2 N-o O O m o_ U E N N N U U L L o . O C a N
c L n' fn ' p a Y D d o fa f0 �' E E _ E y E '
U C 7 d E a Q fo O. y_ l6 `1 _ Q O 'O f0 d 2' E ul 7 O U` f0 N ul Q U U f0 Y .— f0 C O
CL m ayiH mHU «? o 58 J o`mLLmC7t rndU J ut opQCo Spa Mtnr•• 0� fn fn asCL O c2 c � E
O H Q d (n m J m an d N E E m m Q d N 7
O > > d >
aM
c y of
o y
C— N m V fn f0 h CO 0I O N f7 f0 f0 h fA O O N Q V fn f0 h CO r CO M O N Cl) V fn f0 C` cO h fA tr U
O N N N N N N N N N M M V V V V V V V V V c6 fn fn fn y
U N 3
NN co
z ##
(D4)
# E E
04 d aD
O N f7 f0 f0 h fD 0I O N C9 V fn (0 C` W W O N m O f7 V fn f0 h co o) O oo a) O 7 '7
O N Mf0 (0 h co o) N N N N N N N N N N Mf7 f7 Co V V V V V V f0 N f0 f0
U d y
0
. city or Meeting Date: March 12, 2014
SAn WI S OBI SPO Item Number:2
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Consideration of proposed revisions to the Conditions of Approval for the previously
approved Vesting Tentative Map (Tract 2428) relative to the construction of Prado Road.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 3000 Calle Malva
FILE NUMBER: ERITR 121-13
BY: Pam Ricci,Senior Planner FF-
Phone Number: 781-71 b8
E-mail: priccii@slocity.org
FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION: Continue to a date certain- March 26, 2014 to allow for staff to complete the
project analysis.
SITE DATA
Applicant
Dennis Moresco
Representative
TEC Civil Engineering Consultants
Zoning
O-SP, Office; R-1-SP, Low -Density
Residential; R-2-SP, Medium -
Density Residential; R-3-SP,
Medium -High Density
Residential; and C/OS-SP,
Conservation Open Space [all
with the Specific Plan overlay]
General Plan
Business Park, Low -Density
Residential, Medium -Density
Residential, and Medium -High
Density Residential
Site Area
99 acres
Environmental
An Addendum of Environmental
Status
Impact was prepared to
document the project's
consistency with the Margarita
Area Specific Plan (MASP) EIR and
subsequent tiered Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
� 4't� wrsi�v u rah d Wit► ( A;:& #.Wl' l 4Wjft v t*vrim%t
IWT- j it .;wriMw WFQd4
on mil =Hm-.4
wd sealgm! nt IWy vd wjils .si da�M 4omr alab a ..Q w"c�) -VZOtiAtj{c,3 AMU MW
amomw i+c j Wo4fr+tgtri if on M
MoOmw Wy N o4mobta1
vs.h-*.Aow*A4*A vIII Rol
Mt��s� c►� n�•,7q�'1 ,
Al!H-imaiL@b arts 3<:cfn+�Nx�
!t►itngW*A
ev+-A ow
fsM*mqG*Af4 to aT, ft"MA rah
to bactlic" 11" li;olr
�*] i i tKlllt7�i
whowsm i1411 #al qew +r�qv
&0 M3 f SON"O 34bv# SPA �
bwano" burl* * R
:aw wmmo WAI
Nr WA
ATAQ 1W.
sa�7p&q"ow"
W44WT
t" Im
tok"llumiWIN
*wow
1
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 26, 2014
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Commissioners John Fowler, Ronald Malak, Michael Multari, William
Riggs, Charles Stevenson, Vice -Chairperson John Larson, and
Chairperson Michael Draze
Absent: None
Staff: Community Development Director Derek Johnson, Deputy Community
Development Directors Doug Davidson and Kim Murry, and Recording
Secretary Diane Clement
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES:
Minutes of February 12, 2014, were approved as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
PRESENTATION: A presentation was made by Detlev Peikert, AIA LEED Architect,
RRM Design Group, and John Campanella, City of Santa Barbara Planning
Commissioner, regarding lessons learned from a pilot project to test approaches to
achieve more affordable housing in the City of Santa Barbara.
Commission Comments:
Commr. Multari asked if developers could apply for bonuses under state law in addition
to incentives provided by the City of Santa Barbara. Mr Peikert and Mr. Campanella
clarified that the affordable housing regulations were covered by different codes but that
there were provisions that allowed for density bonuses and increased square footage
allowed under this program. Mr. Campanella added that, for development in mixed use
areas, the incentive is that the existing first -floor commercial can be rebuilt with housing
on the floors above.
In response to a question about setbacks from Commr. Fowler, Mr. Campanella stated
that the City of Santa Barbara is using variable setbacks and an average of those
setbacks in calculations. He also noted that open space can be above grade level,
such as on roofs and that this is especially applicable when developing narrow lots.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
February 26, 2014
Page 2
Commr. Riggs stated that he sees no direct correlation between parking structures and
affordability. He asked why minimum standards for parking are not eliminated because
they seem to work against achieving greater density. Commr. Riggs asked what is
being done in Santa Barbara to address unit mix that is affordable. Mr. Campanella
responded that there is a need to determine that product being built is both what people
want and what can be financed. Commr. Riggs stated that he does not see any market
incentive to provide larger subsidized units to accommodate families.
Commr. Multari noted that, on the open market, incentives are lacking to support
developers in building housing needed in the community. Mr. Peikert stated that there
is the possibility of a number of employers participating in a limited partnership to
develop below -market rate housing for employees with developer profit.
Commr. Riggs asked if Santa Barbara had any developers interested in building
affordable housing. Mr. Peikert stated that there is a lot of interest in building
apartments and there are nonprofits seeking subsidies to build.
Mr. Peikert and Mr. Campanella asked the Commissioners how the Santa Barbara
experience relates to San Luis Obispo, what challenges are anticipated in SLO, and
what kind of process is needed to develop solutions.
Commr. Draze noted that San Luis Obispo, like Santa Barbara, has done some creative
things to encourage affordable housing development and that one parking space per
unit should be enough, however there may be problems down the road. Mr. Peikert
agreed and noted that lifestyle changes will be involved to adapt but that, the positive
effects, including reducing traffic, make the changes worthwhile. Commr. Draze noted
that the younger generation is not so tied to having cars sitting around and prefer the
idea of cars on demand.
Commr. Fowler asked if Mr. Peikert and Mr. Campanella are hopeful about Santa
Barbara's first project. Mr. Peikert noted that the Arlington project was appealed and
noted that commitment by decision -makers is important, as is educating the community
about what you are trying to accomplish. Commr. Fowler asked how required retention
of storm runoff impacts development. Mr. Campanella noted that requiring less parking
leaves more green space to capture the water.
Commr. Stevenson stated that he sees some similarities between the two cities and
stated he was impressed with the charette process in Santa Barbara and the response
by those who attended. He stated that San Luis Obispo has worked at adopting
ordinances to allow for greater height downtown and that challenges are anticipated,
including some pushback in the community. He stated that the community does
understand the need for affordable housing and revitalization downtown to attract
businesses.
Commr. Multari asked that staff weave some of the ideas presented into the Housing
Element. He stated that he hoped the City can find civic -minded developers and that
the City will be challenged to provide affordable rentals and housing. He noted San
Luis Obispo has significant differences from Santa Barbara. The City already allows
greater density through variable density and the City is still not getting the needed
affordable housing.. He stated that San Luis Obispo is not a built out community like
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
February 26, 2014
Page 3
Santa Barbara and still has areas for residential development. He further noted that
San Luis Obispo does not see itself as an urban community and that residents see
themselves as living in a rural or semirural area where open space is very valuable and
desirable. He also noted that San Luis Obispo is relatively smaller than Santa Barbara
with a much higher student population that skews demographics and housing cost data.
Commr. Riggs stated that San Luis Obispo needs to find an employer with which to
cooperate on housing options. He noted that many junior professors who live outside
the City would prefer housing in San Luis Obispo.
Community Development Director Johnson noted that there are differences between the
two cities, including the proximity of less expensive housing within a 15 minute drive to
San Luis Obispo. He stated that the Land Use and Circulation Element update contains
direction to update the City's provisions for variable density and that a process
comparable to Santa Barbara's charette would be helpful in this effort.
Commr. Draze thanked the presenters for their time and information.
Commr. Fowler noted that affordable housing is all about the economics, and he
acknowledges Santa Barbara's efforts to tackle affordability via increased densities
and educating the public, but it comes down to incentivizing the developers.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1060 Osos Street. A 9-14: Request to operate a private rental facility for parties and
events, including alcohol service; C-D-H zone; Anthony Ryan Benedicto, applicant.
(Doug Davidson) (APPLICATION WITHDRAWN)
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments made from the public.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
1. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast
1) March 12, 2014, meeting: The Margarita Area Tract #2353 and the
neighboring tract will be on the agenda.
2. Commission
a. Commr. Riggs commended members of the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority who
produced transit bookmarks in response to his suggestion at the September 25,
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
February 26, 2014
Page 4
2013, Planning Commission meeting that they do something transit -oriented as
a service project.
b. Commr. Riggs announced that on March 6 and 13, 2014, 3-5 p.m., there will be
student -driven presentations in the Cal Poly library concerning transportation.
Information will be distributed to all Commissioners with details.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:12 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Diane Clement
Recording Secretary