HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/6/2025 Item 6d, Tway and Taylor - Staff Agenda CorrespondenceCity of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum
City of San Luis Obispo
Council Agenda Correspondence
DATE: May 6, 2025
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Timmi Tway, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Callie Taylor, Senior Planner
VIA: Whitney McDonald, City Manager
SUBJECT: Item 6d – 2025 ANNUAL MONITORING FOR THE SAN LUIS RANCH
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND
PROJECT CONDITIONS - AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE MEMO
The following memorandum provides City staff responses to questions received regarding
the San Luis Ranch annual monitoring report. Staff determined it would be helpful to
provide this memo to all Council Members and the public, as the responses offer
clarification regarding the annual review. The questions are below with staff’s response
shown in italics:
1. For the non-compliance issues, can Council get a periodic update on the status
of resolving these items?
The annual review is the time that City staff provides a comprehensive review and
check in with City Council. If progress is made to bring the identified items into
compliance, City staff will provide the City Council with an update on those items
through separate correspondence and updates.
2. Provide more clarity/detail as to why street trees required by Condition of
Approval #55 and mitigation measure (AG-3) were not included in in the public
improvement plans and did not get planted? Is there a difference between
Condition #55 and the issued public improvement plans for Tract 3096? What is
the planned action for bringing these items into compliance?
The Public Improvement Plans for San Luis Ranch were first submitted in February
2017 (FMAP-0174-2017), with approval and issuance is October 2019. This plan set
includes the major backbone road and utility infrastructure for both on and off-site
improvements. However, the landscape plans issued in this plan set included only
portions of offsite landscape, and many references were made to landscape being
shown and installed with other plans (onsite or by other owners). Doze ns of
subsequent revisions and supplemental plan sets were submitted between 2018 and
2025 to address additional improvements and project requirements as various project
components were built out and associated improvements were designed for
installation. Some plan sets, including on-site improvements plans, identified street
trees to be installed along frontages as an off-site improvement. However, on FMAP-
Item 6d – San Luis Ranch 2025 Annual Monitoring - Agenda Correspondence Memo Page 2
0174-2017, street trees were inadvertently missed by the applicant, their project
engineer and landscape architect, and City plan checkers prior to issuance in 2019.
The FMAP-0174-2017 issued landscape plan did not include street trees on the sides
of the street, and trees were only included in the center medians.
City Staff has been working with the developer for over a year to request that the trees
be installed. Legal counsel for the developer has formally disputed the continuing
obligation of the developer regarding the plantings, and City staff and City Attorney
are looking at options to compel the developer to comply with the requirements of
Condition of Approval #55 and mitigation measure (AG-3). The agricultural farm site
began to develop last year, and staff is having ongoing discussions with both the
agricultural owner and the master developer regarding compliance.
3. As the residential portions of the project wrap up, what leverage does the City
retain to ensure compliance with remaining conditions of approval and
mitigation measures? The staff report notes that bonds are still held by the City.
Are those sufficient to cover the remaining items, including tree compensatory
replanting, weeds in the wetlands, and street trees?
The City holds several project bonds, including bonds specifically for habitat
restoration. The amounts are sufficient to complete remaining and ongoing work if
necessary. If the developer fails to submit the required annual monitoring reports or
fails to complete the habitat restoration in compliance with the EIR, DA, and project
conditions, the City can pull the bonds and use those funds to complete the work. The
City will first encourage the developer to complete the work themselves, as it is much
more efficient than having the City pull bonds and complete the work itself.
Last year, the 2024 annual compliance review identified annual biological monitoring,
verification of habitat restoration, and tree planting as items of non -compliance. In
September 2024, the developer submitted an annual monitoring report, completed by
the project biologist, in order to begin bringing the project into compliance with this
biological mitigation measure. The report identified areas in the creek where ongoing
work still needs to be completed. City staff expects another report from the biolog ist
in the next few months to provide updated status on compensatory tree replanting and
progress towards items identified in the September 2024 report.