HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-10154 certifying the Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Orcutt Area Specific Plan, adopting the Orcutt Area Specific Plan, and approving General Plan Amednments to implement the land uses approved in the Specific Plan (SP, ER 209-98)0 0
RESOLUTION NO. 10154 (2010 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CERTIFYING THE FINAL
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ORCUTT AREA
SPECIFIC PLAN, ADOPTING THE ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND
APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE LAND USES
APPROVED IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN (SP, ER 209 -98)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo met in the Council
Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California on March 2, 2010, for the
purpose of considering a recommendation made by the Planning Commission to certify the Final
Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP), adopt
the OASP, and approve associated General Plan amendments to implement the land uses shown
in the GASP; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommendation was based on public input
received over the course of eight public hearings, and the advice and recommendations of other
City advisory bodies including the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Bicycle. Advisory
Committee, the Cultural Heritage Committee and the Architectural Review Commission; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the project have been evaluated in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Review
Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, development of the Orcutt Area is expected to occur over a twenty to thirty
year horizon, and therefore requires an intergenerational look at infrastructure requirements and
planning for long -term City goals; and
WHEREAS, development of the Orcutt Area will be better served by City infrastructure,
including police, fire, water and sewer service, and City streets, and described in the OASP; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff presented at
said meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. EIR Certification. The City Council does hereby certify the EIR based
on the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations included in Exhibit A, and
subject to a Mitigation Measure Monitoring Plan maintained on file in the Community
Development Department.
R 10154
Resolution No. 10154 (20 10 Series)
Page 2
SECTION 2. Adoption of the OASP. The City Council does hereby adopt the
Planning Commission Draft of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan and directs the Community
Development Director to begin implementation of the Plan by working with property owners to
develop a boundary map for a one -time, City- sponsored annexation, with the following changes:
1. References in the document to Skinner as a prior owner of the Righetti Ranch Housing
property shall be replaced with the correct surname, Jacobson.
2. Chapter 5, Transportation, Policy 5.1c shall be revised as follows: New individual
driveway access onto Orcutt Road shall be prohibited under the Specific Plan. Existing
driveways with access onto Orcutt Road may be used either for the existing number of units
already constructed on land under one ownership or up to a total of two units for each
existing ownership if not now constructed. Additional units above these thresholds shall
require new road and intersection improvements as provided in this Specific Plan.
Exceptions to this provision may be approved by the City Council for interim facilities
approved as part of a subdivision phasing plan or development plan.
3. Appendix A shall be revised with updated property information for the Taylor Property,
as shown in Exhibit B.
4. Section 3.2.6 of the OASP shall be updated, as shown in Exhibit C, except the following
sentence shall be inserted as the third to last sentence of the last paragraph: The City does
not support Site C.
5. Chapter 8 shall be revised to incorporate a 50% obligation for the Orcutt Area to pay for
the grade- separated railroad crossing at Industrial Way, with direction to City staff to pursue
grants to fund the remaining 50% of the facility cost.
SECTION 3. Airport Land Use Commission. The adoption of the OASP shall become
effective immediately following a determination by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)
that the OASP is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). An ALUP consistency
hearing is scheduled for March 17, 2010. In the event the ALUC conditions its determination of
consistency on amendments to the OASP, the Community Development Director is authorized to
make minor changes to the OASP to respond to concerns expressed by members of the ALUC
relative to airport compatibility during the hearing. If the ALUC determines that substantial
changes to the OASP are needed to achieve consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan, the
adoption of the OASP shall not become effective until such time as the City Council has
reviewed and approved those changes at a noticed public hearing.
SECTION 4. General Plan Amendments. The City Council does hereby amend the
General Plan Land Use Map to implement the land use designations approved as part of the
Orcutt Area Specific Plan, as shown in Exhibit D. Figure 2 of the Land Use Element shall be
revised amending the location of the Urban Reserve Line, as shown in Exhibit E. These General
Plan amendments are approved based on the following findings:
Resolution No. 10154 (201100 Series) O
Page 3
1. The proposed amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map implement the Orcutt Area
Specific Plan, by updating the General Plan with the land uses identified in the specific plan
for Orcutt Area properties.
2. The land uses proposed for the Orcutt Area are consistent with the General Plan, which
identifies the Orcutt Area as a residential expansion area.
3. The proposed amendments are necessary to implement the General Plan, which says that
development in any part of the Orcutt Area may not occur until a specific plan has been
adopted for the whole area.
4. The proposed Urban Reserve Line (URL) expansion is justified because the revised URL
incorporates relatively flat land on the north side of Righetti Hill that is suitable for
development, and excludes a similarly sized area on the upper slopes of the west side of
Righetti Hill, which is not suitable for development.
Upon motion of Vice Mayor Carter, seconded by Council Member Ashbaugh, and on the
following vote:
AYES:
Council Members Ashbaugh and Settle, Vice Mayor Carter, and Mayor
Romero
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
None
RECUSED:
Council Member Marx
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 2nd day of March 2010.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Elaina Cano
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO
istine Dietrick
City Attorney
i
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
The City of San Luis Obispo (City) has decided to approve the Orcutt Area Specific Plan
(project). The City is the lead agency under the California. Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
and has certified a program environmental impact report (EIR) for the project.
Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR]) and
Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code require a lead agency to adopt findings for each
significant environmental impact disclosed in an EIR. Specifically, for each significant impact,
the lead agency must find that:
Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project to avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effects identified in the EIR;
— Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and should be adopted by that agency; or
— Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make the mitigation
measures or alternatives identified in the ER infeasible.
In addition to making a finding for each significant impact, if the lead agency approves a project
without mitigating all of the significant impacts, it must prepare a statement of overriding
considerations, in which it balances the benefits of the project against the unavoidable
environmental risks. The statement of overriding considerations must explain the social,
economic, or other reasons for approving the project despite its environmental impacts (14 CCR
15093, Pub. Res. Code 21081).
This document contains the findings and statement of overriding considerations for the
approval of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan and reflects the City's independent judgment. This
document incorporates by reference the program EIR. The EIR, specific plan, and other
portions of the administrative record are available for review at:
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Contact: Michael Codron
(805)781 -7175
SECTION 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A PROTECT OBJECTIVES
As required by the City General Plan, the specific plan is intended to contain policies and
standards that will facilitate appropriate development of land, protection of open space, and
provision of adequate public facilities. The specific plan is more detailed than the general plan
but less precise than subdivision maps or construction plans. The overall objective of the
City of San Luis Obispo A December 2009
Findings of Fact and Statement Overriding Considerations v
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
project is to adopt a specific plan for the Orcutt area, pursuant to the City General Plan. Orcutt
Area Specific Plan objectives include:
1. Develop a new residential neighborhood to meet the City's housing needs and that designates
sufficient land for neighborhood serving commercial uses to reduce vehicle trips and provide for
the convenience of area residents.
2. Provide a variety of housing types and costs to meet the needs of renters and buyers with a
variety of income - levels, including inclusionary affordable housing for residents with moderate,
low and very -low income levels.
3. Protect and enhance Righetti Hill, creek /wetland habitats, and visual resources in open space
areas.
4. Provide a variety of park and recreational facilities for residents of the Orcutt Area, such as parks,
recreational facilities, public squares, plazas and green spaces.
5. Phase the proposed development so that public facilities are developed concurrently with each new
phase in a rational and cost effective fashion.
6. Encourage the use of bicycles and walking within the Plan Area by including specific policies or
development standards that will result in subdivision and building designs that facilitate bike use
and pedestrian access. Incorporate all classes of bike lanes and include bike and pedestrian paths
through the parks and open space areas.
7. Protect the new residents from railroad noise through a variety of measures consistent with Noise
Element Policies 1.8.2, Mitigating Outdoor Noise Exposure, and 18.3 Mitigating Indoor Noise
Exposure.
8. Create a regional detention system to facilitate drainage solutions for future subdivisions.
B. PROPOSED PROTECT
The proposed project includes implementation of the goals and policies contained in the Orcutt
Area Specific Plan. The Orcutt Area Specific Plan is a specific plan that would guide the
annexation and development of the Plan Area. The Plan Area is 231 acres of property east of
the southern portion of the City. The proposed Specific Plan designates the land.for 113 acres of
residential, 0.25 acres of neighborhood commercial, 81 acres of open space, 21 acres of parks,
and a 5 acre school site. Urban infrastructure to support this development would also be
included in the near term. Infrastructure requirements include roads, water and wastewater
conveyance systems, and stormwater conveyance systems. The Specific Plan proposes an
adjustment of the Urban Reserve Line (URL) to include the entire Plan Area within the City's
Urban Reserve Area.
SECTION 3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
A. BACKGROUND
The program EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines. As
such, the EIR contains analysis, at a program level, of the basic issues that will be used in
conjunction with subsequent tiered environmental documents for specific projects related to the
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
2
Findings of Fact and StatemenOverriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
Orcutt Area Specific Plan. Once the Orcutt Area Specific Plan is adopted by the City, the basic
policy issues will not need to be revisited by subsequent (second -tier) documents.
The DEIR, dated December 2007, was circulated to appropriate public agencies, organizations,
and interested groups and individuals for a period of 60 days (through February 28, 2008).
Between February and June 2008, the Planning Commission held six public hearings to discuss
the Public Hearing Draft of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan and the Draft EIR for the project.
Based on comments received during this period, portions of the DEIR were revised to address
technical issues raised in several letters. The City recirculated these portions of the Revised
DEIR, which included the Agricultural Resources section, Water and Wastewater section, as
well as the Executive Summary. The City extended the public review period through June 2008
and received several additional comments on the Revised DEIR.
B. IMPACT ANALYSIS
Three categories of impacts are identified in the Environmental Impact Report:
Class I. Class I impacts are significant and unavoidable. To approve a project resulting in
Class I impacts, the CEQA Guidelines require decision makers to make findings of
overriding consideration that "specific legal, technological, economic, social, or other
considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR"
Class R. Class II impacts are significant but can be mitigated to a level of insignificance by
measures identified in this EIR and the project description. When approving a
project with Class II impacts, the decision- makers must make findings that changes
or alternatives to the project have been incorporated that reduce the impacts to a less
than significant level.
Class III. Class III impacts are adverse but not significant.
SECTION 4. FINDINGS FOR LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The City Council has concluded that the following effects are not considered significant.
A. AGRICULTURE
1. Impact AG -1 Although the proposed project would permanently' convert soils that have
been defined by the City as prime agriculture lands, the value of the Orcutt Area's
agricultural land resources, as measured by the LESA Model, is not considered significant.
Therefore, the project would result in Class III, less than significant, impacts related to
agricultural conversion.
a. Mitigation: None
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
3
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overrlding Considerations O
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
b. F din : The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
B. AIR QUALITY
1. Impact AQ -2 Specific Plan traffic generation, together with other cumulative traffic
associated with foreseeable development would not result in CO "hotspots ". Therefore, the
Specific Plan's potential to generate CO "hotspots" is considered to be a Class III, less than
significant impact.
a. Mitigation: None
b. Finding: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant..
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Impact B -1 Development under the proposed Specific Plan would result in the conversion
of non -native annual grassland habitat to urban uses. This is considered a Class III, less
than significant impact.
a. Mitt ag tion: None
b. Finding: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
D. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
1. Impact G -1 Seismically induced ground shaking could destroy or damage structures and
infrastructure developed for the project site, resulting in loss of property or risk to human
health. This is considered a Class III, less than significant impact.
a. Mitigation: None
b. Fes: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
E. NOISE
1. Impact N -2 Specific plan - generated traffic would incrementally increase noise levels along
roads in the Specific Plan vicinity. The effect of this noise on off -site sensitive receptors in
the area, and also within the Specific Plan area, is considered a Class III, less than
significant impact.
a. Mitigation: None
b. Finding: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
4
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 0
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
2. Impact N -3 Although noise associated with airport operations would affect sensitive
receptors in the Plan Area, the impact would be considered Class III, less than significant.
a. Miti ag tion: None
b. Finding: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
F. PUBLIC SERVICES
1. Impact PS -1 Annexation and development of the Orcutt Area would increase the number
of residents served by the City of San Luis Obispo Police Department. Additional service
needs would decrease the amount of patrol unit available time. This is considered a Class
III, less than significant impact.
a. Mitigation: None
b. Fes: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
G. WATER AND WASTEWATER
1. Impact W -1 The project would increase demand on City of San Luis Obispo potable water
supplies by an estimated 260 AFY. Impacts to the City's water supply are considered Class
I11, less than significant, with payment of Water Impact Fees..
c. Miti a'g tion: None
d. Findin g: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
2. Impact W -2 Buildout of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan would generate an estimated 162;856
gallons of wastewater per day, which would be treated by the City's Water Reclamation
Facility. Because this facility has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed project,
this impact is considered Class III, less than significant.
c. Mitigation: None
d. Fes: The City finds that the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
SECTION 5. FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT THAT HAVE BEEN
MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
This section presents the project's significant environmental impacts and feasible mitigation
measures. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations
[CCR]) and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code require a lead agency to make findings
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
5
Findings of Fact and Statement Overriding Considerations v
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
for each significant environmental impact disclosed in an EIR. Specifically, for each significant
impact, the lead agency must find that:
— Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
— Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adapted by such other
agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
— Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
Each of these findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.
This section identifies impacts that can be fully avoided or reduced to a less - than- significant
level through the incorporation of feasible mitigation measures into the project, as identified in
the program EIR. The impacts identified in this section are considered in the same sequence in
which they appear in the draft EIR.
A. AESTHETICS
1. Impact AES -3:. Light and glare produced from the proposed project would extend the area
of night light across the project site, altering the nighttime sky due to lighting and daytime
glare associated with plaster -type walls and /or brightly painted surfaces. This may affect
the residences in the vicinity of the site and views from local roadways. This is considered a
Class II, significant but mitigable impact.
a. Mitigation: The proposed Specific Plan includes the following goals, policies and
programs which are intended to address potential impacts associated with this issue:
Goal 4.4, Policies 4.4.1 through 4.4.3, and Program 4.4.3a. Implementation of these
provisions of the Specific Plan would reduce impacts to some extent. However, impacts
would remain significant. The following mitigation measures are required to fully
mitigate potential light and glare impacts.
— Mitigation Measure AES -3(a) Minimize Lighting on Public Areas. Lighting shall be
shielded as shown in the Specific Plan and directed downward. Lighting shall not be
mounted more than 16 feet high. Streetlights, where they are included, shall be
primarily for pedestrian safety, and shall not provide widespread illumination
unless necessary to comply with safety requirements, as determined by the Public
Works Director. Street lighting should focus on intersections and should be placed
between intersections only when it is necessary to comply with safety requirements,
as determined by the Public Works Director. Trail lighting shall be at a scale
appropriate for pedestrians, utilizing bollards, although overhead lighting may be
used where vandalism of bollard lights is a concern. Prior to development of
individual lots, proposed lighting shall be indicated on site plans and shall
demonstrate that spill-over of lighting would not affect nearby residential areas.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
6
Findings of Fact and Statement of Considerations O
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment - Exhibit A
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted.
Implementation of the applicable provisions of the Specific Plan, in combination with
the proposed mitigation measure, would reduce project - specific impacts to a less than
significant level.
B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Impact AG -2: Development may result in land use conflicts between existing residential
uses and agricultural operations on -site as well as off -site on adjacent properties. This is
considered a Class H, significant but mitigable, impact.
a. Mitigation: The proposed Specific Plan incorporates the following provisions intended
to help reduce agricultural impacts: Policy 3.2.25, Program 3.2.25a, and Program
3.2.25b. Implementation of the above provisions would reduce impacts between
agriculture and adjacent planned residential uses, however the notification requirements
specified in Program 3.2.25a would place an unnecessary burden on agriculture, rather
than protecting it. The existing requirements of the County's Right -to -Farm Ordinance
are more fair to agriculture, while still providing reasonable notice to future residents.
The following mitigation measures are required to fully mitigate potential impacts
related to this issue.
— Mitigation Measure AG -2(a) Maintain 100 -Foot Agricultural Buffer. If adjacent
land is still used for grazing purposes at the time of subdivision, a minimum 100 -
foot buffer between the Righetti family ranch home site. The buffer shall occur on
any parcel proposed for development that is adjacent to the northern boundary of
the Righetti home site (See Figure 4.2 -3).
— Mitigation Measure AG -2(b) Right -to -Farm Notification Requirements. To prevent
unnecessary burdening of agricultural operations, proposed Specific Plan Program
3.2.25a shall be revised as follows:
Program 3.2.25a. In accordance with the County Right to Farm Ordinance (No.
2050), upon the transfer of real property in the Specific Plan area, the transferor shall
deliver to the prospective transferee a written disclosure statement that shall make all
prospective homeowners in the proposed project aware that although potential
impacts or discomforts between agricultural and non - agricultural uses may be
lessened by proper maintenance, some level of incompatibility between the two uses
would remain.
b. Findin The City finds that the mitigation measures are feasible and have been adopted.
With the implementation of the Specific Plan's proposed goals and policies, as well as
the mitigation measures described above, agricultural- related land use compatibility
impacts resulting would be reduced to a less than significant level.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
7
Findings of Fact and Statement of Considerations 0
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
C. AIR QUALITY
1. Impact AQ -1: Vehicular operations associated with development under the Specific Plan
would result in the emission of levels of air pollutants that would exceed recommended
significance thresholds and are therefore considered to have a Class II, significant but
mitigable, impact.
a. Mitigation: The Specific Plan includes bikeways, pedestrian walkways, and access to
public transit routes that will reduce the need for vehicle transportation and therefore
reduce the amount of emissions (Specific Plan Goal 5.3 and associated policies and
programs). The Specific Plan also encourages the use of solar energy sources for
residential and commercial uses (Specific Plan Policies 4.7.1 and 4.7.2). Finally, bike
lanes have been designed to provide continuous connections through the Specific Plan
area, consistent with regional goals related to reducing dependence on motorized
vehicle travel.
The following standard site design and discretionary energy efficiency mitigation
measures are recommended:
— Mitigation Measure AQ -1(a) Energy Efficiency. The building energy efficiency
rating shall be 10% above what is required by Title 24 requirements for all buildings
within the Specific Plan Area. The following energy- conserving techniques shall be
incorporated unless the applicant demonstrates their unfeasibility to the satisfaction
of City Planning and Building Department staff: increase walls and attic insulation
beyond Title 24 requirements; orient buildings to maximize natural heating and
cooling; plant shade trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer
cooling needs; use roof material with a solar reflectance value meeting the
EPA /DOE Energy Star rating; build in energy efficient appliances; use low energy
street lighting and traffic signals; use energy efficient interior lighting; use solar
water heaters; and use double -paned windows.
Mitigation Measure AQ -1(b) Transit. Bus turnouts and shelter improvements with
direct pedestrian access shall be installed at all bus stops.
— Mitigation Measure AQ -1(c) Shade Trees. All parking lots shall include shade trees
within the parking area. There shall be at least one shade tree for every six vehicle
parking spaces.
— Mitigation Measure AQ -1(d) Telecommuting. All new homes within the Specific
Plan area shall be constructed with internal wiring /cabling that allows
telecommuting, teleconferencing, and teleleaming to occur simultaneously in at least
three locations in each home.
— Mitigation Measure AQ -1(e) Pathways. Where feasible, all cul -de -sacs and dead -
end streets shall be links by pathways to encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
8
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
— Mitigation Measure AQ -1(f) Pedestrian Signalization. All new signalized
intersections shall include signalization to accommodate pedestrian crossings.
Pedestrian signalization shall allow pedestrians to call for a traffic signal change.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. Implementation of the above mitigation would reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
2. Impact AQ -3: Development under the proposed Specific Plan has the potential to generate
construction related emissions as the site develops. Although these emissions cannot be
quantified at the Program EIR level, since San Luis Obispo County is currently non-
attainment for PMlo, development under the Specific Plan would contribute to this existing
significant condition. Therefore, construction related emissions are considered to be Class
II, significant but mitigable.
a. Mitigation: Because all construction projects can produce nuisance dust emissions, dust
mitigation measures are required for all construction activities. The following
mitigation measures are recommended to minimize emissions and to reduce the amount
of dust that drifts onto adjacent properties. These measures would apply to both tract
grading and development of individual lots.
— Mitigation Measure AQ -3(a) Application of CBACT. The following measures shall
be implemented to reduce combustion emissions from construction equipment
where a project will have an area of disturbance greater than 1 acre, or for all
projects, regardless of the size of ground disturbance, when that disturbance would
be conducted adjacent to sensitive receptors.
Specific Plan applicants shall submit for review by the Community Development
Department and APCD staff a grading plan showing the area to be disturbed
and a description of construction equipment that will be used and pollution
reduction measures that will be implemented. Upon confirmation by the
Community Development Department and APCD, appropriate CBACT features
shall be applied. The application of these features shall occur prior to Specific
Plan construction.
Specific Plan applicants shall be required to ensure that all construction
equipment and portable engines are properly maintained and tuned according to
manufacturer's specifications.
Specific Plan applicants shall be required to ensure that off -road and portable
diesel powered equipment, including but not limited to bulldozers, graders,
cranes, loaders, scrapers, backhoes, generator sets, compressors, auxiliary power
units, shall be fueled exclusively with CARB motor vehicle diesel fuel (non -taxed
off -road diesel is acceptable).
Specific Plan applicants shall be required to install diesel oxidation catalysts on
off -road construction equipment and on -road haul trucks projected to generate
the greatest emissions. The number of catalysts required shall be determined in
consultation with APCD prior to the start of construction. Installations must be
prepared according to manufacturer's specifications.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
9
Findings of Fact and Statement of Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
• Maximize, to the extent feasible, the use of diesel construction equipment
meeting ARB's 1996 and newer certification standard for off -road heavy -duty
diesel engines.
• Maximize, to the extent feasible, the use of on -road heavy -duty equipment and
trucks that meet the ARB's 1998 or newer certification standard for on -road
heavy -duty diesel engines.
• All on and off -road diesel equipment shall not be allowed to idle for more than 5
minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and on job sites
to remind drivers and operators of the 5 minute idling limit.
— Mitigation Measure AQ -3(b) Dust Control. The following measures shall be
implemented to reduce PM10 emissions during all Specific Plan construction:
• Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible.
• Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne
dust from leaving the site. Water shall be applied as soon as possible whenever
wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed (nonpotable) water should be
used whenever possible.
• All dirt- stock -pile areas shall be sprayed daily as needed.
• Permanent dust control measures shall be identified in the approved Specific
Plan revegetation and landscape plans and implemented as soon as possible
following completion of any soil disturbing activities.
• Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one
month after initial grading shall sown with a fast- germinating native grass
seed and watered until vegetation is established.
• All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using
approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in
advance by the APCD.
• All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc., to be paved shall be completed as soon
as possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after
grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any
unpaved surface at the construction site.
• All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials shall be covered or
shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between
top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114.
• Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets,
or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site.
• Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto
adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water shall be used where
feasible.
— Mitigation Measure AQ -3(c) Cover Stockpiled Soils. If importation, exportation, or
stockpiling of fill material is involved, soil stockpiled for more than two days shall
be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation.
Trucks transporting material shall be tarped from the point of origin.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
10
Findings of Fact and Statement of Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
— Mitigation Measure AQ -3(d) Dust Control Monitor. On all projects with an area of
disturbance greater than 1 acre, the contractor or builder shall designate a person or
persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering as
necessary to prevent transport of dust off -site. Their duties shall include holiday
and weekend periods when work may not be in progress.
b. Finding: The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. Air quality impacts associated with construction of the Specific Plan would be
adverse but not significant after mitigation measures are applied.
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Impact B -2: Development under the proposed Specific Plan could potentially impact
special- status plant species and plant communities of special concern within the Plan Area.
This is considered a Class II, significant but mitigable impact.
a. Miti ag tion: The proposed Specific Plan includes the following goals, policies, and
programs, which are intended to address potential impacts associated with this issue:
Goal 2.2a through Goal 2.2c. Implementation of these provisions of the Specific Plan
would reduce impacts to some extent. However, the following mitigation measures are
required to further reduce impacts to biological resources.
— Mitigation Measure B -2(a) Seasonally -Timed Botanical Surveys. When an
applicant requests entitlements from the City under the Specific Plan, the City shall
require the submittal of seasonally timed directed floral surveys based on the target
list of plant species identified in Table 4.4 -2 to be completed in the spring and
summer to determine the presence or absence of these species. The following table
lists each potential on -site special - status plant species and where to survey for the
species:
Special- status plant species Habitat
• Adobe sanicle • grassland, isolated seeps on Righetti Hill
• Cambria morning -glory • grassland
• Jones' layia • grassland
• Marsh sandwort • fresh water emergent wetland
• Obispo Indian paintbrush • grassland
• Rayless ragwort • rocky slopes of Righetti Hill, grassland where weeds are scarce
• Saline clover • grassland, wetland
• San Luis Obispo sedge • grassland, coastal scrub, isolated seeps on Righetti Hill
The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist verified by the City. Up to
three separate survey visits may be required to capture the flowering period of the
target species. The location and extent of any rare plant occurrences observed on the
site should be documented in a report and accurately mapped onto site - specific
topographic maps and aerial photographs. If special- status plants are identified, the
development pursuant to the Specific Plan shall submit written proof that the CDFG
has been contacted.
San Luis Obispo December 2009
11
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
— Mitigation Measure B -20) Special- Status Plant Buffer. Where special - status plants
are found, site development plans shall be modified to avoid such occurrences with
a minimum buffer of 50 feet. The applicant seeking entitlement shall establish
conservation easements for such preserved areas, prior to issuance of the first
building permit for subsequent tracts. The Specific Plan shall be amended at that
time to place these areas formally into open space, possibly as an overlay area.
If total avoidance is economically or technologically infeasible then plants shall be
salvaged and relocated under direction of an approved botanist, in accordance with
Mitigation Measures 13-2(c) through 13-2(f). If total avoidance can be achieved,
Mitigation Measures 13-2(c) through B-2(f) would not be required. (It should be
noted that avoidance is likely to be more cost effective in the long run compared to
mitigation in the form of salvage and relocation).
If total avoidance of special- status plant species can be achieved through Mitigation Measure 13-
2(b), Mitigation Measures B -2(c) through B -2(f) would not be required.
— Mitigation Measure B -2(c) Incidental Take Permit. In the event that state listed
species are discovered, the applicant seeking entitlements shall submit to the City
signed copies of an incidental take permit and enacting agreements from the CDFG
regarding those species as necessary under Section 2081 of the California Fish and
Game Code prior to the initiation of grading. If a plant species that is listed under
the federal Endangered Species Act is discovered, the applicant seeking entitlements
shall provide proof of compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act, inclusive
as necessary of signed copies of incidental take permit and associated enacting
agreements, to the City prior to the initiation of grading.
— Mitigation Measure B -2(d) Special- Status Species CDFG- Approved Mitigation
Plan. If total avoidance of the species occurrences is economically or technologically
infeasible, a mitigation program shall be developed by the City in consultation with
CDFG as appropriate. A research study to determine the best mitigation approach
for each particular species to be salvaged shall be conducted. The special - status
plant species mitigation program may include the following:
• The overall goal and measurable objectives of the mitigation and monitoring
plan;
• Specific areas proposed for revegetation and their size. Potential sites for
mitigation would be any suitable site within proposed open space depending on
the species that is appropriately buffered from development. For a list of
suitable habitats for the mitigation of each species refer to the list in Mitigation
Measure 13-2(a).
• Specific habitat management and protection concepts to be used to ensure long-
term maintenance and protection of the special - status plant species to be
included (i.e.: annual population census surveys and habitat assessments;
establishment of monitoring reference sites; fencing of special- status plant
species preserves and signage to identify the environmentally sensitive areas; a
seasonally -timed weed abatement program; and seasonally -timed seed and /or
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
12
Findings of Fact and Statement Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
topsoil collection, propagation, and reintroduction of special- status plant species
into specified receiver sites);
• Success criteria based on the goals and measurable objectives to ensure a viable
population(s) on the project site in perpetuity;
• An education program to inform residents of the presence of special - status plant
species and sensitive biological resources on -site, and to provide methods that
residents can employ to reduce impacts to these species/ resources m protected
open space areas;
• Reporting requirements to ensure consistent data collection and reporting
methods used by monitoring personnel; and
• Funding mechanism.
— Mitigation Measure B -2(e) Special- Status Plant Monitoring Frequency. Monitoring
shall occur annually and shall last at least five years to ensure successful
establishment of all re- introduced or salvaged plants and no-net -loss of the species
or its habitat. In the case of annual plants it is difficult to determine if there has been
a net loss or gain in a five year period. Therefore an important component of the
mitigation and monitoring plan shall be adaptive management. The adaptive
management program shall address both foreseen and unforeseen circumstances
relating to the preservation and mitigation programs. The plan shall include follow
up surveys every five years in perpetuity or until a qualified biologist can
demonstrate that the target special - status species has not experienced a net loss. It
shall also include remedial measures to address negative impacts to the special -
status plant species and their habitats (i.e.: removal of weeds, addition of
seeding/ planting efforts) if the species is suffering a net loss at the time of the follow
up surveys.
— Mitigation Measure B -2(J) Special- Status Species Habitat Replacement. The
primary goal of the mitigation and monitoring plan is to ensure a viable population
and no-net -loss of special - status species habitat within the project site. To ensure the
no-net -loss of a species, the applicant shall create two acres of occupied special -
status species habitat for every one acre of habitat impacted by project development.
If resource agencies require a higher replacement ratio than 2:1, their requirements
would prevail. The creation of habitat can occur in conjunction with the
mitigation/ relocation of wildflower field habitat if the research study indicates that
the wildflower field and specific special - status plant species can be relocated and
cohabitate.
— Mitigation Measure B -2(g) Bunchgrass Survey. When an applicant requests
entitlements from the City under the Specific Plan, the City shall require the
submittal of a survey to identify any native perennial bunchgrass occurrences (this
can be conducted simultaneously with special- status plant species surveys required
in Mitigation Measure B -2(a) above). If occurrences of native perennial bunchgrass
habitat of 0.5 acre or greater containing at least 10% or greater coverage of native
perennial bunchgrass are found that area shall be placed in open space and a deed
restriction placed over the area to protect it in perpetuity. If the area cannot be
avoided for economical or technological reasons, then native grasses including
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
13
Findings of Fact and Statement or Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Speck Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
perennial bunchgrasses shall be incorporated into the landscaping plant palette and
the erosion control plan to replace the lost habitat: The most effective areas to
receive native grass seed are graded areas that will be revegetated adjacent to open
space. The acreage ratio of lost native perennial bunchgrass habitat to habitat
replaced shall be no less than 1:1. Native perennial bunchgrass material shall come
from locally collected seed stock to avoid contamination of the local gene pool.
Because perennial bunchgrasses grow slowly at first, a "nurse" crop consisting of
Nuttall's fescue (Vulpia microstachys), California brome (Bromus carinatus), and
pinpoint clover (Trifolium gracilentum) shall be added to the mix to stabilize any
graded areas while the bunchgrasses become established. No non -native invasive
plant species shall be used in landscaping. California Invasive Plant Council (Cal -
IPC) maintains a list of the most important invasive plants to avoid. This list shall be
used when creating a plant palette for landscaping. Planting equipment (i.e.:
hydroseeding tank and dispensing mechanism) shall be cleaned of remaining seed
from previous applications prior to use on -site. The hydroseed applicator shall be
responsible for ensuring tanks have been properly cleaned of any seed that is not a
part of the specified mix.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. Implementation of the above mitigation would reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
2. Impact B -3: Development under the proposed Specific Plan could affect locally- designated
protected trees. This is considered a Class II, significant but mitigable impact.
a. Mitigation: The proposed Specific Plan includes the following program, which is
intended to address potential impacts associated with this issue: Program 4.3.4a. In
addition to the above provisions indicated, the applicants under the Specific Plan will be
required to comply with the City's Tree Regulations (City of San Luis Obispo, 1997).
The following mitigation measure is also required to ensure compliance with the City's
Tree Regulations and to reduce potential impacts to trees to a less than significant level.
— Mitigation Measure 13-3(a) Construction Requirements. Development under the
Specific Plan shall abide by the requirements of the City Arborist for construction.
Requirements shall include but not be limited to: the protection of trees with
construction setbacks from trees; construction fencing around trees; grading limits
around the base of trees as required; and a replacement plan for trees removed
including replacement at a minimum 1:1 ratio.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted.
Implementation of the Specific Plan's program as described above along with the above
mitigation measure would reduce impacts on trees to a less than significant level.
3. Impact B4: Development under the proposed Specific Plan would affect riparian woodland
and wetland habitat. This is considered a Class II, significant but mitigable impact.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
14
Findings of Fact and Statement Overriding Considerations {
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
a. Mitigation: The Specific Plan has incorporated goals, policies, and programs to alleviate
impacts to biological resources. The goals, policies, and programs are as follows: Goal
2.2a, Goal 2.2b, Policy 2.2.1, Policy 2.2.2, Program 2.2.2a -c, Policy 2.2.3, Program 2.2.3a,
Program 2.2.3b, Policy 2.2.4, Program 2.2.4a, Program 2.2.4b, Policy 2.2.5, Program
2.2.5a, Program 2.2.5b, Policy 2.2.6, Goal 2.2c, Policy 2.2.7, Policy 2.2.8, Goal 2.2.d, Policy
2.2.9, Program 2.2.9a, Program 2.2.9b, Policy 2.2.10, Program 2.2.10a.
The following mitigation measures are required in addition to the above Specific Plan
provisions to assure compliance with the City's Creek Setback Ordinance (Section
17.16.025 of the City's Zoning Regulations) and reduce impacts to riparian and wetland
habitat to a less than significant level. Mitigation measures from the Drainage and
Water Quality section below would further reduce - potentially significant impacts to
wetlands. Also refer to Mitigation Measures under Impact B-5 that apply to setbacks
with respect to special- status species.
— Mitigation Measure B -4(a) Trail Setbacks. Trails shall be setback out of riparian
habitat and out of the buffer area. The trail shall be a minimum distance of 20 feet
from top of bank or from the edge of riparian canopy, whichever is farther. Trails
shall be setback from wetland habitat at a minimum distance of 30 feet and shall not
be within the buffer. Native plant species that will deter human disturbance shall be
planted in the area between the trail and the wetland /riparian habitat including
plants such as California rose (Rosa californica) and California blackberry (Rubus
ursinus). No passive recreational use shall be allowed in the riparian or wetland
habitats or drainage corridors.
— Mitigation Measure 134(b) Development Setbacks. Development that abuts
riparian and wetland mitigation areas shall also be setback at least 20 feet, and be
buffered by an appropriately -sized fence and /or plants that deter human entry
listed in B -4(a).
— Mitigation Measure B-4(c) Riparian/ Wetland Mitigation. If riparian and /or
wetland habitat are proposed for removal pursuant to development under the
Specific Plan, such development shall apply for all applicable permits and submit a
Mitigation Plan for areas of disturbance to wetlands and /or riparian habitat. The
plan shall be prepared by a biologist familiar with restoration and mitigation
techniques. Compensatory mitigation shall occur on -site using regionally collected
native plant material at a minimum ratio of 2:1 (habitat created to habitat impacted)
in areas shown on figure 4.4 -2 as directed by a biologist. The resource agencies may
require a higher mitigation ratio. If the Orcutt Regional Basin is necessary as a
mitigation site for waters of the U.S. and State it shall be designed as directed by a
biologist taking into consideration hydrology, soils, and erosion control and using
the final mitigation guidelines and monitoring requirements (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 2004). As noted above, the trail shall be setback out of the buffer area for
riparian and wetland habitat.
The plan shall include, but not be limited to the following components:
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
15
Findings of Fact and Statement Overriding Considerations O
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
1) Description of the project /impact site (i.e.: location, responsible parties,
jurisdictional areas to be filled/ impacted by habitat type);
2) goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation project (type(s) and area(s) of habitat to
be established, restored, enhanced, and /or preserved, specific functions and
values of habitat type(s) to be established, restored, enhanced, and /or
preserved);
3) description of the proposed compensatory mitigation -site (location and size,
ownership status, existing functions and values of the compensatory mitigation -
site);
4) implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation -site (rationale for
expecting implementation success, responsible parties, schedule, site
preparation, planting plan);
5) maintenance activities during the monitoring period (activities, responsible
parties, schedule);
6) monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation -site (performance standards,
target functions and values, target hydrological regime, target jurisdictional and
non - jurisdictional acreages to be established, restored, enhanced, and /or
preserved, annual monitoring reports);
7) completion of compensatory mitigation (notification of completion, agency
confirmation); and
8) contingency measures (initiating procedures, alternative locations for
contingency compensatory mitigation, funding mechanism).
In addition, erosion control and landscaping specifications included in the mitigation
plan shall allow only natural -fiber, biodegradable meshes and coir rolls, to prevent
impacts to the environment and to fish and terrestrial wildlife.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. Implementation of the Specific Plan's goals, policies and programs, along with
these required mitigation measures would reduce impacts to riparian woodland and
wetland habitat to a less than significant level and ensure that the project is in
compliance with the regulatory agencies and the Creek Setback Ordinance as contained
in the Zoning Regulations (2004).
4. Impact B -5: Development under the proposed Specific Plan could potentially impact
special - status wildlife species and their habitats within the Plan Area. This is considered a
Class II, significant but mitigable impact.
a. Mitigation: The Specific Plan establishes permanent open space for the creek area, and
when combined with the buffering setbacks required by the City, impacts would be
reduced substantially. Compliance with Federal and State regulations governing the
wetland and riparian habitat types on -site (described in Impact B -3) would also reduce
impacts to these important biological resources. Specific Plan policies would also
require any development proposal pursuant to the Specific Plan that would remove
riparian or wetland areas to mitigate for such impacts. However, the following
additional mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to all special- status
wildlife species to a less than significant level.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
16
Findings of Fact and StatementurOveniding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
— Mitigation Measure B -5(a) Bird Pre - Construction Survey. To avoid impacts to
nesting special - status bird species and raptors including the ground- nesting
burrowing owl, all initial ground- disturbing activities and tree removal shall be
limited to the time period between September 15 and February 1. If initial site
disturbance, grading, and tree removal cannot be conducted during this time period,
a pre - construction survey for active nests within the limits of grading shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist at the site no more than 30 days prior to the start
of any construction activities (for ground- nesting burrowing owl survey see below).
If active nests are located, all construction work must be conducted outside a buffer
zone of 250 feet to 500 feet from the nests as determined in consultation with the
CDFG. No direct disturbance to nests shall occur until the adults and young are no
longer reliant on the nest site. A qualified biologist shall confirm that
breeding /nesting is completed and young have fledged the nest prior to the start of
construction.
— Mitigation Measure B -5(b) Burrowing Owl Survey. When an applicant requests
entitlements from the City under the Specific Plan a qualified biologist shall conduct
surveys for burrowing owls during both the wintering and nesting seasons (unless
the species is detected on the first survey) in potentially suitable habitats prior to
construction in accordance with the guidelines described in the CDFG Staff Report
on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (1995). Winter surveys shall be conducted on the
entire project site between December 1 and February 1, and the nesting season
survey shall be conducted between April 15 and July 15. If burrowing owls are
detected within the proposed disturbance area, CDFG shall be contacted
immediately to develop and implement a mitigation plan to protect owls and their
nest sites.
— Mitigation Measure B -5(c) Monarch Pre - Construction Survey. If initial ground-
breaking is to occur between the months of October and March a pre - construction
survey for active monarch roost sites within the limits of grading shall be conducted
by a qualified biologist at the site two weeks prior to any construction activities. If
active roost sites are located no ground- disturbing activities shall occur within 50
feet of the perimeter of the habitat. Construction shall not resume within the setback
until a qualified biologist has determined that the monarch butterfly has vacated the
site.
— Mitigation Measure B -5(d) VPFS Sampling Surveys. Prior to development in areas
shown as potential VPFS habitat on Figure 4.4 -2, current USFWS protocol level
sampling surveys shall be conducted in all such areas. A report consistent with
current Federal, State, and local reporting guidelines shall be prepared to document
the methods and results of surveys. If VPFS are found, the report shall include a
map that identifies the VPFS locations. Should the presence of additional special -
status wildlife species be determined including California linderiella, a map
identifying locations in which these species were found shall be prepared and
included in the report.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
17
Findings of Fact and Statement Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Speck Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
— Mitigation Measure B -5(e) FESA Consultation and Mitigation Regarding VPFS. If
any VPFS individuals are located on -site pursuant to Mitigation Measure B -5(d),
substantial setbacks from their identified habitat shall be implemented to avoid take
of a Federally listed species. If complete avoidance is not economically or technically
feasible, then Section 10 of the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) shall be used
to authorize incidental take when no other Federal agency such as the Corps is
involved. This process includes development of a Habitat Conservation Plan for
protecting and enhancing the Federally listed species at a specific location in
perpetuity. Species take can also be authorized under Section 7 of the FESA if a
Federal agency is involved in the project (e.g., Corps Section 404 permitting for
impacts to waters of the U.S. and /or Federal funding) and agrees to be the lead
agency requesting Section 7 consultation. This consultation process takes at a
minimum 135 days from the official request by the Federal lead agency.
The compensatory mitigation ratio shall be determined by the appropriate resource
agencies. Suitable replacement habitat shall be constructed either within the site
boundaries or off -site. Figure 4.4 -2 identifies areas that could be appropriate for on-
site VPFS mitigation. Figure 4.4 -2 is not intended to preclude development but shall
be used as a starting point for incorporating VPFS mitigation sites into the
development plan. While the Orcutt Regional Basin included in the potential VPFS
mitigation sites may need regular maintenance and may be seasonally flooded,
depressions could be created on the upper edges of the terrace in such a manner that
they are protected from flooding. VPFS mitigation areas shall be approved by a
biologist familiar with VPFS habitat "creation" techniques. Enhancement of the on-
site seasonal freshwater wetland habitat that is undisturbed by project activities may
also be a part of the mitigation program. Alternatively, fairy shrimp cysts could be
collected during the dry season from the existing habitat and placed into storage.
Topsoil could also be removed and stored in conditions suitable to retain cysts.
Wetland habitat could be enhanced /created in the areas shown on Figure 4.4 -2 by
grading depressions in the landscape and "top dressing" the depressions with the
preserved topsoil. Preserved cysts would be added to the recreated wetlands in
December or January, after sufficient ponding has occurred.
It is important to note that VPFS habitat mitigation is still considered experimental.
VPFS habitat mitigation is ambitious as it is costly, labor intensive, and difficult to
ensure success. Habitat may be "created" only in an existing vernal pool landscape
that provides suitable soils and a number of other specific ecological factors (USFWS,
2004).
An alternative to on -site mitigation is the purchase of mitigation bank credits.
Credits can be purchased by the acre as suitable mitigation for VPFS. There is
currently no known mitigation bank with VPFS habitat occurring within San Luis
Obispo County, however, mitigation banks may be available in the future.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce impacts to
special- status wildlife species and their habitats to a less than significant level.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
18
Findings of Fact and Statement Considerations v
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
5. Impact B-6: Development under the proposed Specific Plan would reduce the populations
and available habitat of wildlife in general. The loss of wildlife habitat is considered a Class
II, significant but mitigable impact.
a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measures are required to fully reduce impacts to a
less than significant level.
— Mitigation Measure B -6(a) Minimized Roadway Widths. Roadway widths adjacent
to riparian and wetland habitats shall be reduced to the minimum width possible,
while maintaining Fire Department Requirements for emergency access, with slower
speed limits introduced. Posted speed limits should be 25 mph.
— Mitigation Measure B -6(b) Culvert Design. Although closed culverts are to be the
drainage conveyance method of last resort per the City Waterways Management
Plan, where they are required, culverts connecting the Plan Area drainage corridors
with upstream and downstream drainage corridors shall be evaluated during the
suitability analysis pursuant to Mitigation Measure B -5(a) to determine their
importance to wildlife who could use them to travel to and from the site. If culverts
are found to be of importance to wildlife, the culverts shall be evaluated for their
potential for improvement (i.e. retrofitting, maintenance, or specific improvements
depending on the types of species using them). The development pursuant to the
Specific Plan and the City shall develop a plan for the improvement of the culverts.
Preservation of the wildlife corridors that are present on the project site can be
achieved with sufficient setbacks from riparian and wetland habitats. Refer to B-4
for mitigation regarding riparian and wetland habitat setbacks.
— Mitigation Measure B -6(c) Educational Pet Brochure. Any development pursuant
to the Specific Plan shall prepare a brochure that informs prospective homebuyers
and Home Owners Association (HOA) members about the impacts associated with
non -native animals, especially cats and dogs, to the project site; similarly, the
brochure must inform potential homebuyers and all HOA members of the potential
for coyotes to prey on domestic animals.
— Mitigation Measure B -6(d) Landscaping Plan Review. To ensure that project
landscaping does not introduce invasive non -native plant and tree species to the
region of the site, the final landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by a
qualified biologist. The California Invasive Plant Council (Cal -IPC) maintains
several lists of the most important invasive plants to avoid. The lists shall be used
when creating a plant palette for landscaping to ensure that plants on the lists are
not used. The following plants shall not allowed as part of potential landscaping
plans pursuant to development under the Specific Plan:
■ African sumac (Rhus lancea)
• Australian saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata)
• Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia)
• California pepper (Schinus molle) and Brazilian pepper (S. terebinthifolius)
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
19
Findings of Fact and Statemeni,ui Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
• Cape weed (Arctotheca calendula)
• Cotoneaster (Cotoneaster pannosus), (C. lacteus)
• Edible fig (Ficus carica)
• Fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum)
• French broom (Genista monspessulana)
• Ice plant, sea fig (Carpobrotus edulis)
• Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula)
• Myoporum (Myoporum spp.)
• Olive (Olea europaea)
• Pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana), and Andean pampas grass (C. jubata)
• Russian olive (Elaeagnus angusticifolia)
• Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) and striated broom (C. striatus)
• Spanish broom (Spartium junceum)
• Tamarix, salt cedar (Tamarix chinensis), (T. gallica), (T. parviflora), (T.
ramosissima)
• Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus)
■ Athel tamarisk (Tamarix aphylla)
With the exception of poison oak, only those species listed in the Specific Plan's
Suggested Plant List (Appendix E) shall not be planted anywhere on -site because
they are invasive non - native plant species. Poison oak is a native plant species and
could be used to deter human entrance to an area such as a mitigation /enhancement
area.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce impacts to
wildlife habitat in general to a less than significant level.
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Impact CR -1: There is the potential that project construction will disturb previously
unidentified buried archeological deposits and /or human remains. This is considered a
Class II, significant but mitigable impact.
a. Mitigation: The Specific Plan has incorporated the following goals, polices, and
programs to alleviate impacts to cultural resources: Goal 2.5, Policy 2.5.1, Policy 2.7.1a,
and Program 2.7.1a. In addition to these provisions incorporated in the Specific Plan,
the following mitigation measures would further reduce impacts related to cultural
resources to less than significant levels.
— Mitigation Measure CR -1(a) Areas Not Surveyed. All areas that were not surveyed
by Conejo, as indicated in Figure 4.5 -1, that will be subject to project- related earth
disturbance shall be subject to archaeological survey prior to any such disturbances.
This shall include APNs 076 - 481 -014, 076 -481 -012, 076 - 491 -003, 075 -491 -004, and 076-
491- 001, any planned trails or other developments within the areas designated as
open space.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
20
Findings of Fact and Statement Overriding Considerations O
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
— Mitigation Measure CR -1(b) Righetti Hill. Even though it is located within an area
designated as open space, the top of Righetti Hill should be subject to archaeological
survey. The City is responsible for the survey as part of any project to create a trail
system that would provide access to the top of the hill by the general public.
— Mitigation Measure CR -1(0 Vegetation Clearance Monitoring. Due to poor ground
surface visibility, vegetation clearance /initial grading of the areas shown on Figure
4.5 -2 should be monitored by an archaeologist. The archaeologist shall have the
power to temporarily halt or redirect project construction in the event that
potentially significant archaeological resources are exposed. Based on monitoring
observations the lead archaeologist shall have the authority to refine the monitoring
requirements as appropriate (i.e., change to spot checks, reduce the area to be
monitored) in consultation with the lead agency. If potentially significant prehistoric
or historic resources are exposed the lead archaeologist shall be responsible for
evaluating the nature and significance of the find. If no archaeological resources are
observed following the vegetation clearance /initial grading then no further
monitoring shall be required. A monitoring report shall be provided to the City of
San Luis Obispo and the CCIC.
— Mitigation Measure CR -1(d) Archaeological Resource Construction Monitoring. At
the commencement of project construction, an orientation meeting shall be
conducted by an archaeologist for construction workers associated with earth
disturbing procedures. The orientation meeting shall describe the possibility of
exposing unexpected archaeological resources and directions as to what steps are to
be taken if such a find is encountered.
An archaeologist shall monitor construction grading within 50 meters (164 feet) of
the two isolated finds. In the event that prehistoric or historic archaeological
resources are exposed during project construction, all earth disturbing work within
50 meters (164 feet) of the find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an
archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find. After the find has
been appropriately mitigated (e.g., curation, preservation in place, etc.), work in the
area may resume. The City should consider retaining a Chumash representative to
monitor any field work associated with Native American cultural material.
If human remains are exposed, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires
that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the
necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 5097.98.
b. Findin g: The City finds that the mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. Implementation of the Specific Plan's provisions and the required mitigation
measures would reduce disturbance of archeological deposits and human remains to
less than significant levels.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
21
Findings of Fact and Statemenfor'Overriding Considerations O
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
2. Impact CR -2: Project development will result in earth disturbance at several locations
considered sensitive for archaeological resources. This is considered a Class II, significant
but mitigable impact.
a. Miti ag tion: The following mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts related
to identified archaeological resources to a less than significant level.
— Mitigation Measure CR -2(a) Subsurface Archaeological Testing. If avoidance of an
archaeological site(s) is not possible, a Subsurface Archaeological Resource
Evaluation (SARE) shall be completed prior to issuance of a Land Use Permit. A
SARE should be undertaken for Orcutt-1 with the following goals:
a) Determine if there are intact subsurface deposits associated unth this site;
b) Determine the site's boundaries;
c) Assess the site's integrity, i.e., is it intact or highly disturbed; and
d) Evaluate the site's importance or significance.
The City should consider retaining a Chumash representative to monitor any
subsurface testing /excavation at Orcutt-1. Results of the Phase 2 Evaluation will
determine the need or lack thereof for additional data recovery and /or construction
monitoring in the archaeological site area. When feasible, avoidance of impacts
through project redesign is the preferred method for mitigating impacts to
significant archaeological resources.
The archaeological excavation(s) shall be based on a written explicit research design
that includes a statement or research objectives and a program for carrying out these
objectives. All cultural materials collected shall be curated at a qualified institution
that has proper facilities and staffing for insuring research access to the collections.
— Mitigation Measure CR -2(b) Construction Monitoring. An archaeologist should
monitor construction grading in the vicinity of the two isolated finds.
b. Findnne: The City finds that the mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. Impacts would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of
proposed mitigation.
3. Impact CR -3: Implementation of the proposed project could result in indirect impacts to
identified archaeological resources. This is considered a Class II, significant but mitigable
impact.
a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measure would reduce potential indirect impacts
related to identified archaeological resources to a less than significant level.
— Mitigation Measure CR -3(a) Prohibition of Archaeological Site Tampering. Off -
road vehicle use, unauthorized collecting of artifacts, and other activities that could
destroy or damage archaeological or cultural sites shall be prohibited. Signs shall be
City of San Luis Obispo December
22
Findings of Fact and Statemenf or Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
posted on the property to discourage these types of activities and warn of
trespassing violations and imposed fines.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted.
Impacts would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of proposed
mitigation.
4. Impact CR-4: Implementation of the proposed project could result in indirect impacts to
historical resources. This is considered a Class II, significant but mitigable impact.
a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measure would reduce potential indirect impacts
related to historical resources to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure CR -4(a) Historical Evaluation. Prior to development, a
qualified historian should be retained to conduct a historical evaluation of the 50+
year old structures within the Orcutt Area using the City's Historic Preservation
Program Guidelines. Any structure determined to be an important /significant
historic resource shall be mitigated as appropriate prior to its demolition or
relocation. The historic structure evaluation should include the history of the
Skinner /Righetti Ranch and the ranch complex should be recorded on appropriate
DPR forms. Finally, the historian shall determine if project development will have
any significant direct or indirect impacts on the Bettencourt /Rodriguez. Adobe, a city
historic landmark located immediately adjacent to the Orcutt Area.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted.
Impacts would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of proposed
mitigation.
F. DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY
1. Impact D -1: During construction of the proposed project, the soil surface would be
disrupted and potentially become subject to erosion, with potential off -site sedimentation
and pollutant discharges. Alterations in drainage patterns and grading during the
construction period could result in construction- related erosion problems. This is
considered a Class II, significant but mitigable impact.
a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measures address the above requirements for
construction and post - construction scenarios:
— Mitigation Measure D -1(a) Erosion Control Plan. Prior to issuance of the first
Grading Permit or approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall submit to the
Directors of Community Development and Public Works for review and approval a
detailed erosion control plan (ECP) to mitigate erosion and sedimentation impacts
during the construction period. The detailed ECP shall be accompanied by a written
narrative and be approved by the City Engineer. At a minimum, the ECP and
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
23
Findings of Fact and Statement Overriding Considerations O
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
written narrative should be prepared according to the guidelines outlined in the
DDM and should include the following:
• A proposed schedule of grading activities, monitoring, and infrastructure
milestones in chronological format;
• Identification of critical areas of high erodibility potential and /or unstable
slopes;
• Soil stabilization techniques such as short-term biodegradable erosion control
blankets and hydroseeding should be utilized. Silt fences should be installed
downslope of all graded slopes. Straw bales should be installed in the flow path
of graded areas receiving concentrated flows, as well as around storm drain
inlets;
• Description of erosion control measures on slopes, lots, and streets;
• Contour and spot elevations indicating runoff patterns before and after grading;
• Filter systems at catch basins (drop inlets) in public streets as a means of
sediment control; and
• The post - construction inspection of all drainage facilities for accumulated
sediment, and the clearing of these drainage structures of debris and sediment.
— Mitigation Measure D -1(b) Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. The applicant
shall comply with NPDES General Construction Activities Storm Water Permit
Requirements established by the CWA. Pursuant to the NPDES Storm Water
Program, an application for coverage under the statewide General Construction
Activities Storm Water Permit (General Permit) must be obtained for project
development. It is the responsibility of the project applicant to obtain coverage prior
to site construction.
The applicant can obtain coverage under the General Permit by filing a Notice of
Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resource Control Board's (SWRCB) Division of
Water Quality. The filing shall describe erosion control and storm water treatment
measures to be implemented during and following construction and provide a
schedule for monitoring performance. These BMPs will serve to control point and
non -point source (NPS) pollutants in storm water and constitute the project's SWPPP
for construction activities. While the SWPPP will include several of the same
components as the ECP, the SWPPP will also include BMPs for preventing the
discharge of other NPS pollutants besides sediment (such as paint, concrete, etc.) to
downstream waters.
• Notice of Intent. Prior to beginning construction, the applicant shall file a Notice
of Intent (NOI) for discharge from the proposed development site.
• Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. The applicant shall require the building
contractor to prepare and submit a SWPPP to the City forty-five (45) days prior
to the start of work for approval. The contractor is responsible for understanding
the State General Permit and instituting the SWPPP during construction. A
SWPPP for site construction shall be developed prior to the initiation of grading
and implemented for all construction activity on the project site in excess of one
acre. The SWPPP shall include specific BMPs to control the discharge of material
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
24
Findings of Fact and Statement of OverTiding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
from the site. BMP methods may include, but would not be limited to, the use of
temporary detention basins, straw bales, sand bagging, mulching, erosion control
blankets, silt fencing, and soil stabilizers. Additional BMPs should be
implemented for any fuel storage or fuel handling that could occur on -site
during construction. The SWPPP must be prepared in accordance with the
guidelines adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The
SWPPP shall be also submitted to the City along with grading /development
plans for review and approval.
• Notice of Completion of Construction. The applicant shall file a notice of
completion of construction of the development, identifying that pollution
sources were controlled during the construction of the project and implementing
a closure SWPPP for the site.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. Implementation of an Erosion Control Plan and Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan would reduce impacts from construction erosion to less than significant
levels.
2. Impact D -2: Increased runoff on -site could deteriorate on -site streambank conditions,
leading to long -term erosion on -site. Impacts are considered Class II, significant but
mitigable.
a. Mitigation: The proposed Specific Plan includes the following goals, policies, and
programs, which are intended to address potential impacts associated with this issue:
Policy 2.2.4, Program 2.2.4a, and Program 2.2.4b. The following mitigation measures are
recommended.
— Mitigation Measure D -2(a) Vegetative and Biotechnical Approaches to Bank
Stabilization. Vegetative or biotechnical (also referred to as soil bioengineering)
approaches to bank stabilization are preferred over structural approaches. Bank
stabilization design must be consistent with the SLO Creek Stream Management and
Maintenance Program Section 6. Streambank stabilization usually involves one or a
combination of the following activities:
• Regrading and revegetating the streambanks to eliminate overhanging banks
and create a more stable slope;
• Deflecting erosional water flow away from vulnerable sites;
• Reducing the steepness of the channel bed through installation of grade
stabilization structures;
• Altering the geometry of the channel to influence flow velocities and sediment
deposition;
• Diverting a portion of the higher flow into a secondary or by -pass channel;
• Armoring or protecting the bank to control erosion, particularly at the toe of
slopes.
The bank stabilization design will:
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
25
Findings of Fact and Statement or Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
• Be stable over the long term;
• Be the least environmentally damaging and the "softest" approach possible;
• Not create upstream or downstream flooding or induce other local stream
instabilities;
• Minimize impacts to aquatic and riparian habitat;
• Specify that only natural -fiber, biodegradable meshes and coir rolls be used, to
prevent impacts to the environment and to fish and terrestrial wildlife.
— Mitigation Measure D -2(b) Constructed Natural Channel. Where the creeks within
the Orcutt Plan Area may need to be modified to create sufficient conveyance
capacity and mitigate geomorphic instability, (i.e. floodable terraces within the
proposed linear park), design guidelines from Section 5.3 of the SLO Creek Drainage
Design Manual shall be applied. The waterways are to be designed in accordance
with all provisions of the design criteria applicable to Constructed Natural Channels.
Typically, this would include construction of a compound channel utilizing an in-
channel bench or terrace whenever feasible, considerations of stable channel
planform geometry, use of setbacks and buffer strips at top of bank, planting using
native plants, and slope stabilization using biotechnical erosion control methods.
— Mitigation Measure D -2(c) Riparian Zone Planting. The GASP proposes riparian
enhancement of creek corridors. Section 11 guidelines of the SLO Creek Drainage
Design Manual shall be followed for riparian areas that are modified, created and /or
managed for flood damage reduction, stream enhancement, and bank repair. Linear
park terrace vegetation, streambank repair and channel maintenance projects may
require stream channel modifications that include shaping, widening, deepening,
straightening, and armoring. Many channel management projects also require
building access roads for maintenance vehicles and other equipment. These
construction activities can cause a variety of impacts to existing sensitive riparian
and aquatic habitat that, depending on the selected design altemative, range from
slight disturbances to complete removal of desirable woody vegetation and faunal
communities. In urban areas within the SLO creek watershed, riparian vegetation
often provides the only remaining natural habitat available for wildlife populations.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. Implementation of the mitigation measures above will ensure appropriate
bank stabilization, channel modification, and riparian revegetation methods to mitigate
the contribution of on -site sediments to the detention basin system.
3. Impact D -3: Regional detention basin storage has the potential to have downstream erosion
impacts from longer durations of downstream flows. This impact is considered a Class II,
significant but mitigable impact.
a. Mitigation: The Specific Plan incorporated the following design criteria for the proposed
basins within the Plan area:
• Reduce 100 -year post development peak runoff to 25 -year pre - development rate.
• Reduce 50 -year post development peak runoff to 20 year pre - development rate.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
Findings of Fact and Statement or Overriding Considerations O
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
• Limit 10 -year post development peak runoff to 10 -year pre - development rate.
• Limit 2 -year post development peak runoff to within 5 percent of the 2 year pre -
development rate.
In addition to the above criteria proposed, the following mitigation measure is
recommended to further reduce impacts caused by downstream flow and erosion:
— Mitigation Measure D -3(a) Payment of Fair Share Fees for Area Drainage
Improvements. The City/Zone 9 Waterway Management Plan (WMP, Questa, 2002)
provides for imposition of a Drainage Impact Fee on new development projects that
would result in adverse hydrological impacts. The Drainage Impact Fee can only be
used to pay for drainage improvements made necessary by the hydrologic impacts
of a project. The applicant shall pay their "fair share" of any mitigation fee
established by the City of San Luis Obispo for drainage improvements made
necessary by cumulative project development. These fair share fees may be used to
fund components of the City's Storm Drain Master Plan (Boyle Engineering, 2000),
or other improvements as identified by the City. Components of the City's Storm
Drain Master Plan preferred alternative downstream of the Orcutt Plan Area
include:
• A new concrete box culvert at Broad Street on Orcutt Creek,
• A new concrete slab bridge at Santa Fe Road on the East Branch of SLO Creek,
and
• A modified channel for improved conveyance capacity from Santa Fe to Buckley
Road on the East Branch of SLO Creek.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. In
association with the Specific Plan's design criteria, implementation of the proposed
mitigation measure would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
4. Impact D -4: Development of the proposed project could result in an increase in peak
discharges at downstream locations. This impact is considered a Class II, significant but
mitigable impact.
a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measures are recommended to ensure proper
design and safety of detention facilities:
— Mitigation Measure D -4(a) Compliance with City's Drainage Design Manual. All
drainage improvements must be constructed in accordance with Section 9 of the
City's Drainage Design Manual. Either subregional facilities shall be constructed
with the first phase of development or interim (on -site) drainage control shall be
constructed. Interim facilities can be abandoned once regional facilities are available.
The applicant shall submit a detention system plan to the Director of Public Works
for review and approval.
The detention basins shall be designed to comply with applicable City drainage
design standards and at a minimum have the following features:
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
27
n �
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
• Each basin should include an outlet structure to allow the basin to drain
completely within 48 hours. The amount of outflow can be regulated with a fixed
outfall structure. Such a structure must include an outfall pipe of a size and
length that will give positive control on the outfall head. The principal outlet
.regulates the design discharge from the watershed above at a water level in the
basin that does not exceed a certain maximum elevation.
• Regional, or larger on -site facilities can pose significant hazards to public safety
in the event of failure. In addition to the outlet control structure, an emergency
overflow spillway (secondary overflow) must be provided. This spillway must
satisfy the following requirements:
— The spillway must be designed to pass the 100 -year design storm event if the
outlet works fail or if a runoff event exceeds the design event. The spillway
design will be based on peak runoff rates for developed site conditions,
assuming that the basins fill to the crest of the spillway prior to the beginning
of the design event.
— The spillway must be located so overflow is conveyed safely to the
downstream channel.
• Each basin shall be designed with an emergency spillway that can pass the 100 -
year storm event with 2 -foot freeboard between the design water surface
elevation and the top of the embankment. At a minimum the basin must contain
the 10 -year flow without release to emergency spillway: If flows over the
emergency spillway do occur, provisions must be made or be in place that will
convey such flows safely.
• The design volume of the basin must be sized to include the capacity for a five
(5) year accumulation of sediment. Generally, the basin should be cleared out
when it is half -full, as determined on a marked staff in the bottom of the basin, or
a mark on a riser pipe. The amount of potential sedimentation in the basin shall
be determined by a soils engineer or hydrologist, using the procedures such as
those outlined in the Association of Bay Area Government's (ABAG) Manual of
Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control (May 1995) or as approved by the
City Engineer or County Public Works Director.
• The basin and its outfall must be sized so that approximately 85% of the total
stormwater storage, excluding sediment storage in the basin, can be recovered
within twenty-four hours of the peak inflow. A basin overflow system must
provide controlled discharge (emergency spillway) for the 100 -year design event
without overtopping the basin embankment and maintain adequate freeboard.
The design must provide controlled discharge directly into the downstream
conveyance system or safe drainage way. The principal outlet must be able to
drain the detention facility within 48 hours of the end of the 100 -year storm by
gravity flow through the principal outlet.
• Any detention basin design must be accompanied by a soils report. This report
should address allowable safe basin slopes with respect to liquefaction, rapid
draw down, wave action and so forth. Additionally, the report should also
address sedimentation transport from areas above the basin and allowable
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
28
Findings of Fact and Statement Overriding Considerations O
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
bearing pressures where structures are to be placed. The soils report must
address the level of the water table and the effects of the basin excavation on the
water table.
— Mitigation Measure D-4(b) Final Drainage Detention System Verification. Final
detention basin system designs for project - specific EIRs within the Orcutt Plan Area
shall be submitted to the Public Works Department. Per the Wastewater
Management Plan, the project shall not cause more than a 5% increase of peak run
off rates for the 2 -, 50 -, and 100 -year 24 hour storm event.. Final basin designs shall
provide stage- storage- outflow curves and outfall structure details for all detention
basins. The San Luis Obispo SLO /Zone 9 HEC -HMS hydrology model may be used
to model final detention basin system cumulative downstream impacts should
specific projects propose substantial changes to conceptual design, at the discretion
of the City Engineer.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. In association with the Specific Plan's design criteria, implementation of the
proposed mitigation measure would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. While
the proposed detention system is not predicted to have significant downstream impacts
on peak discharge rates, the current design of detention structures is still conceptual for
the OASP. The implementation of Mitigation Measure D -4(a) would ensure that project
impacts associated with proposed OASP development would be less than significant.
5. Impact D -5: During long -term operation of the proposed project, runoff from the site could
affect the water quality in creeks within the Specific Plan Area. Project development could
result in an increase in non -point source (NPS) pollutants to receiving waters. Impacts are
considered Class II, significant but mitigable.
a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measures are recommended:
— Mitigation Measure D -5(a) Biofilters. The applicant shall submit to the Director of
Community Development for review and approval a plan that incorporates grassed
swales (biofilters) into the project drainage system where feasible for runoff
conveyance and filtering of pollutants. A preferred alternative to concrete drainage
swales to transport the runoff to roadside ditches, these swales shall be lined with
grass or appropriate vegetation to encourage the biofiltration of sediment,
phosphorus, trace metals, and petroleum from runoff prior to discharge into the
formal drainage network. General design guidelines relevant to optimizing the
pollutant removal mechanisms of grassed swales are: 1) a dense, uniform growth of
fine- stemmed herbaceous plants for optimal filtering of pollutants; 2) vegetation that
is tolerant to the water, climatological, and soil conditions of the project site is
preferred; 3) grassed swales that maximize water contact with the vegetation and
soil surface have the potential to substantially improve removal rates, particularly of
soluble pollutants; and 4) pollutant removal efficiency is increased as the flow path
length is increased. General maintenance guidelines for biofilters are discussed in
Mitigation Measure D -5(b).
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
29
Findings of Fact and Statement Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
A Best Management Practice (BMP) filter device shall be installed to intercept water
flowing off of proposed parking lot and roadway surfaces. Water quality BMPs shall
be those identified in the California Stormwater Quality association's BMP
handbook. Whenever feasible, the preferred approach to treating surface runoff will
be the use of drainage swales rather than mechanical devices. The chosen method for
treating runoff shall be a proven and documented pollution prevention technology
device that removes oil and sediment from stormwater runoff, and retains the
contaminants for safe and easy removal. The chosen device shall possess design
features to prevent re- suspension of previously collected contaminants and
materials, and contain a built -in diversion structure to divert intense runoff events
and prevent scouring of the previously collected sediments. The filter devices shall
be designed and sized to treat the run -off from the first 25 mm (1 inch) of rainfall.
The storm water quality system must be reviewed and approved by the City
Director of Public Works.
— Mitigation Measure D -5(b) SWPPP Maintenance Guidelines. Prior to issuance of
the first grading permit or approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall
submit to the Director of Community Development and Director of Public Works for
review and approval a long -term storm water pollution prevention plan ( SWPPP) to
protect storm water quality after the construction period. The SWPPP shall include
the following additional BMPs to protect storm water quality:
• Proper maintenance of parking lots and other paved areas can eliminate the
majority of litter and debris washing into storm drains and thus entering local
waterways. Regular sweeping is a simple and effective BMP aimed at reducing
the amount of litter in storm drain inlets (to prevent clogging) and public
waterways (for water quality). The project applicant shall enter into an
agreement with the City of San Luis Obispo to ensure this maintenance is
completed prior to approval of improvement plans or final maps.
• Proper maintenance of biofilters is essential to maintain functionality. The
maintenance of biofilters on the project site will be the responsibility of a
homeowner's association for the proposed project. Biofilter maintenance would
include: 1) Regular mowing to promote growth and increase density and
pollutant uptake (vegetative height should be no more than 8 inches, cuttings
must be promptly removed and properly disposed of); 2) Removal of sediments
during summer months when they build up to 6 inches at any spot, cover
biofilter vegetation, or otherwise interfere with biofilter operation; and 3)
Reseeding of biofilters as necessary, whenever maintenance or natural processes
create bare spots.
• Proper maintenance of detention basins is necessary to ensure their effectiveness
at preventing downstream drainage problems and promoting water quality.
Necessary detention basin maintenance includes: 1) regular inspection during
the wet season for sediment buildup and clogging of inlets and outlets; 2) regular
(appro)dmately every 2 -3 years) removal of basin sediment; and 3) if an open
detention basin is used, mowing and maintenance of basin vegetation (replant or
reseed) as necessary to control erosion. A maintenance plan must be developed
and provided along with the design documents. Long -term detention basin
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
30
Findings of Fact and Statement or Overriding Considerations
0
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
maintenance plans must clearly delineate and assign maintenance and
monitoring responsibilities for local and regional detention basins. Maintenance
reports shall be submitted annually to City's Public Works Department.
• For basins greater than 5,000 m3 (4 ac -ft) storage (i.e. the Upper Fork regional
detention basin), vehicular access for maintenance of the basin and outlet works,
removal of sediment, and removal of floating objects during all weather
conditions must be provided. An access road must be provided to the basin floor
of all detention facilities. This road must have a minimum width of 3.7 m (12 ft)
and a maximum grade of 20 %. Turnarounds at the control structure and the
bottom of the basin must have a 12 -m (40 -ft) minimum outside turning radius.
• The applicant shall prepare informational literature and guidance on residential
BMPs to minimize pollutant contributions from the proposed development. This
information shall be distributed to all residences at the project site. At a
minimum the information should cover: 1) general information on biofilters and
detention basins for residents concerning their purpose and importance of
keeping them free of yard cuttings and leaf litter; 2) proper disposal of household
and commercial chemicals; 3) proper use of landscaping chemicals; 4) clean-up
and appropriate disposal of yard cuttings and leaf litter; and 5) prohibition of
any washing and dumping of materials and chemicals into storm drains.
• The stormwater BMP devices shall be inspected, cleaned and maintained in
accordance with the manufacturer's maintenance specifications. The devices
shall be cleaned prior to the onset of the rainy season (i.e. November 1st) and
immediately after the end of the rainy season (i.e. May lst). All devices will be
checked after major storm events. The results of the inspection and maintenance
report shall be submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo Public Works
Department.
— Mitigation Measure D -5(c) Pervious Paving Material. Consistent with Land Use
Element Policy 6.4.7, the applicant shall be encouraged to use pervious paving
material to facilitate rainwater percolation. Parking lots and paved outdoor storage
areas shall, where feasible, use pervious paving to reduce surface water runoff and
aid in groundwater recharge.
— Mitigation Measure D -5(d) Low Impact Development Practices. In addition to the
low impact development (LID) practices described in the above measures, the
Specific Plan shall incorporate the following as requirements of future development
within the area, to the extent appropriate for type and location of development:
• Reduced and disconnected impervious surfaces
• Preservation of native vegetation where feasible
• Use of tree boxes to capture and infiltrate street runoff
• Roof leader flows shall be directed to planter boxes and other vegetated areas
• Soil amendments shall be utilized in landscaped areas to improve infiltration
rates of clay soils.
• Incorporate rain gardens into landscape design
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
31
Findings of Fact and Statement Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
These LID practices shall be utilized wherever feasible and appropriate to ensure
that the pre - development stormwater runoff volume and pre - development peak
runoff discharge rate are maintained, and that the flow frequency and duration of
post - development conditions are identical (to the extent feasible) to those of pre -
development conditions. LID practices are subject to the review and approval of the
Regional Water Quality Control Board, as part of the City's, National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System Permit compliance.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. Implementation of the identified mitigation measures would reduce project
impacts associated with NPS pollutants to a less than significant level.
6. Impact D-6: During long -term operation of the proposed project, runoff from the site could
affect the water quality of creeks downstream of the Orcutt Plan Area. Project development
could result in an increase in non -point source (NPS) pollutants to receiving waters. Impacts
are considered Class II, significant but mitigable.
a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measure is recommended:
— Mitigation Measure D -6(a) Wetland Habitat Function. A wetland habitat
enhancement project is proposed as a feature of the linear park /regional detention
basin. The wetland habitat would function as a permanent pond within the
detention basin. Therefore:.
• The volume of the permanent pond shall not be counted towards the total
storage volume of the regional detention basin;
• Basin outlets shall be located above the desired permanent water surface, to
prevent the basin from draining completely;
• Mitigation Measure D -5(b) requires regular maintenance and monitoring of
detention basin sediment accumulation.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted.
The mitigation measure above would ensure that proposed detention basins would have
less -than- significant impacts on water quality downstream in the long -term.
G. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
1. Impact G -2: Seismic activity could produce sufficient ground shaking to result in
liquefaction at the project site. This is considered a Class II, significant but mitigable
impact.
a. Mitigation: The proposed Specific Plan includes the following program which is
intended to reduce potential impacts associated with liquefaction for the Plan area:
Program 3.4.1a. To clarify this policy, the following mitigation measure is required,
which is intended to more fully address methodologies that could be implemented to
reduce liquefaction impacts.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
32
O
Findings of Fact and Statement `of Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
— Mitigation Measure G -2(a) Geotechnical Study Parameters. As stated in Program
3.4.1.a. of the proposed Specific Plan, a geotechnical study shall be prepared by a
State - registered engineering geologist for the project site prior to site development.
This report shall include an analysis of the liquefaction potential of the underlying
materials according to the most current liquefaction analysis procedures. This study
shall also:
evaluate the potential for soil settlement beneath the project site;
evaluate the potential for expansive soils beneath the project site; and
assess the stability of all slopes in the areas where construction is to occur. This
evaluation shall determine the potential for adverse soil stability and discuss
appropriate mitigation techniques. Appropriate set backs from unstable slopes
and areas below potential rockfall zones shall be implemented. No development
of residential structures is to occur in areas where rockfall hazards could damage
buildings.
The following suitable measures to reduce liquefaction impacts could include but
need not be limited to:
• specialized design of foundations by a structural engineer;
• removal or treatment of liquefiable soils to reduce the potential for liquefaction;
• drainage to lower the groundwater table to below the level of liquefiable soil;
• in -situ densification of soils or other alterations to the ground
• characteristics; or
• other alterations to the ground characteristics.
b. Finding The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible, and has been adopted.
Implementation of the Specific Plan's policies and related mitigation measure in project
design would address impacts related to seismically induced liquefaction to the extent
of industry standards; therefore impacts would be less than significant.
2. Impact G -3: The Specific Plan area is located in an area defined as having a high potential
for settlement. This is considered a Class II, significant but mitigable impact.
a. Mitigation: The following measures would reduce settlement hazard impacts to less
than significant levels:
— Mitigation Measure G -3(a) Soil Settlement Engineering. If the project site is
identified to be in a high potential for settlement zone (through the Geotechnical
Study required in Mitigation Measure G -2(a)) the building foundations,
transportation infrastructure and 'subgrades shall be designed by a structural
engineer to withstand the existing conditions, or the site shall be graded in such a
manner as to address the condition.
Suitable measures to reduce settlement impacts could include but need not be
limited to:
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
33
Findings of Fact and StatemenOverriding Considerations )
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
• excavation and recompaction of on -site or imported. soils;
• treatment of existing soils by mixing a chemical grout into the soils prior to
recompaction; or
• foundation design that can accommodate certain amounts of differential
settlement such as posttensional slab and /or ribbed foundations designed in
accordance with Chapter 18, Division III of the Uniform Building Code(UBC).
b. Finding:, The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted.
Implementation of the above measure would ensure that impacts related to soil
settlement would be reduced to a less than significant level.
3. Impact G-4: The Specific Plan area is located in an area defined as having moderate to high
potential for the expansion or contraction of soils. This is considered a Class II, significant
but mitigable impact.
a. Mitigation: The following measure would reduce soil expansion /contraction hazard
impacts to a less than significant level:
— Mitigation Measure G-4(a) Expansive Soils Grading. If the project site is identified
as having expansive soils (through the Geotechnical Study required in Mitigation
Measure G- 2(a)), the foundations and transportation infrastructure shall be designed
by a structural engineer to withstand the existing conditions, or the site shall be
graded in such a manner as to address the condition.
Suitable measures to reduce impacts from expansive soils could include but need not
be limited to:
• excavation of existing soils and importation of non - expansive soils; and
• foundation design to accommodate certain amounts of differential expansion
such as posttensional slab and /or ribbed foundations designed in accordance
with Chapter 18, Division III of the UBC.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted.
Implementation of the above measure would ensure that impacts related to soil
expansion would be reduced to a less than significant level.
4. Impact G -5: Soil stability conditions contributing to landslides, debris flows, or rock falls
exist within the Plan Area. This is considered a Class II, significant but mitigable impact.
Development near areas of rockfall are considered a Class II,, significant but mitigable
impact.
a. Mitigation: i Implementation of the following measure is required.
— Mitigation Measure G -5(a) Slope Engineering. If the Specific Plan area is identified
as having unstable slopes within the development envelope (through the
Geotechnical Study required in Mitigation Measure G- 2(a)), either the development
of San Luis Obispo December 2009
34
Findings of Fact and Statement Overriding Considerations C
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
envelope shall be modified so as to avoid these unstable slopes, or the slopes will
have to be engineered so as to no longer be unstable. The design of slopes to
withstand any unstable conditions shall be performed by a Geotechnical Engineer or
Engineering Geologist, and the mitigation must be approved by the City of San Luis
Obispo building department before the issuance of grading permits.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted.
Areas having unstable slopes shall be engineered so as to remove or recontour the slopes
and stabilize the slopes prior to grading. This mitigation is designed to reduce potential
effects to a less than significant level.
5. Cumulative Impacts: Cumulative impacts related to fault rupture, seismically related
ground shaking, liquefaction, expansive soils, and soil compaction would be similar to what
is described for project - specific impacts, and would be dealt with on a project by project
basis.
a. Mitigati on: The Specific Plan contains goals and policies (listed above) which would
reduce cumulative impacts related to geologic hazards. In addition, implementation of
Mitigation Measures G -2(a), G -3(a), G -4(a), and G -5(a) would ensure that project - specific
impacts remain less than significant. No other mitigation measures are necessary to
address cumulative impacts.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measures proposed above are feasible and
have been adopted to reduce the proposed project's contribution to cumulative geologic
impacts. With incorporation of the above measures, cumulative impacts relating to
geologic hazards would be less than significant.
H. NOISE
1. Impact N -1: Construction under the Specific Plan would temporarily generate high noise
levels on -site. Because noise could exceed thresholds in the City General Plan Noise
Element; impacts are considered Class II, significant but mitigable.
a. Mitigation: Implementation of the following policy and programs included in the
Specific Plan would reduce impacts to noise generated from temporary construction:
Goal 4.5, Program 4.5.11, Policy 4.5.2, and Program 4.5.2d.
In addition to the policies and programs identified above, the following mitigation
measures are required to reduce construction noise impacts on nearby residences:
— Mitigation Measure N -1(a) Compliance with City Noise Ordinance. Construction
hours and noise levels shall be compliant with the City Noise Ordinance [Municipal
Code Chapter. 9.12, Section 9.12.050(6)]. Methods to reduce construction noise can
include, but are not limited to, the following:
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
35
Findings of Fact and Statement-t Overriding Considerations U
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
• Equipment Shielding. Stationary construction equipment that generates noise
can be shielded with a barrier.
• Diesel Equipment. All diesel equipment can be operated with closed engine
doors and equipped with factory- recommended mufflers.
• Electrical Power. Whenever feasible, electrical power can be used to run air
compressors and similar power tools.
• Sound Blankets. The use of sound blankets on noise generating equipment.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted.
With implementation of the provisions within the Specific Plan and the required
mitigation above, noise impacts due to construction would be reduced to less than
significant levels.
2. Impact N4: The proposed Specific Plan would place additional sensitive receptors in the
vicinity of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, exposing them to noise levels that could
potentially exceed City noise standards. This is considered a Class II, significant but
mitigable, impact.
a. N iti ag tion: The Orcutt Area Specific Plan includes goals, policies, and programs that. are
intended to reduce noise impacts caused by the nearby railroad, as follows: Goal 4.5,
Policy 4.5.1, and Programs 4.5.1a through Program 4.5.1e. In addition to the provisions
proposed in the Specific Plan, the following mitigation measures are required to reduce
UPRR noise impacts on nearby residences:
— Mitigation Measure N4(a) Specific Plan Revision. The Specific Plan shall be
revised to meet the noise standards of the City General Plan Noise Element. Policy
4.5.1a shall be revised to require that outdoor noise levels for residences not exceed
60 dB (Ldn) and indoor noise levels for residences and schools not exceed 45 dB
(Ldn). Program 4.5.2a shall also be revised to ensure that these standards are met.
Indoor noise levels can be reduced using the design and materials techniques
described in Specific Plan Programs 4.5.1a, 4.5.1b, 4.5.1c, 4.5.1d, 4.5.1e, 4.5.1f, 4.5.2a,
4.5.2b, and 4.5.2c. Outdoor noise levels can be reduced in the following ways:
1) Locate all proposed residential and school development outside of the 60 Ldn
contour line (352 feet from the centerline of the railroad); or
2) For any residential or school development located within 352 feet of the railroad
centerline, a combination of barrier methods specified in the Noise Element must
be implemented. Residential or school project applicants in this area shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department that
proposed development will not be exposed to outdoor noise levels that exceed
Noise Element standards. Because of the varying topography of the site relative
to the railroad tracks, and the fact the development design has not been
determined, the specific attenuation methods cannot be definitively determined.
Options could include one or more of the following approaches:
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
36
Findings of Fact and Statement v, Overriding Considerations
C
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
• Berm or wall along the railroad right -of -way, which would likely vary in
height from about 8 to 20 feet, based on preliminary noise models included in
this EIR;
• Design of individual homes such that structures block the line -of -sight from
useable backyards to the railroad tracks;
• For homes with backyards not blocked by intervening structures, backyard
fencing of sufficient height to block line -of sight to railroad tracks.
The design of noise barriers and backyard layouts and walls shall be examined by an
approved noise consultant, to determine if they provide sufficient mitigation to
comply with Noise Element standards related to outdoor noise exposure.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted.
With implementation of the programs contained in the Specific Plan and the above
mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant.
L PUBLIC SAFETY
1. Impact S -1: Development under the Specific Plan has the potential to expose residents to
potentially harmful electric or magnetic fields. This is a Class II, significant but mitigable
impact.
a. Mitigation: The City Safety Element includes policies intended to reduce the exposure
of people to EMFs. Since the proposed Specific Plan includes residential uses adjacent to
the exiting transmission line easement the following mitigation is also required.
— Mitigation Measure S -1(a) EMF Exposure. State or Federal electric or magnetic
exposure levels, if established, are to be followed. In the absence of these exposure
standards, no residential structures or residential yards, schools, active parks, or
recreational facilities are to be built within the utility' corridor right -of -way or
easement.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted.
Proposed mitigation would reduce potential impacts related to the exposure to electric
and magnetic fields generated by the transmission lines to a less than significant level.
2. Impact S -2: Development under the Orcutt Area Specific Plan would increase activity levels
in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo Airport Planning Area. The draft Specific Plan is
inconsistent with certain safety- related provisions of the Airport Land Use Plan. Revisions
to the Specific Plan and density adjustments from the Airport Land Use Commission are
required to make the Specific Plan consistent. If the Airport Land Use Commission
determines that the Orcutt Area Specific Plan is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan,
this would be considered a Class II, significant but mitigable impact.
a. Mitigation: Adherence to State requirements for new school sites and Zoning
Regulation would reduce the ALUP inconsistencies and associated safety. The
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
37
^'a
Findings of Fact and Statement Overfiding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
following goals, policies, programs and performance standards are derived from the
Orcutt Area Specific Plan and would reduce impacts created by or produced by the San
Luis Obispo County Airport. They are as follows: Goal 3.5, Policy 3.5.1, Policy 3.5.2,
Policy 3.5.3, and Performance Standards 3.5.2a -h. In addition to the policies and
programs described above, the following mitigation measures are required related to
airport safety impacts.
— Mitigation Measure S -2(a) Residential Density. Prior to Specific Plan approval by
the City Council, the proposed project must be referred to the ALUC for a
consistency determination with the ALUP. The ALUC must determine that the
proposed residential density is consistent with the ALUP; or, the applicant shall
submit a revised Specific Plan that shows a reduction in proposed residential
density, consistent with ALUP requirements.
— Mitigation Measure S -2(b) Disclosure. Prior to recordation of final map, the
applicant shall develop Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions (CC &R's) that disclose to
potential buyers or leasers that aircraft over - flights occur, and that such flights may
result in safety hazard impacts should an aircraft accident occur. In addition, prior to
recordation of final map, avigation easements shall be recorded over the entire
project site for the benefit of the SLO County Regional Airport.
— Mitigation Measure S -2(c) Special Function Land Uses. Prior to Specific Plan
approval by the City Council, the project must be referred to the ALUC for a
consistency determination with the ALUP. The ALUC must determine that the
proposed Special Function Land Use is consistent with the ALUP; or, the applicant
shall submit revised plans showing that the proposed school has been eliminated
from the proposal.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measures above are feasible, and have been
adopted. Implementation of the above measures along with adherence to State
requirements for new school sites and Zoning Regulation would mitigate airport safety
impacts to a less than significant level.
3. Impact S -3: The Union Pacific Railroad corridor adjacent to potential development under
the Specific Plan could create a public safety hazard because of the possibility of accidents.
This is a Class H, significant but mitigable impact.
a. Mitigation: Transport of hazardous materials on the railway will be required to comply
with all federal, state, and local laws pertaining to the handling of hazardous materials.
In addition, any school developed pursuant to the Specific Plan would require
compliance with Department of Education safety study requirements. This analysis,
however, would be conducted through separate review outside the CEQA process. To
reduce the potential safety hazard of trespassers on the railroad tracks the following
mitigation measures are recommended:
— Mitigation Measure S -3(a) Pedestrian /Bicycle Passage. A safe and accessible
pedestrian/bicycle crossing shall be provided across the UPRR between Orcutt Road
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
38
Findings of Fact and Statement'bt "Overriding Considerations O
Orcutt Area Speck Plan Attachment 6 -
and Tank Farm Road. This crossing shall be connected with the proposed bicycle
and pedestrian path, and integrated into the bicycle path and sidewalk system. This
crossing shall be designed to allow pedestrians and bicyclists to safely travel across
the tracks from the Plan Area to the neighborhood on the west side of the tracks.
The crossing shall be approved by the City Engineer.
— Mitigation Measure S -3(b) Signage. Signage that directs people to the
pedestrian/bicycle railroad crossing shall be placed in obvious and appropriate
locations along the western edge of the Plan Area and along the bike path that runs
parallel to the railroad tracks on the west side of the Plan Area.
— Mitigation Measure S -3(c) Fencing. The Specific Plan shall be revised to include
fencing along the western boundary of the Specific Plan area, adjacent to the railroad
tracks. Coordination with the UPRR and the City is required to determine the
appropriate height and type of fencing. This fencing can be integrated with barriers
that are required to meet noise attenuation standards (See impact N4 above).
b. Finding: The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. Implementation of the above measures would reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
4. Impact S-4: Suspect recognized environmental conditions that may pose a risk to human
health and safety have been observed on portions of the Orcutt Area. This is considered a
Class II, significant but mitigable impact.
a. Mitigation: The Orcutt Area Specific Plan has identified the following goals, polices,
programs, and performance standards, which are intended to reduce public safety
impacts to less than significant levels: Goal 3.4, Policy 3.4.2, Program 3.4.2a, Program
3.4.2b, and Performance Standard 3.5.2d. In addition to the above stated policy and
programs within the Specific Plan, the following proposed mitigation would further
ensure less than significant impacts related to public safety.
— Mitigation Measure S -4(a) Areas not surveyed. Prior to development in areas not
surveyed for the Limited Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (Rincon
Consultants, Inc., 2004) a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment shall be conducted
to identify the presence of recognized environmental conditions associated with soil
and groundwater contamination at the site. If recognized conditions are
encountered then a Phase H Environmental Site Assessment shall be performed to
determine if soil or groundwater have been affected.
— Mitigation Measure S -4(b) Righetti Hill Abandoned Mine. Prior to allowing public
access in the vicinity of the abandoned mine, soils samples shall be taken around the
entrance and down gradient and analyzed for heavy metals by CCR Title 22 metals.
— Mitigation Measure S -4(c) Farmhouses. Prior to issuance of any entitlement for
development that will require the demolition of farmhouses identified in Figure 4.9-
1, a qualified Environmental Scientist shall enter the farmhouses and determine if
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
39
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Speck Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
there may have been any hazardous material releases associated with the storage or
use of hazardous materials. If it is determined that there may have been hazardous
materials release, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment shall be performed to
determine if soil or groundwater has been affected.
— Mitigation Measure S4(d) 55- Gallon Drums. Prior to development on the property
where 55 -Gallon drums were identified as shown in Figure 4.9 -1, soils samples shall
be taken in the vicinity of the drums and analyzed for total extractable petroleum
hydrocarbons (TEPH) by EPA method 8015, heavy metals by CCR Title 22 metals,
and solvents by EPA method 8260B. If levels of contaminants are found to exist in
concentrations that exceed regulatory thresholds, further sampling may be needed to
determine the extent of contamination. Once the extent of contamination is
delineated, an appropriate remediation method should be implemented according to
the size of the area contaminated and the contaminant involved.
b. Finding: The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the Specific
Plan provisions and the required mitigation measures.
PUBLIC SERVICES
1. Impact PS -2: The project would increase the number of residents served by the San Luis
Obispo Fire Department. The increase would affect the personnel, equipment and
organization of the Fire Department by increasing the burden on Fire Department services
and potentially placing residences, outside of the target four minute response time. This
would be considered a Class II, significant but mitigable, impact.
a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measures are required.
— Mitigation Measure PS -2(a) Road Widths, Fire Hydrants. Road widths and
internal circulation, as well as the placement of fire hydrants, shall be designed with
the guidance of the Fire Department. A road system that allows unhindered Fire
Department access and maneuvering during emergencies shall be provided. The
San Luis Obispo Fire Department shall review all improvement plans for proposed
development in the Orcutt Area to ensure compliance with City standards and the
Uniform Fire Code.
— Mitigation Measure PS -2(b) Non - combustible exteriors. Buildings that are in areas
of moderate fire hazard and which are close to areas of high or extreme fire hazard
shall have non - combustible exteriors.
— Mitigation Measure PS -2(c) Defensible Space. Accessible space free of highly
combustible vegetation and materials shall be provided in the area 30 feet around all
structures located within the moderate wildland fire hazard areas.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
40
Findings of Fact and Statement'u, Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
b. Fes: The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. With proposed mitigation measures, impacts would be reduced to a less than
significant level.
2. Impact PS -3: The project would increase the number of residents served by the SLCUSD.
The increase would result in a Class II, significant but mitigable impact to the school
system.
a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measures are intended to reduce project related
impacts:
— Mitigation Measure PS -3(a) Buildout Date Notification. The applicant shall notify
the San Luis Coastal Unified School District of the expected buildout date of each
phase of the project to allow the District time to plan in advance for new students.
— Mitigation Measure PS -3(b) Statutory School Fees. The applicant shall pay the
statutory school fees in effect at the time of issuance of building permits to the
appropriate school districts.
b. Finding The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. Mitigation Measure PS -3(b) would require the full development fees be
charged to a developer by the school districts. Currently the mitigation fee is $2.63 per
square foot of residential development and $0.42 per square foot of commercial or
industrial development. These fees would contribute funding for new school facilities
for the students potentially generated by the project. Pursuant to Section 65995 (3)(h) of
the California Government Code (Senate Bill 50, chaptered August 27, 1998), the
payment of statutory fees "...is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts
of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning,
use, or developed of real property, or any change in governmental organization or
reorganization." Therefore, subsequent to payment of statutory fees, school impacts
would be considered less than significant.
K. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
1. Impact T -1: The addition of traffic generated by the Specific Plan to Baseline traffic volumes
would cause one study roadway segment and one intersection to operate at unacceptable
levels during peak hours. This would result in a Class II, significant but mitigable, impact.
a. Mitigation: The Specific Plan includes the following goals, policies and programs, which
are intended to address safe and efficient circulation within the Specific Plan area: Goal
5.1, Goal 5.2, Policy 5.1.a, Program 5.1.2, Program 5.1.3, and Policies 5.1.b -e. In addition
to these Specific Plan provisions, the following mitigation measures are also required to
further reduce impacts to roadway segments and intersections.
— Mitigation Measure T -1(a) Orcutt Road/Tank Farm Road. The additional traffic
generated by the Specific Plan will degrade operations at this intersection to an
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
41
Findings of Fact and Statement or Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
unacceptable level (LOS E), and the peak -hour signal warrant will be met. The
addition of a 200' right -tum lane on the southbound approach would mitigate this
impact, reducing overall delay to 14.8 seconds (LOS B). With the new right turn lane,
the southbound approach would experience a delay of 25.5 seconds (LOS D). The
vehicle delay for the northbound approach would be 28.2 seconds (LOS D).
Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the applicants shall complete the
improvements identified within this mitigation measure subject to review,
inspection and permit issuance by the City.
b. Finding: The City finds that the above mitigation is feasible and has been adopted.
With implementation of the provisions within the Specific Plan and the required
mitigation, impacts to roadways and intersection operations would be reduced to less
than significant levels.
2. Impact T -2: The addition of traffic generated by the Specific Plan to Buildout traffic
volumes would cause one study roadway segment and five intersections to operate at
unacceptable levels during peak hours. This would result in a Class II, significant but
mitigable, impact.
a. Miti ag tion: The following mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to
roadway segments and intersections to a less than significant level.
— Mitigation Measure T -2(a) Broad StreetlSouth Street -Santa Barbara Road. In order
to mitigate Buildout level traffic conditions the intersection will need to be widened
to provide a 100 foot southbound right -turn lane. Alternatively, acceptable
operations could be achieved by improving the westbound approach to include two
left turn lanes and a shared through /right turn lane. Either of these two
improvements may result in secondary right -of -way impacts.
This specific plan is currently not included in the City's TIF program. The applicant
shall be responsible for paying a "fair share" mitigation fee as determined by the
Director of Public Works, associated with the estimated intersection improvements.
— Mitigation Measure T -2(b) Broad Street /Tank Farm Road. The addition of a second
southbound left -turn lane and a second northbound left -turn lane is necessary to
mitigate Buildout level traffic conditions. This improvement may result in secondary
right -of -way impacts.
This specific plan is currently not included in the City's TIF program. The applicant
shall be responsible for paying a "fair share" mitigation fee as determined by the
Director of Public Works, associated with the estimated intersection improvements.
— Mitigation Measure T -2(c) Orcutt RoadlJohnson Avenue. The installation of a
single -lane roundabout is necessary to mitigate Buildout level traffic conditions.
Installation of a single -lane roundabout would improve intersection operations to
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
42
Findings of Fact and Statement br Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
LOS A. This improvement would be needed as soon as the northeastern portion of
the Specific Plan is developed.
This specific plan is currently not included in the City's TIF program. The applicant
shall be responsible for paying a "fair share" mitigation fee as determined by the
Director of Public Works, associated with the estimated intersection improvements.
— Mitigation Measure T -2(d) Orcutt Road/Tank Farm Road. The additional traffic
generated by the Buildout of the General Plan will trigger the need for a traffic signal
at this intersection. Installation of a traffic signal will improve intersection operations
to LOS C.
This specific plan is currently not included in the City's TIF program. The applicant
shall be responsible for paying a "fair share" mitigation fee as determined by the
Director of Public Works, associated with the estimated intersection improvements.
— Mitigation Measure T -2(e) Broad StreetlPrado Road Extension. The additional
traffic generated by the Buildout of the General Plan will trigger the need for a
second northbound left -turn lane. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, specific
plan applicants shall make "fair share" contributions to the City's Orcutt Area
Specific Plan mitigation fee program for the addition of a second northbound left-
turn lane at the intersection of Broad Street and Prado Road.
b. Finding: The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. With implementation of these improvements, roadways and intersections
would operate at acceptable levels. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
3. Impact T -3: If improperly designed, site access and internal circulation roads can result in
safety hazards for all users including bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit patrons. The
Specific Plan includes site access, emergency access, and internal access road standards to
accommodate Specific Plan traffic. Class II, significant but mitigable, impacts would result.
a. Mitigation: The proposed Specific Plan includes the following–goals, policies, and
programs, which are intended to address potential impacts associated with site access
and circulation: Policy 5.2.a, Policy 5.2.b, Programs 5.2.1 through 5.2.8, and Policies 5.3.a
through 5.3.c. The Specific Plan includes the following goals and programs to create safe
and efficient bicycle facilities in the Specific Plan area: Goal 5.3, Program 5.1.1, and
Program 5.3.1. The Specific Plan includes the following goal, policy and program
concerning transit facilities: Goal 5.4, Policy 5.4.a, and Program 5.4.1.
Implementation of the above policies and programs would reduce impacts to some
extent. However, implementation of the following mitigation measure is required to
reduce impacts related to vehicle and transit facilities to less than significant levels. (No
additional mitigation is required for bicycle and pedestrian facilities).
— Mitigation Measure T -3(a) Vehicle Facilities. The proposed specific plan will have a
potentially significant impact on vehicle facilities due to the potential for excessive
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
43
Findings of Fact and Statement of Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
on -site vehicle speeds. The typical street cross - sections should be adjusted as
follows: Bullock Lane - Remove the southbound (west) parking lane (on the UPRR
side). Other collector roadways Traffic control, such as all-way stops, should be
implemented at intersections where cross traffic volumes are large enough to
warrant installation. Local roadways should be configured in an interconnected
pattern with short block lengths. The Project, in coordination with the City, will
identify appropriate locations and relevant traffic calming treatments and install the
necessary devices. This mitigation measure may require modification of proposed
Specific Plan Program 5.2.6 to accommodate these provisions.
— Mitigation Measure T -3(b) Transit Facilities. Bus stops locations and amenities
should be developed in consultation with the City to mitigate potential Specific Plan
impacts. Additional bus stops may be required in or adjacent to the specific plan
area, and bus stop locations may need to be moved to accommodate development
patterns and new bus routings. In addition, special paving, bus bays, benches, and
shelters may be necessary at some locations. The specific plan, in coordination with
the City and SLO Transit, will plan and construct future bus stop locations and
amenities. -
A service plan for the project site should be developed as part of the City's Short-
Range Transit Plan (SRTP) update process. With either option presented above or a
routing plan developed as part of the SRTP process, bus stops should be located
approximately every one - quarter mile. The primary on -site bus stop(s) will be
located near the intersection of "A" and "B" Streets.
— Mitigation Measure T -3(c) Bicycle Path Connection. The Class I bicycle path along
the UPRR tracks should be maintained across the creek to provide consistency with
the City's bicycle plan, and the path should connect to existing facilities at Orcutt
Road and Tank Farm Road even though the streets are outside of the project site. The
potentially significant impacts would be mitigated if the specific plan is developed
with the proposed facilities in place, a continuous Class I facility along the UPRR
tracks, and connections to existing facilities.
— Mitigation Measure T -3(d) Site Access. The adequacy of vehicular on -site
circulation needs to be reviewed when a plan showing all roadway locations has
been prepared. The locations of the proposed collector streets appear adequate.
Based on the projected traffic volumes, a one -lane roundabout will be adequate at
the Bullock Lane / "B" Street / "C" Street intersection. As described above, the bicycle
network is adequate. Pedestrian circulation needs to be reviewed when a plan
showing all local residential streets has been prepared. Pedestrian paths may be
required in some locations, dependent upon the connectivity of the proposed
roadway network.
b. Finding: The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. With implementation of the Specific Plan's identified provisions and the
required mitigation measures, impacts to public transportation would be reduced to less
than significant levels.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
44
Findings of Fact and Statement'or Overriding Considerations
J
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
L. LAND USE AND PLANNING
1. Impact LU -1: The Specific Plan includes establishing open space and low density
residential land uses outside of the current City Urban Reserve Line (URL). Development
under City jurisdiction outside of the URL would be potentially inconsistent with the
growth management goals of preserving open space and agriculture on land surrounding
the City. However, these impacts are considered Class II, significant but mitigable.
a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measure would be needed, primarily to achieve
consistency with several General Plan policies.
— Mitigation Measure LU -1(a) General Plan Amendment. The City shall amend its
General Plan to include a revised Urban Reserve Line that contains all of the
property proposed for development within the Orcutt Specific Plan Area
b. Finding: The City finds that the above mitigation is feasible and has been adopted. The
implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
2. Impact LU -2: The Specific Plan includes land use designations that potentially allow for 750
to 1,000 dwelling units, 50 to 300 units more than is planned for the Orcutt Area in the
General Plan. This impact is considered Class II, significant but mitigable.
a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measure is required.
— Mitigation Measure LU -2(a) General Plan Amendment. The City shall amend its
General Plan to reflect the increased buildout potential of the Orcutt Area and
decreased potential of the Margarita Area. The estimated buildout for Orcutt shall
be between 500 and 1,000 dwelling units and, for Margarita, between 800 to 1,200
dwelling units.
b. Finding The City finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible and has been
adopted. Implementation of the above mitigation measure would reduce impacts to a
less than significant level.
3. Impact LU -3: The proposed development would be potentially inconsistent with City urban
design goals described in to the City's Community Design Guidelines, and could result in
compatibility issues between certain commercial and residential uses. This is considered a
Class II, significant but mitigable, impact.
a. Mitigation: The following design - oriented mitigation would be required to ensure
consistency with City policies:
of San Luis Obispo December
45
Findings of Fact and Statement v Overriding Considerations )
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6- Exhibit A
— Mitigation Measure LU -3(a) Modified Design Elements. The Specific Plan shall
include one or more of the following approaches to achieve consistency with the
City's Community Design policies:
• The Specific Plan can be modified to include more commercial area that is not
allowed to be converted to housing.
• Provide a pedestrian and bicycle underpass below the railroad tracks (or a bridge
over the tracks) that connect the Orcutt Area to the western end of Industrial
Way. This will allow residents of the Orcutt Area to reach Marigold Center via
Industrial Way, making the distance approximately 0.5 mile from the railroad
track underpass.
— Mitigation Measure LU -3(b) Mixed Use Incompatibility. Individual uses in the
Mixed Use zone such as nail salons, cleaners, or coffee roasters that may generate
substantial odors shall be carefully evaluated for compatibility with nearby
residential uses at the discretion of the Community Development Director, prior to
issuance of an APCD use permit.
b. Fes: With the implementation of the mitigation measure listed above, impacts
related to mixed use incompatibility and consistency with the Community Design
Guidelines will be reduced to less than significant. It should be noted that establishing a
pedestrian right -of -way under the railroad track, if this approach is used, should be
done in such a manner to preclude the possibility of further right -of -way acquisition so
that no roadway could be extended through this area. This would avoid potential
impacts related to traffic and land use that could otherwise result from a roadway
extension at this location.
4. Impact LU-4: The proposed Specific Plan would permit development that is potentially
inconsistent with the ALUP. This is considered a Class II,.significant but mitigable, impact.
a. Mitigation: Mitigation measures S -2(a), S -2(b), S -2(c), and S -2(d), from the Public Safety
section above, would be required.
b. Fes: The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. Mitigation measures S -2(a), S -2(b), S -2(c), and S-2(d) would make the Specific
Plan consistent with the ALUP, reducing impacts to a less than significant level.
M. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
1. Impact: Growth Inducement resulting from development anticipated by the General Plan
would be significant but mitigable.
a. Mitigation: Mitigation measure LU -1(a) (above) requires the City to adjust the URL to
include all of the area proposed for development in the Specific Plan, therefore, with
implementation of this measure, impacts would be reduced to less than significant.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
46
Findings of Fact and Statement (it Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
b. Finding: The City finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible and has been
adopted. With the proposed mitigation measure, the URL would be adjacent to open
space within the City Limits and no growth inducing impacts would occur.
2. Impact: Growth inducement resulting from road extensions proposed by the project would
be significant and unavoidable.
a. Miti ag tion: No feasible mitigation is available that would reduce the project's potential
to induce growth due to roadway extensions.
b. Finding: The City finds that no feasible mitigation is available, and that this impact is
significant and unavoidable. A statement of overriding considerations for this impact is
made in Section 6.
N. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
1. Impact: The proposed OASP would result in significant but mitigable impacts to global
climate change. Determination of the significance of operational GHG emissions impacts is
predicated upon a project's consistency with a GHG reduction plan or, in the absence of
such a plan, compliance with AB 32 [refer to Section 7.3(a) of the EIR]. Because the Climate
Action Plan has not yet been completed for San Luis Obispo County, the following
mitigation measures are required:
a. N iti ag tion
— GCC -1(a) GHG Emissions Reduction Planning. To ensure that future development
under the Specific Plan meets the GHG emissions reduction requirements in AB 32
and SB 375, the following policies shall be added to the Specific Plan:
• The City shall participate in regional planning efforts with SLOCOG and the
APCD to reduce basin -wide GHG emissions in compliance with SB 375.
• The City's participation in regional planning efforts to reduce basin -wide GHG
emissions is anticipated to include City assistance in developing a GHG
emissions inventory, and identifying reduction measures related to site design,
energy conservation, and trip reduction.
• Once the Resource Agency adopts guidelines for the mitigation of GHG
emissions pursuant to SB 97, all projects under the Specific Plan shall mitigate
GHG emissions as required.
— GCC -1(b) Consideration of Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Measures.
Through the CEQA environmental review process for discretionary permit
applications, development under the Specific Plan shall consider all feasible GHG
emissions reduction measures to reduce direct and indirect emissions associated
with project vehicle trip generation and energy consumption.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
47
Findings of Fact and Statement 6 Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
b. Finding: The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible and have been
adopted. The above mitigation measures would ensure compliance with regional efforts
to meet GHG emissions targets in AB 32. Determining the significance of the impact of
the project on global climate is still speculative. Nonetheless, the project's contribution
to the problem of global climate change would be reduced with implementation of
OASP policies and programs, and applicable mitigation measures listed in Tables 7.3
and 7.4 of the EIR, respectively. The project also must be carried out in a manner
consistent with the goals, policies and programs of the City's Conservation Open Space
Element. In addition, the recommended project design features suggested above can be
incorporated into the OASP to further reduce the GHG emissions at build -out.
Mitigation measures GCC -1(a) and GCC -1(b) would ensure less than significant impacts.
SECTION 6. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT FOR WHICH SUFFICIENT
MITIGATION IS NOT AVAILABLE
This section presents the project's significant environmental impacts and feasible mitigation
measures. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations
[CCR]) and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code require a lead agency to make findings
for each significant environmental impact disclosed in an EIR. Specifically, for each significant
impact, the lead agency must find that:
— Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
— Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other
agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
— Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
Each of these findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.
This section identifies impacts that can be reduced, but not to a less - than- significant level,
through the incorporation of feasible mitigation measures into the project, and which therefore,
remain significant and unavoidable, as identified in the program EIR:
The impacts identified in this section are considered in the same sequence in which they appear
in the draft EIR. Where adoption of feasible mitigation measures is not effective in avoiding an
impact or reducing it to a less - than- significant level, the feasibility of adopting alternatives to
the proposed project is considered in Section 7 of this document.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
48
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
A. AESTHETICS
1. Impact AES -1: The proposed development would affect the aesthetic character of the site
vicinity through alteration of viewsheds from Orcutt and Tank Farm Roads. This is
considered a Class I, significant and unavoidable impact.
a. Mitigation: The proposed Specific Plan includes the following goals, policies, and
programs, which are intended to address potential impacts associated with this issue:
Goal 2.4, Policy 2.4.1, and Programs 2.4.1a through 2.4.1e. No other mitigation measures
are feasible.
b. Finding: The City finds that no feasible mitigation is available. Implementation of these
provisions of the Specific Plan would reduce impacts to some extent. However, impacts
to the character of the site due to the change from rural to urban development will
remain significant and unavoidable. A statement of overriding considerations for this
impact is made in Section 8.
2. Impact AES -2: The proposed development would affect the aesthetic character of the
Specific Plan Area and impede views of Righetti Hill. This is considered a Class I,
significant and unavoidable impact.
a. Mitigation: There are no feasible mitigation measures that are consistent with the
objectives of the proposed project.
b. Finding: The City finds that no feasible mitigation is available, and that impacts to the
character of the site due to the change from rural to urban development will remain
significant and unavoidable. A statement of overriding considerations for this impact is
made in Section 8.
3. Cumulative Impacts: New development in and around the City will affect the aesthetic
character of the City by adding new urban elements such as streets, buildings, signs, and
landscaping, as well as light sources. This is especially true for new development in rural
areas around the City edge. As the City grows at its edges, greenbelt and rural areas
surrounding the City are lost. In addition to the proposed project, the City is currently
reviewing Specific Plans for the Margarita and Airport Areas which include proposed
development of currently rural areas. Cumulative development of these proposed
developments would result in a significant cumulative loss of open space and would
irrevocably alter the character of these areas throughout the City from rural to urban.
Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would incrementally contribute to this change
in aesthetic character of the site and the surrounding areas. Cumulative aesthetic impacts
are therefore considered Significant and Unavoidable (Class I).
a. Mitigation: The Specific Plan contains goals and policies which would reduce
cumulative aesthetic impacts. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure AES -
3(a), would further reduce impacts. No other feasible mitigation is available that would
meet the project objectives.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
49
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
b. Findings: The City finds that no additional feasible mitigation is available for
cumulative aesthetic impacts, which would remain significant and unavoidable. A
statement of overriding considerations for this impact is made in Section 8.
B. AIR QUALITY
1. Impact AQ-4: The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with population assumptions of the
General Plan and San Luis Obispo County Clean Air Plan (CAP). However, the Specific
Plan proposes low density residential development outside of the current Urban Reserve
Line (URL) which will require an adjustment of the URL to be consistent with the General
Plan. The 2001 CAP encourages development to occur within the URL of cities, therefore,
the Specific Plan is inconsistent with the 2001 Clean Air Plan (CAP). This is considered to be
a Class I, significant and unavoidable impact.
a. Mitigation: The incorporation of Mitigation Measures AQ -1(b) though AQ -1(f), and T-
3(b) through T -3(d), are recommended to improve consistency with the CAP. The
following additional measure is also required:
— Mitigation Measure AQ -4(a) Development and Distribution of Alternative
Transportation Information. The applicant shall create a Multi-Modal Access
Guide, which includes maps and other information on how to walk and cycle to
nearby destinations. In addition, the applicant shall provide an on -site bulletin
board specifically for the posting of bus schedules and notices of availability for car-
pooling and /or shall distribute such information to property owners upon
occupancy. The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining this board and
updating it every two months.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted.
However, short of limiting growth to within the current URL boundaries, this
inconsistency cannot be fully mitigated. A statement of overriding considerations for
this impact is made in Section 8.
2. Cumulative Impacts: The OASP is inconsistent with the CAP policy of containing urban
development within the URL of cities and exceeds the SLOAPCD Tier II thresholds of
significance. As a result, the OASP is considered to be potentially inconsistent with long-
term regional air quality planning efforts, and the Specific Plan is expected to have
significant and unavoidable impacts on air quality.
a. Mitigation: The Specific Plan contains goals and policies which would reduce
cumulative agricultural impacts. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measures
AG- 1(a -f), AQ- 3(a -d) and AQ4(a), would further reduce impacts. No other feasible
mitigation is available that would meet the project objectives.
b. Finding: The City finds that no additional feasible mitigation is available for cumulative
air quality impacts, which would remain significant and unavoidable. A statement of
overriding considerations for this impact is made in Section 8.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
50
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
C. NOISE
1. Impact N -5: The proposed Specific Plan, in combination with cumulative development at
General Plan buildout would add to roadway corridor noise levels already above the 60
dBA Ldn City threshold. This is considered a Class I, significant and unavoidable impact.
a. Mitigation: As discussed under Impact N -2 above, the Specific Plan contains goals,
policies, and programs that will reduce noise exposure of new sensitive receptors within
the Orcutt Area to meet City standards. In addition, implementation of the following
measure would further reduce cumulative noise impacts for the Specific Plan area and
other development areas to a feasible extent.
— Mitigation Measure N -5(a) Fair Share of Cumulative Noise Improvements.
Applicants under the Specific Plan must contribute their fair financial share, as
determined by the City, to the implementation of one or more of the mitigation
approaches listed in policy 9 of the Noise Element (refer to Appendix E of the EIR).
The Specific Plan has been revised to include a specific program to contribute to
mitigating cumulative impacts. Implementation of the program must occur prior
home occupancy for development pursuant to the Specific Plan.
b. Finding: The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted.
Use of such techniques on all new development in the area and the retrofitting of
existing development would reduce cumulative impacts to the extent feasible.
However, implementation of these techniques would not necessarily ensure that
cumulative noise experienced at sensitive receptors would be reduced to less than
significant levels at all locations. No additional mitigation measures are feasible due to
economic and physical constraints. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and
unavoidable. A statement of overriding considerations for this impact is made in
Section 8.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
51
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
SECTION 7. FINDINGS FOR ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED
PROJECT
A. INTRODUCTION
As identified in Section 6 of this document, the proposed project will cause the following
significant and unavoidable environmental impacts to occur:
• Impact AES-1: Aesthetic character and alteration of viewsheds from Orcutt and Tank
Farm Roads
• Impact AES-2: Aesthetic character and impact to views of Righetti Hill
• Cumulative aesthetic impacts
• Cumulative impacts to agricultural resources
• Impact AQ-4: Clean Air Plan (CAP) consistency
• Cumulative air quality impacts
• Impact N -5: Cumulative roadway noise
• Growth Inducement
Because the proposed project will cause significant and unavoidable environmental impacts to
occur as identified above, the City must consider the feasibility of any environmentally superior
alternatives to the project, as proposed. The City must evaluate whether one or more of these
alternatives could substantially lessen or avoid the unavoidable significant environmental
effects.
As such, the environmental superiority and feasibility of each alternative to the project is
considered in this section. Specifically, this section evaluates the effectiveness of these
alternatives in reducing the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project.
B. DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES
The program EIR for the project evaluates the following four alternatives to the project: (1) a no
project alternative; (2) an alternative neighborhood center design; (3) an alternative that
incorporates all mitigation required for the proposed Specific Plan; and (4) a project with
reduced residential density.
1. Alternative 1: No-Project. As required by CEQA, this EIR evaluates the environmental
consequences of not proceeding with the project. This alternative assumes that the Specific
Plan is not adopted, and that the site remains in its current state of farm and ranchlands,
single - family homes and storage, although it would not preclude future development that
may be proposed under the County's subdivision ordinance. This site is zoned and
designated under the General Plan as Residential Single Family and Agricultural (AG).
2. Alternative 2: Neighborhood Center. This alternative would result in development
clustered toward the center of the site and around a commercial core. The intensity of
development in the Plan Area is similar to the proposed project but the Neighborhood
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
52
Findings of Fact and Statement o Overriding Considerations n
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
Center alternative includes potential for a greater amount of commercial uses than the
proposed project. This alternative is substantially similar to the proposed project in that the
overall number of dwelling units and expected population under this alternative are the
same. The development pattern places a higher density of people in a concentrated area but
also leaves more area as open space. This alternative, like the proposed Specific Plan
includes development outside of the current URL.
3. Alternative 3: Mitigated Project. The Mitigated Project Alternative would include a
Specific Plan revised to incorporate mitigation measures that are recommended for the
proposed Specific. Plan. The Mitigated Project Alternative would include the same number
of residences but at slightly higher densities than in the proposed Specific Plan. This is
because there would be an increased amount of parkland, a potential fire station site, and
there would not be any development outside of the current Urban Reserve Line (URL).
4. Alternative 4: Reduced Project. This alternative considers a development area that would
be the same as the proposed project but with lesser residential density within that area. The
development pattern, circulation, and open space areas would be similar to the proposed
project. This alternative would accommodate up to 650 new dwelling units (about 330
fewer than under the proposed project) and a school in the same site as in the proposed
Specific Plan. The commercial development potential would remain the same as the
proposed project.
C. EFFECTIVENESS OF ALTERNATIVES IN AVOIDING SIGNIFICANT
PROTECT IMPACTS
This section evaluates the effectiveness of the alternatives in reducing the significant and
unavoidable impacts of the proposed project.
1. Significant and Unavoidable Aesthetic Impacts. The proposed project would result in
significant and unavoidable impacts related to the aesthetic character of the site, and
blockage of scenic views. Alternative 1 (No Project) is the only alternative that would avoid
both of the significant impacts related to aesthetic character and view blockage.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would result in changes to the existing aesthetic character of the site
similar to the proposed project. Under Alternative 2, views from Orcutt Road on the east
side of the Orcutt Area would not be impacted to the extent that they would with the
proposed project, however impacts would remain significant. Alternative 3 would reduce
the impact to scenic views to a less than significant level by requiring a 50' setback from the
Orcutt Road and Tank Farm. Road right -of -ways. However, under Alternative 3, the
impacts to visual character could be greater than the proposed project due to higher
residential densities and the addition of a fire station. Although the overall density of
development under Alternative 4 would be less, impacts to aesthetic character and view
blockage would remain significant.
2. Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Air Quality Impacts. The proposed project
would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to Clean Air Plan (CAP)
inconsistency, which is considered a cumulative air quality impact. Under Alternative 1
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
53
Findings of Fact and Statement or Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
(No Project), no additional vehicle trips would be generated, and no development would be
allowed outside of the ULL, therefore cumulative air quality impacts would be substantially
reduced. Under Alternative 2, additional vehicle trips would result in increased emissions
compared to the proposed project, which would cumulatively impact air quality. Because
Alternatives 2 and 4 would allow development outside of the Urban Limit Line (ULL),
impacts related to CAP consistency would be similar to the proposed project. Alternative 3
would not allow development outside of the existing ULL, and would therefore be
consistent with the CAP. The pedestrian/bicycle underpass proposed in Alternative 3
would also result in fewer vehicle trips and associated cumulative vehicle emissions.
Alternative 4 would also result in fewer trips and emissions, and includes less dwelling
units and expected population than the proposed project; however, the significant
cumulative impacts would not be avoided.
3. Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Noise Impacts. The proposed project would
contribute to significant and unavoidable cumulative roadway noise impacts caused by the
addition of vehicle trips. Alternative 1 would not. add additional vehicle trips to the
roadway network, and therefore, would avoid the cumulative impact relating to roadway
noise. Alternative 2 would result in a greater number of vehicle trips and therefore have
greater roadway noise impacts than the proposed project. The bicycle /pedestrian overpass
proposed in Alternative 3 may reduce vehicle trips associated with the project. However,
the addition of a fire station within the specific plan may result in periodic increases in
roadway noise, although trips would be infrequent, and associated noise is unlikely to
exceed the City's thresholds. The fire station would be subject to subsequent project -level
environmental review. Alternative 4 would result in fewer vehicle trips and associated
roadway noise than the proposed project, and with implementation of mitigation measure
N -5(a) Fair Share of Cumulative Noise Improvements, the contribution to the cumulative
roadway noise impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
4. Significant and Unavoidable Growth Inducing Impacts. The proposed project includes
roadway extensions that would result in significant and unavoidable growth inducing
impacts. Alternative 1 (No Project) would avoid this impact. Extension of the roadways
within the Specific Plan area under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would result in growth
inducement.
D. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE AND FEASIBILITY OF
PROTECT ALTERNATIVES
1. Finding: Alternative 1 (No Project) is environmentally superior overall, since no
development would occur under the City jurisdiction and any new development would be
required to be consistent with the County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance which allows
residential development at a much lesser density. However, the existing Land Use Element
establishes the Orcutt Area as a City Expansion Area and requires that a Specific Plan be
adopted prior to urban development. Alternative 1 fails to meet the City's objectives for the
project area, and thus is infeasible as a means of satisfying those objectives. The City,
therefore, finds this alternative to be infeasible to implement.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
54
Findings of Fact and Statement Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
2. Finding: Alternative 2 (Neighborhood Center) would be inferior to the proposed Specific
Plan. With a more compact and higher density design, this alternative requires less
disturbed area but it includes more disturbance for roads in riparian areas. The amount of
commercial area proposed would exceed the demand from the local neighborhood and
would draw traffic from outside the plan area. In addition, the density proposed is
inconsistent with the residential density limitations of the Airport Land Use Plan.
Alternative does not avoid any of the Class I impacts associated with the proposed project.
The City, therefore, finds that since this alternative is not environmentally superior to the
proposed project, a feasibility determination is not necessary.
3. Finding: Alternative 3 (Mitigated Project) is considered environmentally superior to the
Specific Plan for several issues. Alternative 3 also avoids the Class I impacts related to
scenic view blockage, CAP consistency and cumulative roadway noise. However, this
alternative would result in greater impacts to the visual character of the site. In addition,
the proposed fire station may periodically increase roadway noise, due to the sirens
associated with emergency vehicles, although this project component would be subject to
subsequent environmental review. The City, therefore, finds that this alternative is not
entirely superior to the proposed project; therefore, a feasibility determination is not
necessary.
4. Finding: Alternative 4 (Reduced Project) is also superior to the proposed Specific Plan in
most environmental issue areas since there are fewer residents on the site that could be
impacted. Alternative 4 avoids the Class I impact related to cumulative roadway noise.
However, Alternative 4 would not fully satisfy the project objectives of 1) provision of a
variety of housing types for all income levels or 2) provision of new jobs. Alternative 4
would result in fewer total residential units than the proposed project (330 vs. 1000) and
with less housing overall, would be inferior to the proposed project in terms of its ability to
provide a variety of housing types for all income levels. In addition, with less residential
development compared to the proposed project, Alternative 4 would provide fewer
construction- related jobs, and would create less of a demand for goods and services in the
area. The City, therefore, finds that Alternative 4 is inferior to the proposed project, and
therefore infeasible to implement.
SECTION 8. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
A. INTRODUCTION
The program EIR for the project identifies the following significant and unavoidable impacts of
the project:
1. The proposed development would affect the aesthetic character of the site vicinity
through alteration of viewsheds from Orcutt and Tank Farm Roads.
2. The proposed development would affect the aesthetic character of the Specific Plan Area
and impede views of Righetti Hill.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
55
Findings of Fact and Statement or "Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
3. Cumulative development of these proposed developments would result in a significant
cumulative loss of open space and would irrevocably alter the character of these areas
throughout the City from rural to urban. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan
would incrementally contribute to this change in aesthetic character of the site and the
surrounding areas.
4. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with population assumptions of the General
Plan and San Luis Obispo County Clean Air Plan (CAP). However, the Specific Plan
proposes low density residential development outside of the current Urban Reserve Line
(URL) which will require an adjustment of the URL to be consistent with the General
Plan. The 2001 CAP encourages development to occur within the URL of cities,
therefore, the Specific Plan is inconsistent with the 2001 Clean Air Plan (CAP).
5. The GASP is inconsistent with the CAP policy of containing urban development within
the URL of cities and exceeds the SLOAPCD Tier II thresholds of significance. As a
result, the OASP is considered to be potentially inconsistent with long -term regional air
quality planning efforts, and the Specific Plan is expected to have significant and
unavoidable impacts on air quality.
6. The proposed Specific Plan, in combination with cumulative development at General
Plan buildout would add to roadway corridor noise levels already above the 60 dBA
Ldn City threshold.
7. Extensions of the roadways proposed by the Specific Plan may have significant impacts
related to growth inducement.
For projects which would result in significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided,
CEQA requires that the lead agency balance the benefits of these projects against the
unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the projects. If the benefits
of these projects outweigh the unavoidable impacts, those impacts may be considered
acceptable (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[a]). CEQA requires that, before adopting such
projects, the public agency adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations setting forth the
reasons why the agency finds that the benefits of the project outweigh the significant
environmental effects caused by the project. This statement is provided below.
B. REQUIRED FINDINGS
The City has incorporated all feasible mitigation measures into the project. Although these
measures will significantly lessen the unavoidable impacts listed above, the measures will not
fully avoid these impacts.
The City has also examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the project and has
incorporated portions of these alternatives into the project in order to reduce impacts. The City
has determined that none of these alternatives, taken as a whole, is both environmentally
superior and more feasible than the project.
Alternative 1 (No Project) would avoid all of the significant impacts of the project, but is not
considered feasible. Alternative 2 is considered to be environmentally inferior to the proposed
project. Alternative 3 would be superior to the project in some aspects, but would result in
greater impacts to the visual character of the site. Alternative 4 is superior to the proposed
of San Luis Obispo December
56
Findings of Fact and Statement t Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
project in that it avoids the Class I impact related to cumulative roadway noise. However,
Alternative 4 is inferior to the proposed project in terms of its ability to meet all of the project
objectives, including 1) Provision of a Variety of Housing Types for all Income Levels or 2)
Provision of New jobs.
In preparing this Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has balanced the benefits of
the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks. For the reasons specified
below, the City finds that the following considerations outweigh the proposed project's
unavoidable environmental risks:
1. Provision of new Residential and Commercial Uses. The Orcutt Area Specific Plan will
develop a new residential neighborhood to meet the City's housing needs and that
designates sufficient land for neighborhood serving commercial uses to reduce vehicle trips
and provide for the convenience of area residents.
2. Provision of a Variety of Housing Types for all Income Levels. The Orcutt Area Specific
Plan provides a variety of housing types and costs to meet the needs of renters and buyers
with a variety of income - levels, including inclusionary affordable housing for residents with
moderate, low and very-low income levels.
3. Open Space and Natural Resource. Protection: Implementation of the proposed project
would result in the creation of 47 acres of permanently- protected open space on Righetti
Hill, and 34 acres of creek and wetland corridors and setback areas. The Specific Plan
would protect and enhance Righetti Hill, creek /wetland habitats, and visual resources in
open space areas.
4. Provision of Park and Recreational Facilities. The Orcutt Area Specific Plan will provide
parks, recreational facilities, public squares, plazas and green spaces for residents of the
Orcutt Area.
5. Well - Planned Neighborhood Would Reduce Vehicle. Trips: The Orcutt Area Specific Plan
would develop a new residential neighborhood to meet the City's housing needs and that
designates sufficient land for neighborhood serving commercial uses to reduce vehicle trips
and provide for the convenience of area residents. In addition, the Specific Plan encourages
the use of bicycles and walking within the Plan Area by: (a) including specific policies and
development standards that will result in subdivision and building designs that facilitate
bike use and pedestrian access; (b) incorporating all classes of bike lanes and include bike
and pedestrian paths through the parks and open space areas; and (c) providing parks,
recreational facilities, public squares, plazas and green spaces for residents of the Orcutt
Area.
6. Provision of New jobs. The project would create new construction- related and permanent
jobs in the project area. Planned commercial development in the Airport Area and
Margarita area will provide new jobs that are needed to support a household within the
Orcutt Area.
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
57
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Orcutt Area Speck Plan Attachment 6 - Exhibit A
7. Implementation of the General Plan: As required by the City General Plan, the Orcutt
Area Specific Plan contains policies and standards that will facilitate appropriate
development of land, protection of open space, and provision of adequate public facilities.
Accordingly, the City finds that the project's adverse, unavoidable environmental impacts are
outweighed by these considerable benefits.
Dated: 2010
David F. Romero
Mayor, City of San Luis Obispo
City of San Luis Obispo December 2009
58
---- - - - -..
B B
Ple-nofe tlteollong ornatifln_and make �hangesto tas andf guresat note
I''
ea�
Per the Parcel Map COAL 91060, recorded 5 -26 -1992 at BK 49 PM Page 52:
Parcel 1 is 2.0 acres, AP 4076 481016, current owners Nick Muick, Patti Taylor, Rick Taylor
Parcel 2 is 10.0 acres, AP #076 481017, current owners Nick Muick, Patti Taylor
The following need to be revised:
Table A -1: add Rick Taylor to AP #076 481 016
Table A -2: add Taylor to last name
change 11.98 Acres to 12.0 Acres
Table A -3: add AP #076 481 016
change 11.98 to 12.0 Acres
s
3.2.6 Elementary School
The San Luis Coastal Unified School District (SLCUSD) is the primary provider of
educational services for the City of San Luis Obispo as well as other smaller communities
along the coast such as Morro Bay and Los Osos. As a K- 12 unified district, SLCUSD
operates ten elementary schools (including two magnet schools), two middle schools, and
three high schools. The Orcutt Area Specific Plan is designed to accommodate a new
elementary school site. The school's location was initially planned adjacent to the
neighborhood park, however, proximity to the railroad tracks and aircraft over -flight
reduces the feasibility of this location. To facilitate the decision - making process
regarding the school site location, both the SLCUSD and the California Department of
Education (CDE) prepared separate studies of four locations within the Orcutt Area, and
one location just outside the specific plan's boundaries. The CDE study was prepared by
the School Facilities Planning field representative and completed on April 8, 2009, while
the SLCUSD study was prepared by Oasis Associates, Inc. and completed on April 28,
2009. Both studies are on file in the Community Development Department.
SLCUSD has indicated that a new school would not be needed until significant portions
of the Orcutt Area and Margarita Area are developed. However, early planning for the
site is needed to facilitate its development and ensure that appropriate infrastructure is in
place to serve the facility. The five sites evaluated by SLCUSD are shown in Figure 3.1
and include:
Site A & E: Two different locations are identified adjacent to the Neighborhood Park
Site B: 3811 Orcutt Road (Garay)
Site C: Righetti Ranch House Site (outside the Urban Reserve Line)
Site D: Wixom Ranch (outside of GASP and Urban Reserve Line)
After reviewing both the SLCUSD and the CDE studies, the Board of Education
ultimately determined that Site C would be the most suitable location for the new school
site. Site C is located on land designated Conservation/Open Space outside of the City's
Urban Reserve Line. Site B was considered by the Board of Education to be the next best
option in terms of locating a school. This site is designed Low - Density Residential (R -1)
and schools are a conditionally allowed use in this zone. SLCUSD is a superior agency to
the City of San Luis Obispo and is encouraged, but not required, to go through the City's
entitlement process prior to establishing a school site. In general, the City's preference is
to locate the school site within the street network that will be established by future GASP
development. This would facilitate walking and biking to school by children living in the
Orcutt Area and would be consistent with the original concept of locating the school near
the neighborhood park.
w
�1'
e—
•e
V
W
W
VI/
J
t
+D D • 1!�r 1/
i I�
1 �
j + +
I
++ +
i
r' +
1 +
I +
.i I + •4.o4.b.�oa�a` v�
±+ ++} I aQa°un °apeoQOvdo° i `1
°00 °D D_ pip 4d ° 4OO p° fly
+ + } + p°° °pp ° a p
i +++ + + } } °a °a De °apoaD_paO.D._ °4e 1
!, + + + J + t } + } + °a c n 00°0 o
71- 7' -7I` I
i
+ °°
`v
Y
d
J
C
N
�
5 t
a
E
E
O
�
V
0
O
v
L
y,
0�
0
o
a:r
m
C
o
y
_0
E
E
O v
•�
��e
c
a
u
z, V
N
A C
7
n
3
>1
v
d N
-W
E a
E O
v
O
� .D
i a=
V vii
m
CL
m
n
o
`0
0
O
O
J
=
_
o
N
O
o
C
C
E
E
E
E
O
T
O
O
07
Ol
IO
C
C
E
v
V
C
y L
C
a
O
10
V O
•Q L
`/ Y
Y
'c
a
O7 G:
'o E
iL N
1/1
t.a
v
�
m
'N
•�L
0
_ A
�
�0
C
v—
+ °°
`v
Y
3
o
�
a
E
E
O
�
V
0
O
v
L
y,
a:r
m
C
o
y
_0
E
E
O v
•�
>
c
a
u
z, V
N
A C
7
n
3
>1
v
d N
-W
E a
E O
VO
O
� .D
i a=
V vii
J
W
'{d
V
ES
5Q
J
SIM
W
M
Lm
110,
r;
IN
l / r
I � v `fib `•
i 1
� P, �� � all �i � o � T((1 ���`��`���£.. �%� �•t
WA
r 1 ��-
\
`1d
�� �� �� j/ �� Vl`�Y i'i �UT4i�Y55�M �\�1�� \✓ i \>�(�{ `.I )l� i �.�'��
�(✓ i T�,� ��pi0p°� 3���
r
7i 1C�3` uj
I
O
O
'R
O
M
O
N
O
O
0
01
i
Ic
J h.J
v
c y
J C
d J
a
N �
N
d
c �
a c
m
7 a
a 7
E v ••
0 C cu
CL
v a` u