HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-05-2017 Item 07 - Authorize a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Proposed Froom Ranch Specific Pland and Related Entitlements Meeting Date: 7/5/2017
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Emily Creel, Contract Planner
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR THE
PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR
THE PROPOSED FROOM RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED
ENTITLEMENTS (SPEC-0143-2017; 12165 AND 12393 LOS OSOS VALLEY
ROAD)
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Authorize the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Froom Ranch Specific Plan and
related project entitlements; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to award a consultant services agreement with the consultant
that best responds to the RFP in terms of qualifications, cost, and approach to the project
analysis.
DISCUSSION
Background
The Froom Ranch property, a 110-acre site located immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road
between U.S. Highway 101 and the Irish Hills Plaza, is one of three sites identified in the 2014
Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update as requiring the preparation of a Specific
Plan prior to annexation and development (Land Use Element Specific Plan Area 3 – Madonna
on LOVR).
Initiation of the Specific Plan process was authorized by the City Council on April 5, 2016 , with
the understanding that preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) would be required (detailed background
information including City Council and Planning Commission Minutes and Agenda Reports are
available in Attachment C for reference). The draft Request for Proposals (Attachment A) and
Initial Study (Attachment B) incorporate direction provided by the City Council at the Specific
Plan authorization request hearing, including but not limited to, the scope of the EIR and
identification and evaluation of specific project alternatives.
The City envisions CEQA compliance for the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project to be a Project
EIR that tiers from and addresses potential environmental effects and project alternatives not
included in the Final Program EIR prepared for the LUCE Update. The LUCE EIR did not
include site-specific analyses for the Froom Ranch Specific Plan site, and the applicant’s request
includes elements that differ from the performance standards and assumptions identified in the
LUCE Update and associated Final Program EIR, including:
Packet Pg 87
7
1) Development above the 150-foot elevation, which would require consideration of a
General Plan Amendment to modify the current language presented in LUE Irish Hills
Hillside Protection Policy 6.4.7.H;
a. The EIR will include evaluation of a complete and feasible alternative for
development below the 150-foot elevation.
2) A Life Plan Community (also known as a Continuing Care Retirement Community); and,
3) Realignment and restoration of Froom Creek.
The successful EIR consultant must be prepared to critically evaluate the LUCE EIR and
determine the extent to which it can be used as the basis for tiering. Staff will welcome creative
input from consultants regarding issues that will require special focus, and ways to streamline
future development proposals within the Specific Plan area. If approved by Council, the RFP will
be published on the City’s website and distributed to consultants with relevant experience in the
preparation of tiered, project-level EIRs with similar environmental issues and constraints on the
Central Coast.
CONCURRENCES
The Draft RFP and Initial Study incorporate comments provided by other City Departments
including Public Works (Transportation), Fire, Utilities, Parks and Recreation, and
Administration (Natural Resources). The Draft RFP and Initial Study also incorporate review
comments provided by the City Council, Planning Commission, Cultural Heritage Committee,
and Parks and Recreation Commission during pre-application and conceptual reviews of the
project.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The issuance of an RFP for consultant services is not a project under CEQA, and therefore, no
environmental review is required.
FISCAL IMPACT
The applicant for the Froom Ranch Specific Plan and related entitlements will enter into a
Reimbursement Agreement with the City and will be responsible for the costs of the Project EIR,
including the City’s administrative fees. Therefore, the RFP would have no fiscal impact on the
City.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Provide direction regarding an amended RFP and continue authorization of the RFP to a date
uncertain. This alternative is recommended if the City Council would like to review and consider
major revisions to the RFP.
2. Provide direction regarding an amended RFP and authorize the RFP based on finalization and
approval by the Community Development Director. This alternative is recommended if the
Council provides direction resulting in minor revisions to the RFP.
Packet Pg 88
7
3. Decline to authorize an RFP and provide direction to staff as to whether the work should be
done “in house” or deferred to a future time. This is not recommended because staff does not
have the resources to prepare the EIR in-house, the applicant has submitted a Specific Plan and it
is the appropriate time to begin the environmental review process, and the City Council assumed
that preparation of an EIR would be required upon authorization of the Specific Plan process.
Attachments:
a - Froom Ranch Specific Plan Request for Proposal
b - Froom Ranch Specific Plan Initial Study
c - Council Reading File - Specific Plan Initiation Agenda Minutes and Agenda Reports
April 5, 2016
Packet Pg 89
7
Notice Requesting Proposals
for Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project
Specification No. 0143-2017
The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting proposals to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project. All proposals must
be received by the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department at 919 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, CA 93401 by 3:00 P.M. on _______________, 2017.
Proposals received after said time will not be considered. To guard against premature opening, each proposal
package must be submitted to the Community Development Department in a sealed envelope plainly marked with
the request title, specification number, Consultant name, and time and date of the pr oposal opening. Proposals
must be submitted using the forms provided in the specification package.
Obtaining a Specification Package
Download from the City’s Web site www.slocity.org - Bids & Proposals link
Questions
Contact Contract Planner Emily Creel at (805) 543-7095 x6814 or ecreel@swca.com, or Associate Planner
Shawna Scott at (805) 781-7176 or sscott@slocity.org with any questions regarding this Request for Proposals.
Disadvantaged Business Participation
DBE and other small businesses as defined in Title 49 CFR 26, are encouraged to participate in the performance
of agreements financed in whole or in part with federal funds.
Packet Pg 90
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 2 of 30
Specification No. 0143-2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section A ....................................................................................................................................................................3
DESCRIPTION OF WORK .........................................................................................................................................3
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.................................................................................................................. 13
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................................................................... 13
CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION ........................................................................................................... 14
PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS .......................................................................................... 15
PROPOSAL CONTENT ...................................................................................................................................... 15
PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONSULTANT SELECTION ......................................................................... 16
FORM OF AGREEMENT ........................................................................................................................................ 17
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORMS .......................................................................................................................... 25
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...................................................................................................................................... 25
INSURANCE CERTIFICATE .............................................................................................................................. 25
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................ 26
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................... 27
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: Consultant Services ........................................................................................... 29
Packet Pg 91
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 3 of 30
Section A
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
The City is requesting proposals from consultants to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project. The project includes
a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and related actions that would allow for the development of the Froom
Ranch Specific Plan Area, including annexation into the City of San Luis Obispo .
Please refer to the following link for available background information:
www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/documents-online/environmental-
review-documents/-folder-1911
Background
Site Overview
The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area consists
of two parcels, totaling approximately 110
acres (APNs 067-241-030 and 067-241-031)
within unincorporated San Luis Obispo
County, and adjacent to City of San Luis
Obispo (City) city limits. The Specific Plan
Area is within the City’s Sphere of Influence
and a portion of the site is within the City’s
Urban Reserve Line. The site is located
immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road
between U.S. Highway 101 and the Irish Hills
Plaza.
The Specific Plan area is primarily
undeveloped with the exception of an
assemblage of historical ranch and dairy
structures on the portion of the site, including
the John Madonna Construction office (within
the historic Main Residence) directly south of
Home Depot. The site also includes
unimproved roads, construction staging and
materials storage areas, a quarry area, and
stormwater detention basins that treat runoff
from the adjacent Irish Hills Plaza.
Development of the project site is constrained by a variety of existing resources and conditions, including: an
historic ranch complex; Froom Creek, which generally bisects the site from north to south; existing agricultural
and open space easements; onsite wetlands; substantial stormwater flows from the Irish Hills Plaza and adjacent
Irish Hills Natural Reserve; steep slopes; archaeological resources; and current General Plan restrictions on
development over the 150-foot elevation (see Land Use Element Policy 6.4.7.H. Hillside Planning Areas, The Irish
Hills area).
Packet Pg 92
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 4 of 30
General Plan Basis
Froom Ranch is identified in the City of San Luis Obispo Land Use Element as Specific Plan Area 3 (SP -3,
Madonna on LOVR), and is subject to preparation of a Specific Plan to accommodate development proposals and
address pertinent issues within the Specific Plan Area. The Specific Plan Area is within the City’s Sphere of
Influence and the General Plan anticipates annexation of this area into the City. The Land Use Element requires
that a Specific Plan be adopted prior to annexation. Guidance for the project is found in Chapter 8, Section 8.1.5,
of the Land Use Element. This section states the following (in added italics):
8.1.5. SP-3, Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Area
Location: This site includes just over 111 acres and is located directly west of the int ersection of Los Osos Valley
Road and Calle Joaquin.
Purpose: The purpose of the specific plan is to provide design flexibility that will secure the appropriate
development of the site while protecting sensitive environmental resources on the site. Develo pment on the site
should be a compact, mixed use project that provides workforce housing options and neighborhood commercial
uses that support pedestrian and bicycle access. The specific plan for this area should consider and address the
following land use and design issues.
a. Develop a design that is sensitive to environmental constraints and adjusts accordingly through
design. Constraints include wetland protection, slope protection, historic structures, and open
space protection.
b. Maintain viewshed of surrounding mountains and secure steeper hillsides as protected open
space areas.
c. Variable height limits will be required to protect views of adjacent hills.
d. Provide access to trails.
e. Provide a plan for adequate and safe infrastructure, including appropriate points of access to Los
Osos Valley Road.
f. Address neighborhood commercial needs of new neighborhood.
g. Provide connectivity to adjacent development.
Performance Standards: This specific plan shall meet the following performance standards.
Type Designations
Allowed % of Site Minimum1 Maximum
Residential (Mixed
Use)
MDR
MHDR
HDR
200 units 350 units
Commercial NC
CR
50,000 sf 350,000 sf
Parks PARK
Open
Space/Agriculture
OS
AG
Minimum 50%
Public n/a
Infrastructure n/a
1 There can be a reduction in the minimum requirement based on specific physical and/or
environmental constraints.
Packet Pg 93
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 5 of 30
Initiation of the Specific Plan and Advisory Body Review
As described below (Proposed Project Overview), the applicant envisions a Specific Plan that differs somewhat
from the performance standards identified in the Land Use Element. The City Council considered this change in
vision for the area, and authorized initiation of the S pecific Plan on April 5, 2016. The Council generally supported
the concept to reduce the amount of commercial development within the Specific Plan area, and the development
of a Life Plan Community within the City. The City Council specifically identified the need for a Project Design
Alternative that complies with existing Land Use Element Policy 6.4.7.H. (Hillside Planning Areas, The Irish Hills
area), which states that “The Irish Hills area should secure permanent open space with no building sites above
the 150-foot elevation, in conjunction with any subdivision or development of the lower areas. (See also Section 8,
Special Focus Areas)”. Following initiation by the City Council, the applicant presented preliminary plans to the
Parks and Recreation Commission and Cultural Heritage Committee.
The City encourages prospective consultants review past agenda report packages and meeting minutes, which
are available at the following link:
www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/documents-online/environmental-
review-documents/-folder-1911
Proposed Project Overview
Froom Ranch is envisioned as a primarily residential project with some commercial development in the northeast
portion of the site closest to Los Osos Valley Road and the adjacent Irish Hills Plaza. A major component of the
planned residential uses is a Life Plan Comm unity (LPC) known as Villaggio. Villaggio would provide a variety of
different unit types for independent senior housing as well as access to higher levels of care such as Assisted
Living, Memory Care, and Skilled Nursing, when needed. Additional residential uses in the northern portion of the
site will be multiple-family. As required by the Land Use Element, a minimum of the project site must be
designated as Open Space; the current Plan designates approximately 51% of the site as Open Space. The
Specific Plan also includes a Neighborhood Trailhead Park to connect to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, which
may incorporate onsite historic structures. The treatment and potential use of the historic structures is currently
under evaluation by the applicant.
Table 1 identifies the land uses proposed within the Specific Plan area. The proposed project includes the
following land use/zoning designations, currently under review by the City:
Residential Land Use Zones
R-3-SP – Medium-High Density Residential
R-3-LP-SP – Medium-High Density Residential Life Plan Community
R-4-SP – High-Density Residential
Non-Residential Land Use Zones
CR-SP – Commercial Retail
C/OS-SP – Conservation/Open Space
PF-SP – Public Facilities
Packet Pg 94
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 6 of 30
Table 1 Proposed Froom Ranch Specific Plan Land Use and Zoning Summary
Land Use Zoning Acres Density Potential
Units
Potential
Square
Feet
RESIDENTIAL
Medium-High Density Residential
- Multi-family units R-3-SP 5.3 20 du/ac 130
Medium-High Density Residential –
Life Plan Community
- Independent living
- Assisted living units
- Health Center including assisted
care, memory care, and skilled
nursing
- Ancillary facilities such as
recreation center, restaurants, and
theaters (26,000 sf)
R-3-LP-SP 31.5 20 du/ac
- 61 villas
- 108
garden
apts.
- 150 apts.
- 47 village
suites
- 38
assisted
living
units
- 51
memory
care and
skilled
nursing
beds
40,000
High-Density Residential
- Multi-family apartments R-4-SP 1.9 24 du/ac 44
Residential Subtotal 38.7 578
NON-RESIDENTIAL
Commercial Retail
- 30,000 sf commercial
- 70,000 sf hotel (120 rooms)
CR-SP 3.5 100,000
Conservation/Open Space C/OS-SP 59.01
Public Facilities
- Neighborhood Park P-F-SP 2.9
Other (Roads) 5.6
Non-Residential Subtotal 71.0
TOTAL 109.7
1 Includes proposed project open space (51.3 acres) as well as existing open space easement (7.1 acres)
Relationship of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR to the LUCE Final EIR
The City updated its Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) and approved a Final Program Environmental
Impact Report for the LUCE in 2014. The City envisions CEQA compliance for the Froom Ranch Specific Plan to
be a Project EIR that tiers from the Final Program EIR prepared for the LUCE Update. It is acknowledged that the
LUCE EIR did not examine the Froom Ranch site in great detail, but it did identify a series of programmatic
impacts and mitigation measures (primarily Citywide with some site-specific measures) that may or may not apply
to development on the Froom Ranch site. The successful consultant must be prepared to critically evaluate the
LUCE EIR and determine the extent to which it can be used as the basis for tiering. The successful candidate
must also consider the potential use of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project EIR to tier future environmental
analysis required for specific development proposals within the Specific Plan Area. The City is interested in
hearing ideas on how the Specific Plan EIR can be structured to provide the best tool for the City to use in the
environmental review of later development proposals at Froom Ranch.
Packet Pg 95
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 7 of 30
In your proposal, please discuss examples of projects where your firm’s key personnel have applied this type of
expertise. The City is seeking clear and concise writing, a simplified organizational framework for t he analysis,
and discussion of how the LUCE EIR and Specific Plan EIR can be used to streamline current and future
environmental reviews. Please provide examples demonstrating your key personnel’s experience related to
preparing Project EIRs that tier from Program EIRs for General Plans , preparing Specific Plan EIRs or similar
EIRs that can be used to streamline future development proposals, experience preparing CEQA documentation
for projects within the City’s sphere of influence, and familiarity with the City’s LUCE, LUCE EIR, and other
applicable planning documents.
The LUCE Final EIR was certified on September 16, 2014. A copy of the Final EIR may be found at the City’s
website at:
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/planning-zoning/general-plan
Prospective EIR consultants are encouraged to examine the adopted LUCE and LUCE EIR documents available
on the City’s website. It should not be assumed that all issues that need to be examined in the Froom Ranch
Specific Plan EIR were identified in the LUCE EIR. The City has drafted an Initial Study for the Froom Ranch
Specific Plan Project and welcomes creative input from consultants regarding which issues (in your firm’s opinion)
will require special focus, and ways to streamline the CEQA process to the extent possible through the Froom
Ranch Specific Plan EIR.
Key Issues to be Addressed in EIR
The EIR will be a full-scope document, which covers all environmental issue areas as summarized in the
preliminary Initial Study and as required by State CEQA Guidelines Article 9, Contents of Environmental Impact
Reports. Please ensure your scope of work includes an Energy section or chapter (refer to State CEQA
Guidelines Appendix F: Energy Conservation for additional guidance). In addition, the following anticipated key
issues are highlighted and summarized below.
Potential Impacts to Environmental Resources Due to Development Above the 150-foot Elevation
The applicant’s request includes a General Plan Amendment to modify the current language presented in LUE
Policy 6.4.7.H to allow for hillside development above the 150 -foot elevation. The applicant presented preliminary
visual simulations during the initiation hearings for this project; these graphics are available for review through the
link to available background information provided above. Please note that independent visual simulations
completed by the retained EIR consultant will be required to fully and independently evaluate potential impacts.
The EIR shall evaluate the potential impacts to visual, biological, and hydrological resources, potential geologic
and soils hazards, and consistency with plans and policies specifically identified to protect these sensitive
resources. Additional analysis conducted by the retained EIR consultant, including photo simulations of the
proposed development within the hillside context will be necessary to determine if the project could be designed
to protect hillside views, consistent with LUE hillside development policies and LUE resource protection policies,
Open Space Policies protecting scenic vistas, and Circulation Element policies which call for the protection of
views from roadways designated as having scenic value.
Potential Impacts as a Result of Froom Creek Realignment
The proposed project includes the realignment and restoration of Froom Creek within the property boundaries,
and construction of pathways. City creeks and wetlands management objectives applicable to Froom Creek
include:
“A. Maintaining and restoring natural conditions and fish and wildlife habitat;
B. Preventing loss of life and minimizing property damage from flooding;
C. Providing recreational opportunities which are compatible with fish and wildlife habitat, flood protection,
and use of adjacent private properties.
D. Recognizing and distinguishing between those sections of creek s and Laguna Lake which are in
urbanized areas, such as the Downtown core, and sections which are in largely natural area s. Those
Packet Pg 96
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 8 of 30
sections already heavily impacted by urban development and activity may be appropriate for multiple
use whereas creeks and lakeshore in a more natural state shall be managed fo r maximized ecological
value” (LUE Section 6.6.1 Creek and Wetlands Management Objectives).
City staff and the applicant have met with resource agencies including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and
California Department of Fish and Wildlife to review conceptual plans and determine preliminary information that
will be required for the agencies to formally respond to the project. Key considerations incl ude review of
hydrological modeling to determine the gradient and width necessary to provide suitable conditions for steelhead
migration from the upper pools of Froom Creek, through the project site, and connecting with San Luis Creek.
Additional project details and technical information will be provided by the applicant (refer to Available Supporting
Documents, below), which shall be peer reviewed by the retained EIR consultant. In addition, additional analysis
required to ensure consistency with regulati ons specific to floodway and floodplain management will be submitted
by the applicant and peer reviewed by the retained EIR consultant, in coordination with the City Public Works
Department (refer to Available Supporting Documents, below).
Potential Impacts to Historic Resources
The Froom Ranch Historic Complex is located within the project site, approximately at and below the 150 -foot
elevation line. This complex is not currently accessible to the public, and is generally blocked from public view.
The applicant submitted an evaluation of prehistoric and historic resources present on the project site (First
Carbon Solutions 2015), which determined that the Froom Ranch complex (seven structures) is historically
significant under National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, and City of San
Luis Obispo Historic Resources criteria. The LUE states that the proposed project design should be sensitive to
environmental constraints, including historic structures, and adjust acco rdingly through design. The Conservation
and Open Space Element (COSE) provides additional specific policy direction including the following:
• “Significant historic and architectural resources should be identified, preserved, and rehabilitated.
• Historically or architecturally significant buildings shall not be demolished or substantially
changed in outward appearance, unless doing so is necessary to remove a threat to health and
safety and other means to eliminate or reduce the threat to acceptable levels are infeasible.
• Buildings and other cultural features that are not historically significant but which have historical
or architectural value should be preserved or relocated where feasible. Where preservation or
relocation is not feasible, the resource shall be documented and the information retained in a
secure but publicly accessible location. An acknowledgement of the resource should be
incorporated within the site through historic signage and the reuse or display of historic materials
and artifacts.
• Changes or additions to historically or architecturally significant buildings should be consistent
with the original structure and follow the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Buildings. New buildings in historical districts, or on historically significant sites, should
reflect the form, spacing and materials of nearby historic structures. The street appearance of
buildings which contribute to a neighborhood’s architectural character should be maintained ”
(COSE Section 3.2 and 3.3, Historical and Architectural Resources and Policies).
Further review by the Cultural Heritage Committee and full analysis of historic resources in the EIR will be
necessary. The EIR shall include an evaluation of the proposed pr oject, in addition to feasible alternatives to
mitigate potential impacts to historic resources. The EIR shall also provide a preliminary assessment of the
project’s consistency with the General Plan and Historic Preservation Ordinance and Guidelines.
Project Alternatives
The EIR shall include project alternatives, which would avoid or minimize potentially significant environmental
effects. As directed by the City Council, the EIR shall include a project alternative that locates all development
below the 150-foot elevation line. The City has requested this design alternative from the applicant for
incorporation and analysis in the EIR. The Alternatives Analysis shall also include an Alternative that retains and
restores Froom Creek in its current location. In order to present actionable alternatives in the EIR, the alternatives
Packet Pg 97
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 9 of 30
chapter shall be comprehensive, provide clear descriptions and graphics , and clearly identify potential impacts,
associated levels of significance, and identification of the mitigation measures tha t would be required to reduce
potential impacts.
Cumulative Impacts
The EIR shall evaluate project-specific and cumulative impacts, in addition to secondary effects that may occur as
a result of implementation of mitigation measures and conditions of approval. The scope of work approach shall
identify how cumulative impacts will be addressed in the EIR, noting the two large development projects (San Luis
Ranch and Avila Ranch) currently under review by the City, in addition to existing and reasonably foreseeable
development such as the build-out of the four Gearhart parcels (located at the terminus of Calle Joaquin Road,
adjacent to the City Farm and proximate to San Luis Ranch).
Available Supporting Documents
The following technical studies have been prepared to support the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project and are
available online at:
www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/documents-online/environmental-
review-documents/-folder-1911
Draft Froom Ranch Specific Plan (RRM 2017)
Preliminary Exhibits (RRM 2016)
Preliminary Initial Study of Froom Ranch Specific Plan (City of San Luis Obispo)
Section 106 Prehistoric Report (FirstCarbon Solutions 2015) – please contact Emily Creel directly to
review this confidential report
Biological Resources Inventory (Kevin Merk Associates, LLC 2016)
Delineation of Waters of the United States and State of California (Kevin Merk Associates, LLC 2015)
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2016)
Preliminary Transportation Analysis (Central Coast Transportation Consulting 2015)
Preliminary Engineering Geology Investigation (GeoSolutions, Inc. 2016)
Preliminary Soils Engineering Report (GeoSolutions, Inc. 2016)
In addition, the applicant is in the process of completing the following additional studies to support the Froom
Ranch Specific Plan. These will be made available to the EIR preparers upon their completion and submittal to
the City:
Subsurface Fault Investigation and Development Setback Map (John Kammer)
Structural Analysis of Historic Structures (Stork, Wolfe & Associates)
Updated Visual Simulations (RRM)
Updated Transportation Analysis (Central Coast Transportation Consulting)
Water Supply Assessment (RRM)
Water Demand and Sewer Flows Analysis (RRM)
Froom Creek Geomorphology Study (RRM)
Froom Creek Hydrology Study (RRM)
Froom Creek Preliminary Planting Concepts and Plant List (RRM)
In addition to these applicant-prepared studies, the City Public Works Department will be issuing a separate RFP
for the preparation of a multi-modal transportation impact study (TIS) for the project. The TIS will be reviewed and
approved by the City Public Works Department and incorporated into the EIR. No additional peer review by the
EIR consultant is necessary.
Previously prepared studies should be utilized to the greatest extent feasible in the EIR. It should be noted,
however, that the technical studies that have already been prepared and are being prepared may not be sufficient
for evaluating all project-specific impacts associated with the corresponding issue areas. The City recommends
Packet Pg 98
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 10 of 30
that prospective firms review the available documents and include a list of any additional technical studies that are
anticipated to be necessary and include the preparation of those studies in the proposed Scope of Work. The
successful candidate should also clearly explain their proposed approach to utilizing existing reports and how the
peer review process (if necessary) will be managed to maintain the overall project schedule.
Considerations in Presenting Consultant Experience and Personnel
The proposal should focus on the relevant experience of personnel currently at the firm and proposed for the
consultant team, and not the historical experience of the firm. It is the City’s expectation that personnel identified
in a consultant’s proposal will play a major role in the execution of the assignment if the firm is selected. The
proposal should include an appropriate range of senior and junior level staff that realistically reflects the team that
would likely work on the assignment. The proposal can present information about relevant experience and key
personnel in a variety of ways. A recommended approach is to provide a matrix listing key personnel, their
potential roles in preparing the EIR, and associated relative experience. For larger firms, please be realistic about
the effort assigned to company principals or high-level senior staff. For smaller firms, please demonstrate how
your firm has adequate qualified staff to complete an assignment of t his magnitude. The City seeks honest,
transparent, and realistic responses to this RFP relative to a company’s qualifications and its ability to complete
the assignment.
A proposal can, but is not required to, include other firms that would be subconsultants and part of the team i f
selected for the assignment. If your proposal does not address one or another specific type of expertise that may
be required to prepare the EIR (e.g., aesthetics, noise, air quality, cultural resources, biology), please describe
how you intend to address these issues if selected. The proposal should demonstrate that all identified
subconsultants are adequately qualified to complete their identified scope of work and demonstrate how the firm
has successfully worked with these subconsultants in the past.
The successful consultant should be prepared to discuss an approach to maintaining an aggressive EIR schedule
concurrently with finalization of the Specific Plan and details for proposed site development. In your proposal,
please discuss examples of projects where your firm’s key personnel have addressed this issue and successful
approaches to maintain the overall EIR schedule.
Project Management Approach
Please identify your firm’s proposed Project Manager and describe how your firm would address key project
management tasks, including those related to maintaining the EIR schedule, cost control, delegation of tasks,
quality control, and technical review. Provide examples, if applicable, of how your firm ensures that projects are
completed on time and within budget. Explain how your firm envisions interacting with City staff and the applicant
team throughout the EIR process, in a manner that is collaborative but ensures an independent analysis of the
issues. Describe how you intend to manage a process that is cost -effective, timely, efficient, inclusive of public
input, and ultimately produces an EIR that is easily understandable to the public and decision makers. The City
values creativity, clear thinking, and exceptional writing skills in evaluating your approach to project management,
and the EIR process in general.
Please describe your selected Project Manager’s specific experience with similar assignmen ts, and how the
issues described above were addressed. Where past projects presented challenges, please describe how your
Project Manager was able to successfully address them, and how these lessons might be applied to the Froom
Ranch Specific Plan Project.
The selected consultant’s Project Manager will be expected to be the City’s primary point of contact, and must
understand the overall contract agreement and manage paperwork associated with it.
Packet Pg 99
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 11 of 30
Scope of Work
The following section describes the tasks that are anticipated for the preparation of the EIR. Proposers shall
consider the scope and recommend any additional services (such as additional technical studies and/or
investigations) that would meet the intent of the RFP and would assist the Cit y in preparing the EIR for the project
in a streamlined timeframe. Proposers are requested to recommend a strategy to achieve this goal and
incorporate the necessary scope into the tasks described below.
1. Kickoff Meeting and Review of Available Studies and Documentation
2. Prepare Project Description
3. Peer review applicant-prepared technical studies
4. Prepare Technical Studies (identify any additional technical studies anticipated to be necessary/prepared
by the proposer’s team)
5. Prepare Administrative Draft EIR
6. Prepare Public Review Draft EIR
7. Prepare Administrative Final EIR and Response to Comments
8. Prepare Final EIR
9. Prepare CEQA Findings, Notice of Determination (NOD), and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP)
10. Public Hearings
Proposers shall assume up to two rounds of review and comments on Administrative versions of the documents
to be prepared. Additionally, proposers shall be responsible for all document production , draft notices, and
distribution requirements associated with producing and circul ating the Draft EIR and Final EIR. The Draft EIR
shall include the Draft Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The Final EIR shall include the
MMRP and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR. Proposers should assume production of:
- Ten (10) hard copies (body only) and an electronic copy (body and appendices) of the Administrative
Draft EIR
- One (1) electronic copy of the revised Administrative Draft EIR (showing tracked changes)
- One (1) hard copy of the print-check copy of the Draft EIR (body and appendices)
- Twenty (20) hard copies (Draft EIR body only, bound) and 40 electronic copies (CDs; Draft EIR body
and appendices)
- One (1) hard copy (Draft EIR body and appendices, bound)
- One (1) web-ready electronic copy of the Draft EIR and appendices (PDF sections)
- Twenty (20) hard copies (stand-alone, bound) of the Executive Summary of the Draft EIR
- Ten (10) hard copies (body only) and an electronic copy (body and appendices) of the Administrative
Final EIR
- One (1) electronic copy of the revised Administrative Final EIR (showing tracked changes)
- One (1) hard copy of the print-check copy of the Final EIR (body and appendices, bound)
- Twenty (20) hard copies (Final EIR body only, bound) and 40 electronic copies (CDs; Final EIR body
and appendices)
- One (1) web-ready copy of the Final EIR and appendices (PDF sections)
- One (1) electronic copy of the CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Proposers should assume attendance at the following public hearings:
- Bicycle Advisory Committee, assume one hearing (one for the Draft EIR);
- Airport Land Use Commission, assume two hearings (one for the Draft EIR, one for the Final EIR);
- Cultural Heritage Committee, assume two hearings (one for the Draft EIR, one for the Final EIR);
- Parks and Recreation Commission, assume one hearing (one for the Final EIR);
- Planning Commission, assume four hearings (two for the Draft EIR, two for the Final EIR);
- Architectural Review Commission, assume two hearings (two for the Final EIR); and
- City Council, assume two hearings (two for the Final EIR).
Packet Pg 100
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 12 of 30
Schedule
Please provide an estimated schedule detailing your firm’s projected timeline for completing each of the tasks
detailed in the Scope of Work in a timely and efficient manner. The successful candidate should show a
commitment to completing the EIR in an expedited timeframe and provide a clear discussion of their approach to
keeping the EIR on schedule.
Cost of Services
Please provide a detailed fee schedule showing the hourly rates for staff and any other direct materials and
equipment costs that are anticipated for completion of the identified scope of work. The proposed fee schedule
should outline all costs to prepare and distribute the Draft and Final EIR, including duplication and mailing costs,
administrative costs, and travel costs.
Packet Pg 101
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 13 of 30
Section B
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Requirement to Meet All Provisions. Each individual or firm submitting a Proposal (Consultant) shall meet
all of the terms, and conditions of the Request for Proposals (RFP) specifications package. By virtue of its
proposal submittal, the Consultant acknowledges agreement with and acceptan ce of all provisions of the RFP
specifications.
2. Proposal Submittal. Each Proposal must be submitted on the form(s) provided in the specifications package
and accompanied by any other required submittals or supplemental materials. Proposal documents shall be
enclosed in an envelope that shall be sealed and addressed to the Community Development Department,
City of San Luis Obispo, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401. Each submittal shall include three
hard copies and one electronic copy of the proposal, submitted in Adobe Acrobat format on CD or flash drive.
In order to guard against premature opening, the proposal should be clearly labeled with the proposal title,
specification number, name of Consultant, and date and time of proposal opening. No facsimile (fax) or
emailed submittals will be accepted.
3. Insurance Certificate. Each proposal must include a certificate of insurance showing:
a. The insurance carrier and its A.M. Best rating.
b. Scope of coverage and limits.
c. Deductibles and self-insured retention.
The purpose of this submittal is to generally assess the adequacy of the Consultant’s insurance coverage
during proposal evaluation; as discussed under paragraph 12 below, endorsements are not required until
contract award. The City’s insurance requirements are detailed in Section F.
4. Submittal of References. Each proposer shall submit a proposal and references on the form provided in the
RFP package.
5. Statement of Contract Disqualifications. Each proposer shall submit a statement regarding any past
government disqualifications on the form provided in the RFP package.
6. Proposal Withdrawal and Opening. A Consultant may withdraw its proposal, without prejudice prior to the
time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to the City for its withdrawal, in which
event the proposal will be returned to the Consultant unopened. No proposal received after the time specified
or at any place other than that stated in the "Notice Requesting Proposals" will be considered. All qualification
proposals will be opened and declared publicly. Consultants or their representatives are invited to be present
at the opening of the qualification proposals.
7. Submittal of One Proposal Only. No individual or business entity of any kind shall be allowed to make or
file, or to be interested in more than one proposal, except an alternative proposal when specifically requested;
however, an individual or business entity that has submitted a sub -proposal to a Consultant submitting a
proposal, or who has quoted prices on materials to such Consultant, is not thereby disqualified from
submitting a sub-proposal or from quoting prices to other Consultants submitting qualification proposals.
8. Communications. All timely requests for information submitted in writing will receive a written response from
the City. Telephone communications with City staff are not encouraged, but will be permitted. However, any
such oral communication shall not be binding on the City.
9. Alternative Qualification Proposals. When specifically requested, the proposer may submit an alternative
qualification proposal (or proposals) that it believes will also meet the City's project objectives but in a
different way. In this case, the proposer must provide an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of
Packet Pg 102
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 14 of 30
each of the alternatives, and discuss under what circumstances the City would prefer one alternative to the
other(s). If an alternative proposal is submitted, the maximum length of the proposal may be expanded
proportionately by the number of alternatives submitted.
CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION
10. Proposal Retention and Award. The City reserves the right to retain all qualification proposals for a period
of 60 days for examination and comparison. The City also reserves the right to waive non-substantial
irregularities in any proposal, to reject any or all qualification proposals, to reject or delete one part of a
proposal and accept the other, except to the extent that proposals are qualif ied by specific limitations. See the
"Special Terms and Conditions" in Section C of these specifications for proposal evaluation and contract
award criteria. The City may choose to interview any number of qualified consultants as the basis for making
a final selection.
11. Competency and Responsibility of Consultant. The City reserves full discretion to determine the
competence and responsibility, professionally and/or financially, of Consultants. Consultants will provide, in a
timely manner, all information that the City deems necessary to make such a decision.
12. Contract Requirement. The Consultant to whom award is made shall execute a written contract with the City
within ten (10) calendar days after notice of the award has been sent by mail to it at the add ress given in its
proposal. The contract shall be made in the form adopted by the City and incorporated in these specifications.
13. Insurance Requirements. The Consultant shall provide proof of insurance in the form, coverages an d
amounts specified in Section F of these specifications within 10 (ten) calendar days after notice of contract
award as a precondition to contract execution.
14. Business License & Tax. The Consultant must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business license and
tax certificate before execution of the contract. Additional information regarding the City's business license
and tax program may be obtained by calling (805) 781-7134.
15. Failure to Accept Contract. The following will occur if the Consultant to whom the award is made fails to
enter into the contract: the award will be annulled and an award may be made to the next highest ranked
Consultant with whom a responsible compensation is negotiated, who shall fulfill every stipulation as if it were
the party to whom the first award was made.
Packet Pg 103
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 15 of 30
Section C
PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS
PROPOSAL CONTENT
1. Submittal Forms
a. Acknowledgement
b. Certificate of Insurance
c. References
d. Statement of Past Disqualifications
2. Qualifications
a. Experience of your firm in performing CEQA and Planning work for government clients and facilities, any
other qualifications or specialties which you make your firm well -suited in assisting the City for this
assignment.
b. Experience of the staff to be assigned to this work in performing similar services.
c. Redundancy in the company of staff experienced in this type of work .
d. Resumes of the individuals who would be assigned to this work.
e. Proximity and staffing levels of the nearest company office.
f. Statement and explanation of any instances where your firm has been removed from a project or
disqualified from proposing on a project
g. Standard hourly billing rates for consultant and sub-consultant staff
h. Detailed list of services available directly from your firm.
3. Work Program
a. A detailed work program and project schedule is required as part of the proposal. The work program shall
itemize major tasks and work products, responsible staff, special information or studies required, and
special methods or equipment, if any, you anticipate using. The City welcomes creative ideas that might
be useful in the approach to this assignment, which should be based on your key personnel’s past
experience. Procedures should be included showing how the consultant plans to coordinate with key City
staff and responsible and trustee agencies.
b. The work program should identify all other elements of the EIR needed to assure CEQA compliance,
which may not be listed in the scope of work, and should explain how th ese tasks will be accomplished.
The consultant, in consultation with the City’s Project Manager, shall be responsible for the preparation of
the required Notice of Completion & Environmental Transmittal, Environmental Summary Form, and
Notice of Completion of Draft EIR. The consultant will also be responsible for mailing these documents to
relevant agencies and interested citizens, as well as distributing Draft EIRs. The costs for these tasks and
mailing costs should be factored into the total EIR budget.
c. Tentative schedule by phase and task for com pleting the work. Examples of key tasks are: data
collection, data verification and analysis, completion of the Administrative Draft EIR, completion of the
Draft EIR, preparation of responses to comments, attendance at public hearings, and certification of the
Final EIR.
d. Estimated hours for your staff in performing each major phase of the work, including sub -consultants,
organized by major task to be accomplished and by level of employee who will be assigned to do this
work. The time for firm members to attend public hearings where the EIR is considered.
e. Services or data to be provided by the City that is not already identified in the scope of work.
f. Any other information that would assist us in making this contract award decision.
4. Proposal Length and Copies
a. Proposals should be the minimum length to provide the required information. Charts and other short form
approaches to conveying information are encouraged.
Packet Pg 104
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 16 of 30
b. Three printed hard copies of the proposal must be submitted.
c. One Adobe Acrobat format electronic copy must be submitted on CD or flash drive.
PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONSULTANT SELECTION
Proposals will be evaluated by a review committee and the successful consultant will be selected as follows:
Written Proposal Review and Finalist Candidate Selection
Evaluation of the proposals will be based on the following:
1. Understanding of the work involved in completing Project EIRs under CEQA for Specific Plans and
other long-range plans, and how these can most effectively be tiered from Program EIRs on General
Plans and facilitate future tiering opportunities for development proposals within the Specific Plan
Area.
2. The qualifications and experience of your firm’s Project Manager, and your firm’s proposed approach
to Project Management.
3. Demonstrated competence, professional qualifications of proposed staff within the firm assigned to
this project.
4. Recent experience in successfully performing similar services .
5. Ability to work collaboratively with City staff, the project applicant team, and the general public within
the legal requirements of the CEQA process.
6. Demonstrated ability to think clearly and creativity, and to provide succinct analysis that is well -
organized and exceptionally well-written in plain language.
Proposals will be reviewed by a selection committee and ranked in accordance with the above criteria. The
City may choose to conduct consultant interviews to better evaluate the competing proposals, but may
choose a consultant without an interview if one proposal stands out clearly from the others. The City will work
with the selected consultant to finalize a detailed work scope and cost for the purpose of entering into a
contract. If an acceptable scope of work and cost cannot be achieved, the City will work with the second-
ranked consultant to develop an acceptable scope of work and cost proposal that leads to a signed contract.
5. Proposal Review and Consultant Selection Schedule
The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule for proposal review and consultant selection:
Issue RFP.................................................. __________, 2017
Receive proposals ..................................... __________, 2017
Complete proposal evaluation .................. __________, 2017
Consultant Selection ................................. __________, 2017
Packet Pg 105
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 17 of 30
Section D
FORM OF AGREEMENT [EXAMPLE]
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on [day, date, year] by and
between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, and
[CONSULTANT’S NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS], hereinafter referred to as Consultant.
W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, on [date], requested qualifications, work scope, and cost proposal for preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report for the Froom Ranch Specific Plan per Specification No. XX.
WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Consultant submitted a proposal that was accepted by City for said
services.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter
contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and entered, as first written
above, until acceptance or completion of said services.
2. Start and Completion of Work. Individual projects shall be completed in accordance with approved project
schedules.
3. Contract Term. The services identified in this specification will be contracted for by the City based on a
mutually agreed scope of work, cost and schedule to be negotiated between the City and EIR consultant
following consultant selection.
4. Contract Modification. The scope, cost, and schedule of the agreed-upon contract may not be change
except either by City approval of a prior written request by the consultant to respond to changing project
conditions outside the consultant’s control, or as otherwise directed by the City.
5. Work Delays. Should the Consultant be obstructed or delayed in the work required to be done hereunder by
changes in the work or by any default, act, or omission of the City, or by strikes, fire, earthquake, or any other
Act of God, or by the inability to obtain materials, equipment, or labor due to federal government restrictions
arising out of defense or war programs, then the time of completion may, at the City's sole option, be
extended for such periods as may be agreed upon by the City and the Consultant. In the event that there is
insufficient time to grant such extensions prior to the completion date of the contract, the City may, at the time
of acceptance of the work, waive liquidated damages that may have accrued for failure to complete on time,
due to any of the above, after hearing evidence as to the reasons for such delay, and making a finding as to
the causes of same.
6. Termination. If, during the term of the contract, the City determines that the Consultant is not faithfully
abiding by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify the Consultant in writing of such defect
or failure to perform. This notice must give the Consultant a 10 (ten) calendar day notice of time thereafter in
which to perform said work or cure the deficiency.
If the Consultant has not performed the work or cured the deficiency within the ten days specified in the
notice, such shall constitute a breach of the contract and the City may terminate the contract immediately by
written notice to the Consultant to said effect. Thereafter, neither party shall have any further duties,
obligations, responsibilities, or rights under the contract except, however, any and all obligations of the
Packet Pg 106
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 18 of 30
Consultant's surety shall remain in full force and effect, and shall not be extinguished, reduced, or in any
manner waived by the termination thereof.
In said event, the Consultant shall be entitled to the reasonable value of its services performed from the
beginning date in which the breach occurs up to the day it received the City's Notice of Termination, minus
any offset from such payment representing the City's damages from such breach. "Reasonable value"
includes fees or charges for goods or services as of the last milestone or task satisfactorily delivered or
completed by the Consultant as may be set forth in the Agreement payment schedule; compensation for any
other work, services or goods performed or provided by the Consultant shall be based solely on the City's
assessment of the value of the work-in-progress in completing the overall workscope.
The City reserves the right to delay any such payment until completion or confirmed abandonment of the
project, as may be determined in the City's sole discretion, so as to permit a full and complete accounting of
costs. In no event, however, shall the Consultant be entitled to receive in excess of the compensation quoted
in its proposal.
If, at any time during the term of the contract, the City determines that the project is not feasible due to
funding shortages or unforeseen circumstances, the City reserves the right to terminate the contract.
Consultant will be paid compensation due and payable to the date of termination.
7. Ability to Perform. The Consultant warrants that it possesses, or has arranged through subcontracts, all
capital and other equipment, labor, materials, and licenses necessary to carry out and complete the work
hereunder in compliance with any and all applicable federal, state, county, city, and special district laws,
ordinances, and regulations.
8. Sub-contract Provisions. No portion of the work pertinent to this contract shall be subcontracted without
written authorization by the City, except that which is expressly identified in the Consultant’s proposal. Any
substitution of sub-consultants must be approved in writing by the City. For any sub-contract for services in
excess of $25,000, the subcontract shall contain all provisions of this agreement.
9. Contract Assignment. The Consultant shall not assign, transfer, convey or otherwise dispose of the
contract, or its right, title or interest, or its power to execute such a contract to any individual or business entity
of any kind without the previous written consent of the City.
10. Inspection. The Consultant shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to ascertain that the
services of the Consultant are being performed in accordance with the requirements and intentions of this
contract. All work done and all materials furnished, if any, shall be subject to the City's inspection and
approval. The inspection of such work shall not relieve Consultant of any of its obligations to fulfill its contract
requirements.
11. Record Retention and Audit. For the purpose of determining compliance with various laws and regulations
as well as performance of the contract, the Consultant and sub-consultants shall maintain all books,
documents, papers, accounting records and other evidence pertaining to the performance of the contract,
including but not limited to the cost of administering the contract. Materials shall be made available at their
respective offices at all reasonable times during the contract period and for four years from the date of final
payment under the contract. Authorized representatives of the City shall have the option of inspecting and/or
auditing all records. For Federally funded projects, access to records shall also include authorized
representatives of the State and Federal government. Copies shall be furnished if requested.
12. Conflict of Interest. The Consultant shall disclose any financial, business, or other relationship with the City
that may have an impact upon the outcome of this contract, or any ensuing City construction project. The
Consultant shall also list current clients who may have a financial interest in the outcome of this contract, or
any ensuing City construction project which will follow.
The Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest —direct, indirect
or otherwise—that would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the work hereunder. The
Packet Pg 107
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 19 of 30
Consultant further covenants that, in the performance of this work, no sub-consultant or person having such
an interest shall be employed. The Consultant certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest
in performing this work is an officer or employee of the City. It is hereby expressly agreed that, in the
performance of the work hereunder, the Consultant shall at all times be deemed an independent Consultant
and not an agent or employee of the City.
13. Rebates, Kickbacks or Other Unlawful Consideration. The Consultant warrants that this contract was not
obtained or secured through rebates, kickbacks or other unlawful consideration, eith er promised or paid to
any City employee. For breach or violation of the warranty, the City shall have the right in its discretion; to
terminate the contract without liability; to pay only for the value of the work actual ly performed; to deduct from
the contract price; or otherwise recover the full amount of such rebate, kickback or other unlawful
consideration.
14. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Consultant warrants by execution of this contract that no person
or selling agency has been employed, or retained, to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or
understanding, for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or
bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Consultant for the purpose of
securing business. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City has the right to annul this contract without
liability; pay only for the value of the work actually performed, or in its discretion, to deduct from the contract
price or consideration, or otherwise recover the full amount of such commission, percentage, brokerage, or
contingent fee.
15. Compliance with Laws and Wage Rates. The Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and shall
observe and comply with all applicable stat e and federal laws and county and City of San Luis Obispo
ordinances, regulations and adopted codes during its performance of the work. This includes compliance with
prevailing wage rates and their payment in accordance with California Labor Code. For purposed of this
paragraph, “construction” includes work performed during the design and preconstruction phases of
construction, including but not limited to, inspection and land surveying work.
16. Payment of Taxes. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that the Consultant is
required to pay.
17. Permits, Licenses and Filing Fees. The Consultant shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges
and fees, and file all notices as they pertain to the completion of the Consultant’s work. The City will pay all
application fees for permits required for the completion of the project including building and regulatory permit
application fees. Consultant will provide a 10 day notice for the City to issue a check.
18. Safety Provisions. The Consultant shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety established
by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety.
19. Public and Employee Safety. Whenever the Consultant's operations create a condition hazardous to the
public or City employees, it shall, at its expense and without cost to the City, furnish, erect and maintain such
fences, temporary railings, barricades, lights, signs and other devices and take such other protective
measures as are necessary to prevent accidents or damage or injury to the public and employees.
20. Preservation of City Property. The Consultant shall provide and install suitable safeguards, approved by
the City, to protect City property from injury or damage. If City property is injured or damaged resulting from
the Consultant's operations, it shall be replaced or restored at the Consultant's expense. The facilities shall be
replaced or restored to a condition as good as when the Consultant began work.
21. Immigration Act of 1986. The Consultant warrants on behalf of itself and all sub-consultants engaged for
the performance of this work that only persons authorized to work in the United States pursuant to the
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable laws shall be employed in the perfo rmance
of the work hereunder.
Packet Pg 108
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 20 of 30
22. Consultant Non-Discrimination. In the award of subcontracts or in performance of this work, the Consultant
agrees that it will not engage in, nor permit such sub-consultants as it may employ, to engage in
discrimination in employment of persons on any basis prohibited by State or Federal law.
23. Accuracy of Specifications. The specifications for this project are believed by the City to be accurate and to
contain no affirmative misrepresentation or any concealment of fact. Consultants are cautioned to undertake
an independent analysis of any test results in the specifications, as City does not guaranty the accuracy of its
interpretation of test results contained in the specifications package. In preparing its proposal, the Consu ltant
and all sub-consultants named in its proposal shall bear sole responsibility for proposal preparation errors
resulting from any misstatements or omissions in the specifications that could easily have been ascertained
by examining either the project site or accurate test data in the City's possession. Although the effect of
ambiguities or defects in the specifications will be as determined by law, any patent ambiguity or defect shall
give rise to a duty of Consultant to inquire prior to proposal submit tal. Failure to so inquire shall cause any
such ambiguity or defect to be construed against the Consultant. An ambiguity or defect shall be considered
patent if it is of such a nature that the Consultant, assuming reasonable skill, ability and diligence on its part,
knew or should have known of the existence of the ambiguity or defect. Furthermore, failure of the Consultant
or sub-consultants to notify City in writing of specification defects or ambiguities prior to proposal submittal
shall waive any right to assert said defects or ambiguities subsequent to submittal of the proposal.
To the extent that these specifications constitute performance specifications, the City shall not be liable for
costs incurred by the successful Consultant to achieve the project’s objective or standard beyond the
amounts provided therefor in the proposal.
In the event that, after awarding the contract, any dispute arises as a result of any actual or alleged ambiguity
or defect in the specifications, or any other matter whatsoever, Consultant shall immediately notify the City in
writing, and the Consultant and all sub-consultants shall continue to perform, irrespective of whether or not
the ambiguity or defect is major, material, minor or trivial, and irrespective of whether or not a change order,
time extension, or additional compensation has been granted by City. Failure to provide the hereinbefore
described written notice within one (1) working day of Consultant's becoming aware of the facts giving rise to
the dispute shall constitute a waiver of the right to assert the causative role of the defect or ambiguity in the
plans or specifications concerning the dispute.
24. Indemnification for Professional Liability. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Consultant shall
indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City and any and all of its officials, employees and
agents (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, costs and
expenses, including attorney’s fees and cost which ari se out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence,
recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant .
25. Non-Exclusive Contract. The City reserves the right to contract for the services listed in this proposal from
other consultants during the contract term.
26. Standards. Documents shall conform to City Standards and City furnished templates shall be used.
27. Consultant Endorsement. Technical reports, plans and specifications shall be stamped and signed by the
Consultant where required.
28. Required Deliverable Products and Revisions. The Consultant will be required to provide documents
addressing all elements of the EIR work scope, as mutually agreed upon under a contract to be negotiated
between the Consultant and City following consultant selection.
29. Ownership of Materials. Upon completion of all work under this contract, ownership and title to all reports,
documents, plans, specifications, and estimates produced as part of this contract will automatically be vested
in the city and no further agreement will be necessary to transfer ownership to the City. The Consultant shall
furnish the City all necessary copies of data needed to complete the review and approval process.
Packet Pg 109
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 21 of 30
The Consultant is not liable for claims, liabilities, or losses arising out of, or connected with the modification,
or misuse by the City of the machine-readable information and data provided by the Consultant under this
agreement. Further, the Consultant is not liable for claims, liabilit ies, or losses arising out of, or connected
with any use by City of the project documentation on other projects, except such use as may be authorized in
writing by the Consultant.
30. Release of Reports and Information. Any reports, information, data, or other material given to, prepared by
or assembled by the Consultant as part of the work or services under these specifications shall be the
property of City and shall not be made available to any individual or organization by the Consultant without
the prior written approval of the City.
The Consultant shall not issue any news release or public relations item of any nature, whatsoever, regarding
work performed or to be performed under this contract without prior review of the contents thereof by the City
and receipt of the City’s written permission.
31. Copies of Reports and Information. If the City requests additional copies of reports, drawings,
specifications, or any other material in addition to what the Consultant is required to furnish in limited
quantities as part of the work or services under these spec ifications, the Consultant shall provide such
additional copies as are requested, and City shall compensate the Consultant for the costs of duplicating of
such copies at the Consultant's direct expense.
32. Attendance at Meetings And Hearings. Consultant shall attend as many "working" meetings with staff as
necessary to accomplish the work scope tasks. Consultant shall attend workshops with the public, and City
commission, committee or Council meetings as identified in the approved work scope.
33. Permit and Filing Fees. The Consultant shall procure all permits, and licenses, pay all charges and fees and
file all notices necessary as they pertain to the completion of the Consultant’s work. The City will pay all
application fees for permits required for the completion of the project work. The City requires a 10-day notice
to issue a check.
34. Project Proposal Submittal. Upon City request, the Consultant shall submit a proposed work scope,
compensation and schedule within 10 working days. The cost proposal shall include all costs including
miscellaneous direct cost items.
35. Consultant Invoices. The Consultant shall deliver a monthly invoice to the City, itemized by project work
phase or, in the case of on-call contracts, by project title. Invoice must include a breakdown of hours billed
and miscellaneous charges and any sub-consultant invoices, similarly broken down, as supporting detail.
36. Payment. For providing services as specified in this Agreement, City will pay and Consultant shall receive
therefore compensation in a total sum not to exceed the agreed upon project fee. Should the Consultant’s
work products contain errors or deficiencies, the Consultant shall be required to correct them at no increase in
cost to the City.
The Consultant shall be reimbursed for hours worked at agreed-upon hourly rates. Hourly rates include direct
salary costs, employee benefits, overhead and fee. In addition, the Consultant shall be reimbursed for direct
costs other than salary and vehicle cost that have been identified and are attached to this agreement. The
Consultant’s personnel shall be reimbursed for per diem expenses at a rate not to exceed that currently
authorized for State employees under State Department of Personnel Administration rules.
37. Payment Terms. The City's payment terms are 30 days from the receipt and approval of an original invoice
and acceptance by the City of the materials, supplies, equipment or services provided by the Consultant (Net
30).
38. Resolution of Disputes. Any dispute, other than audit, concerning a question of fact arising under this
contract that is not disposed of by agreement shall be decided by a committee consisting of the City’s Project
Manager and the City Director of Public Works, who may consider w ritten or verbal information submitted by
Packet Pg 110
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 22 of 30
the Consultant. Not later than thirty days after completion of all deliverables necessary to complete the plans,
specifications and estimate, the Consultant may request review by the City Council of unresolved claims or
disputes, other than audit, in accordance with Chapter 1.20 Appeals Procedure of the Municipal Code.
Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under an audit of this contract that is not disposed of by
agreement, shall be reviewed by the City’s Chief Fiscal Officer. Not later than 30 days after issuance of the
final audit report, the Consultant may request a review by the City’s Chief Fiscal Officer of unresolved audit
issues. The request for review must be submitted in writing.
Neither the pendency of a dispute, nor its consideration by the City will excuse the consultant from full and
timely performance in accordance with the terms of this contract.
39. Agreement Parties.
City: Derek Johnson
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Consultant:
All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid by registered or
certified mail addressed as shown above.
40. Incorporation by Reference. The City Request for Proposal Specification # 91343 and Consultant's
proposal are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement.
41. Amendments. Any amendment, modification or variation from the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing
and shall be effective only upon approval by the Community Development Director.
42. Working Out of Scope. If, at any time during the project, the consultant is directed to do work by persons
other than the City Project Manager and the Consultant believes that the work is outside of the scope of the
original contract, the Consultant shall inform the Project Manager immediately. If the Project Manager and
Consultant both agree that the work is outside of the project scope and is necessary to the successful
completion of the project, then a fee will be established for such work based on Consultant's hourly billing
rates or a lump sum price agreed upon between the City and the Consultant. Any extra work performed by
Consultant without prior written approval from the City Project Manager shall be at Co nsultant's own expense.
43. Complete Agreement. This written agreement, including all writings specifically incorporated herein by
reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto. No oral agreement,
understanding or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated herein shall be of any
force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding or representation be binding upon the
parties hereto. For and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinbefore mentioned to be made
and performed by City, Consultant agrees with City to do everything required by this Agreement, the said
specification and incorporated documents.
Packet Pg 111
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 23 of 30
Authority to Execute Agreement. Both City and Consultant do covenant that each individual executing this
agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute Agreements for such
party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day a nd year first
above written.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO: CONSULTANT:
Katie Lichtig, City Manager By:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
Packet Pg 112
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 24 of 30
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg 113
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 25 of 30
Section E
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORMS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The undersigned declares that she or he:
Has carefully examined the Proposal Specification
Is thoroughly familiar with its content
Is authorized to represent the proposing firm; and
Agrees to perform the work as set forth in the specification and this proposal.
Firm Name and Address:
Contact Name:
Email:
Fax: Phone:
Signature of Authorized Representative:
Date:
INSURANCE CERTIFICATE
Insurance Company’s A.M. Best Rating
Certificate of insurance attached
Packet Pg 114
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 26 of 30
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS
The Consultant shall state whether it or any of its officers or employees who have a proprietary interest in it, has
ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a federal, state, or local
government project because of the violation of law, a safety regulation, or for any other reason, including but not
limited to financial difficulties, project delays, or disputes regarding work or produc t quality, and if so to explain the
circumstances.
Do you have any disqualification as described in the above paragraph to declare? Yes No
If yes, explain the circumstances.
Executed on ______________________at _______________________________________ under penalty of
perjury of the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.
______________________________________
Signature of Authorized Consultant Representative
Packet Pg 115
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 27 of 30
REFERENCES
Number of years engaged in providing the services included within the scope of the specifications under the
present business name: ________________________________________________.
Describe fully the last three contracts performed by your firm that demons trate your ability to provide the services
included with the scope of the specifications. Attach additional pages if required. The City reserves the right to
contact each of the references listed for additional information regarding your firm's qualificati ons.
Reference No. 1
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Project Outcome
Reference No. 2
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Packet Pg 116
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 28 of 30
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Project Outcome
Reference No. 3
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Project Outcome
Packet Pg 117
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 29 of 30
Section F
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: Consultant Services
The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to
persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work
hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or sub -consultants.
Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 20 10 Prior to 1993 or
CG 20 10 07 04 with CG 20 37 10 01 or the exact equivalent as determined by the City).
2. Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto).
3. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance.
4. Errors and Omissions Liability insurance as appropriate to the consultant's profession.
Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than:
1. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If
Commercial General Liability or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general
aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the
required occurrence limit.
2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
4. Errors and Omissions Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence.
Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and
approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or
self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant
shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense
expenses.
Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed
to contain, the following provisions:
1. The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects:
liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed
operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned,
leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of
protection afforded to the City, its officers, official, employees, agents or volunteers.
2. For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as
respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance
maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers shall be excess of the
Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3. The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is
brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.
4. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be
suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days
prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. The Consultant
agrees to notify the City in the event that the policy is suspended, voided or reduced in coverage or limits. A
minimum of 30 days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, will be provided.
Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than
A:VII.
Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with a certificate of insurance showing maintenance of
the required insurance coverage. Original endorsements effecting general liability and automobile liability
coverage required by this clause must also be provided. The endorsements are to be signed by a person
Packet Pg 118
7
Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR Request for Proposals Page 30 of 30
authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements are to be received and approved by
the City before work commences.
Packet Pg 119
7
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For SPEC-0143-2017
1. Project Title:
Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Emily Creel, Contract Planner and City Project Manager
(805) 543-7095 x6814
ecreel@swca.com
Shawna Scott, Associate Planner (Staff Liaison)
(805) 781-7176
sscott@slocity.org
4. Project Location:
The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area consists of two parcels, totaling approximately 110 acres
(APNs 067-241-030 and 067-241-031) within unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, and
adjacent to City of San Luis Obispo (City) city limits. The Specific Plan Area is within the City’s
Sphere of Influence and a portion of the site is within the City’s Urban Reserve Line. The site is
located immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road between U.S. Highway 101 and the Irish Hills
Plaza.
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
John Madonna Construction, Inc.
P.O. Box 5310
San Luis Obispo, California, 93406
Packet Pg 120
7
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
2
6. General Plan Designations:
Currently unincorporated; designated in 2014 Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) of the
City’s General Plan as New Specific Plan Area 3 (SP-3, Madonna on LOVR).
7. Zoning:
Currently unincorporated; would require pre-zoning for Specific Plan. Currently proposed Specific
Plan designations include Medium-High Density Residential, Medium-High Density Residential
Life Plan Community, High Density Residential, Commercial Retail, Conservation/Open Space,
and Public Facilities. Consideration of these proposed zones are under review by the City.
8. Description of the Project:
The project includes a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and related actions that would
allow for the development of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area. Froom Ranch is identified as
Specific Plan 3 (SP-3, Madonna on LOVR) in the City’s General Plan and is subject to preparation
of a Specific Plan to accommodate development proposals and address pertinent issues within the
Specific Plan Area. The Land Use Element requires that a Specific Plan be adopted prior to
annexation. Guidance for the project is found in Chapter 8, Section 8.1.5, of the Land Use Element.
This section states the following (in added italics):
8.1.5. SP-3, Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Area
Location: This site includes just over 111 acres and is located directly west of the
intersection of Los Osos Valley Road and Calle Joaquin.
Purpose: The purpose of the specific plan is to provide design flexibility that will secure
the appropriate development of the site while protecting sensitive environmental resources
on the site. Development on the site should be a compact, mixed use project that provides
workforce housing options and neighborhood commercial uses that support pedestrian and
bicycle access. The specific plan for this area should consider and address the following
land use and design issues.
a. Develop a design that is sensitive to environmental constraints and adjusts
accordingly through design. Constraints include wetland protection, slope
protection, historic structures, and open space protection.
b. Maintain viewshed of surrounding mountains and secure steeper hillsides as
protected open space areas.
c. Variable height limits will be required to protect views of adjacent hills.
d. Provide access to trails.
e. Provide a plan for adequate and safe infrastructure, including appropriate points
of access to Los Osos Valley Road.
f. Address neighborhood commercial needs of new neighborhood.
g. Provide connectivity to adjacent development.
Packet Pg 121
7
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
3
Performance Standards: This specific plan shall meet the following performance
standards.
Type Designations
Allowed % of Site Minimum1 Maximum
Residential (Mixed Use) MDR
MHDR
HDR
200 units 350 units
Commercial NC
CR
50,000 sf 350,000 sf
Parks PARK
Open Space/Agriculture OS
AG
Minimum 50%
Public n/a
Infrastructure n/a
1 There can be a reduction in the minimum requirement based on specific physical and/or environmental
constraints.
Initiation of the Specific Plan and Advisory Body Review
As described below (Proposed Project Overview), the applicant envisions a Specific Plan that
differs somewhat from the performance standards identified in the Land Use Element. The City
Council considered this change in vision for the area, and authorized initiation of the Specific Plan
on April 5, 2016. The Council generally supported the concept to reduce the amount of commercial
development within the Specific Plan area, and the development of a Continuing Care Retirement
Community or Life Plan Community within the City. The City Council specifically identified the
need for a Project Design Alternative that complies with existing Land Use Element Policy
6.4.7.H. (Hillside Planning Areas, The Irish Hills area), which states that “The Irish Hills area
should secure permanent open space with no building sites above the 150-foot elevation, in
conjunction with any subdivision or development of the lower areas. (See also Section 8, Special
Focus Areas)”. Following initiation by the City Council, the applicant presented preliminary plans
to the Parks and Recreation Commission and Cultural Heritage Committee. Past agenda report
packages and meeting minutes are available at the following link:
www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/documents-
online/environmental-review-documents/-folder-1911
Proposed Project Overview
Froom Ranch is envisioned as a primarily residential project with some commercial development
in the northeast portion of the site closest to Los Osos Valley Road and the adjacent Irish Hills
Plaza. A major component of the planned residential uses is a Life Plan Community (LPC) known
as Villaggio. Villaggio would provide a variety of different unit types for independent senior
housing as well as access to higher levels of care such as Assisted Living, Memory Care, and
Skilled Nursing, when needed. Additional residential uses in the northern portion of the site will
be multiple-family. As required by the Land Use Element, a minimum of 50% of the project site
must be designated Open Space; the current Plan designates approximately 51% of the site as Open
Space. The Specific Plan also includes a Neighborhood Trailhead Park to connect to the Irish Hills
Natural Reserve, which may incorporate on-site historic structures. The treatment and potential
use of the historic structures is currently under evaluation by the applicant.
Packet Pg 122
7
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
4
Table 1 identifies the land uses proposed within the Specific Plan area. The proposed project
includes the following land use/zoning designations, currently under review by the City:
Residential Land Use Zones
R-3-SP – Medium-High Density Residential
R-3-LP-SP – Medium-High Density Residential Life Plan Community
R-4-SP – High-Density Residential
Non-Residential Land Use Zones
CR-SP – Commercial Retail
C/OS-SP – Conservation/Open Space
PF-SP – Public Facilities
Table 1 Proposed Froom Ranch Specific Plan Land Use and Zoning Summary
Land Use Zoning Acres Density Potential
Units
Potential
Square Feet
RESIDENTIAL
Medium-High Density Residential
- Multi-family units R-3-SP 5.3 20 du/ac 130
Medium-High Density Residential –
Life Plan Community
- Independent living
- Assisted living units
- Health Center including assisted
care, memory care, and skilled
nursing
- Ancillary facilities such as
recreation center, restaurants, and
theaters (26,000 sf)
R-3-LP-SP 31.5 20 du/ac
- 61 villas
- 108
garden
apts.
- 150 apts.
- 47 village
suites
- 38
assisted
living
units
- 51
memory
care and
skilled
nursing
beds
40,000
High-Density Residential
- Multi-family apartments R-4-SP 1.9 24 du/ac 44
Residential Subtotal 38.7 578
NON-RESIDENTIAL
Commercial Retail
- 30,000 sf commercial
- 70,000 sf hotel (120 rooms)
CR-SP 3.5 100,000
Conservation/Open Space C/OS-SP 59.01
Public Facilities
- Neighborhood Park PF-SP 2.9
Other (Roads) 5.6
Non-Residential Subtotal 71.0
TOTAL 109.7
1 Includes proposed project open space (51.3 acres) as well as existing open space easement (7.1 acres)
Packet Pg 123
7
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
5
Additional project elements include:
General Plan Amendment to modify Land Use Element Policy 6.4.7.H to allow for development
above the 150-foot elevation;
Realignment and restoration of Froom Creek;
The creation of a new drainage/stormwater basin off-site (Mountainbrook Church property); and
Internal circulation, trails, parking, utilities, and other infrastructure to support the project.
9. Project Entitlements:
The following entitlements and reviews would be required to implement the project:
1. General Plan Amendment/Pre-Zoning
2. Specific Plan
3. Development Plan/Vesting Tentative Tract Map(s)
4. Architectural Review
5. Annexation
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
Lands surrounding the Specific Plan Area generally consist of the Irish Hills Natural Reserve (open
space and recreation) and unincorporated undeveloped rural and agricultural lands to the west,
urban development to the north and east in the City of San Luis Obispo, and a mix of urban
development and undeveloped/agricultural land to the south. Development north, south and east
of the Specific Plan Area in the City of San Luis Obispo includes large shopping centers, auto
dealerships, hotels, roadways, parking lots, and other urban infrastructure. Existing uses
surrounding the site are as follows:
West: Irish Hills Natural Reserve
North: Irish Hills Plaza shopping center and associated parking
East: Los Osos Valley Road, auto dealerships, Bear Valley Commercial Center
South: Hotel/lodging facilities, Margie’s Diner, Mountainbrook Community Church,
Calle Joaquin, U.S. Highway 101.
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the
project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1?
If so, has consultation begun?
The project application has not been completed and the City has not yet sent formal notices or
initiated consultation pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1. Upon
determining the application is complete, the City will provide formal notification to all tribes
traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area of the opportunity to request consultation
pursuant to this section. The City will also conduct consultation pursuant to Senate Bill 18
(Government Code Sections 65352.3 and 65562.5).
Packet Pg 124
7
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
6
12. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) – annexation
Airport Land Use Commission – Airport Land Use Plan consistency review
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Nationwide or Individual Permit
Regional Water Quality Control Board – Section 401 Water Quality Certification
California Department of Fish and Wildlife –Section 1600 Lake and Streambed Alteration
Agreement, State Endangered Species Act compliance
Air Pollution Control District – possibly construction and operational permits
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Federal Endangered Species Act compliance
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries – Federal
Endangered Species Act compliance
Packet Pg 125
7
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
7
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
X Aesthetics X Greenhouse Gas Emissions X Population / Housing
X Agriculture Resources X Hazards & Hazardous Materials X Public Services
X Air Quality X Hydrology / Water Quality X Recreation
X Biological Resources X Land Use / Planning X Transportation / Traffic
X Cultural Resources Mineral Resources X Tribal Cultural Resources
X Geology / Soils X Noise X Utilities / Service Systems
X Mandatory Findings of Significance
FISH AND WILDLIFE FEES
The Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect determination
request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife, or habitat (see
attached determination).
X
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been
circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
X
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State
agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15082).
Packet Pg 126
7
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
8
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made,
by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. X
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant” impact(s) or “potentially
significant unless mitigated” impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Tyler Corey¸ Principal Planner For: Michael Codron,
Printed Name Community Development Director
Packet Pg 127
7
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
9
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like
the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors
to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there
are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact."
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-
referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe
the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
addressed site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts
(e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where
appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
Packet Pg 128
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
10
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 4, 5, 34 X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
1, 5, 34 X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of the site and its surroundings? 4, 34 X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 2 X
a), b), c) The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area is located immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road between U.S.
Highway 101 and the Irish Hills Plaza. The project site is located within Hillside Planning Area H Irish Hills. The approximately
110-acre Froom Ranch Specific Plan area is characterized by relatively flat grassland areas that transition to steeper slopes before
approaching City open space property at the base of the Irish Hills. The topography of the project site ranges from approximately
110-120 feet near Los Osos Valley Road to 450 feet in the upper elevations. The majority of the property is undeveloped but
includes an assemblage of historic ranch and dairy structures on part of the site directly south of Home Depot in the adjacent Irish
Hills Plaza shopping center. The existing structures are currently used as an office (main ranch house) and equipment storage yard
to support the John Madonna Construction Company, Incorporated business. The property also includes unimproved roads,
staging and materials storage areas, a quarry area, and a stormwater detention facility for the neighboring Irish Hills Plaza.
Surrounding views consist of the Irish Hills Shopping Plaza and other commercial development, open space hillsides in the Irish
Hills Natural Reserve, and surrounding roadways. The site is highly visible from Los Osos Valley Road and U.S. Highway 101,
which is designated as a high value scenic resource in the City’s Circulation Element. The entire length of U.S. Highway 101 that
extends from Highway 46 in Paso Robles to the southern boundary of San Luis Obispo County is also identified by the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as an eligible California State Scenic Highway (though not officially designated).
Development of the site, as outlined in the Project Description, would result in increased urbanization of the existing viewshed
along the Los Osos Valley Road and could potentially block or obstruct existing public views of the area and surrounding hillsides.
This could represent a major change in the aesthetic character of the project site and an intensification of the urban character of
the project vicinity.
A significant component of the project is the applicant’s request for a General Plan Amendment to allow development above the
150-foot elevation. The applicant’s current land use exhibit shows a portion of the LPC extending to the 250-foot elevation and
residential uses extending to the 180-foot elevation. Approximately 44.3 percent (48.61 acres) of the project site is located above
the 150-foot elevation. Modification of the existing development limit line would allow development in the upper elevations of
the Irish Hills above the 150-foot elevation. The language specifying the 150-foot elevation development limit was carried forward
into the 2014 LUE from the City’s previously adopted Land Use Element (adopted August 23, 1994 and revised June 15, 2010).
The 1994 Land Use Element included a Hillside Planning Policies and Standards section; the purpose of this section was to
“protect and preserve scenic hillside areas and natural features, set boundaries for commercial and residential development in
sensitive hillside areas by creating a permanent open space greenbelt at the edge of the community, and to protect the health,
safety and welfare of community residents by directing development away from areas with hazards”. The Hillside Policies
identified in the 2014 LUE focus on “where and how some hillsides may be developed” (refer to LUE Chapter 6 Resource
Protection).
The Land Use and Circulation Element Update (LUCE) EIR provides an analysis of each proposed Specific Plan area, including
the project site. Potential visual impacts identified in the LUCE EIR, specific to SP-3 (the project site), include the following:
Development of the site, as outlined in the proposed LUCE Update, could result in increased urbanization of the existing
viewshed along the Los Osos Valley Road and could potentially block or obstruct existing public views. However,
implementation of the proposed LUCE Update policies, and the existing City policies identified below, would reduce
impacts to less than significant levels.
Development of the area, as outlined in the proposed LUCE Update, has the potential to result in increased urbanization
of an undeveloped area which could degrade the existing visual character and its surroundings. However, implementation
of the proposed LUCE Update policies, and the existing City policies identified below, would reduce impacts to less than
significant levels.
Packet Pg 129
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
11
Development of the area could result in increased ambient nighttime lighting through the addition of residential and
commercial uses and associated structural development in a primarily undeveloped area. However, implementation of
the proposed LUCE Update policies, and the existing City policies identified below, would reduce impacts to less than
significant levels.
Therefore, the less than significant impact determinations in the LUCE FEIR specific to visual impacts were based on compliance
with policies included in the LUE, such as the 150-foot development limit. The certified Final EIR for the LUCE Update states
that the Specific Plan will be required to address several issues (as listed in the LUE), including environmental constraints,
resource protection, hillside and open space protection, viewsheds, and views from off-site locations. The applicant’s preliminary
project narrative states the project can be designed to minimize impacts to scenic resources by using the existing topography,
which may provide a natural visual barrier between the development and public viewing areas. Variations in topography may
provide opportunities to screen future development from view; however, certain components including lighting and grading cut
slopes may be difficult to fully “hide”, and overall the project is anticipated to create some change in the visual environment, and
may increase cumulative views of the existing structures and the proposed development in the upper elevations of the Irish Hills.
Further environmental analysis in the EIR, including a viewshed study and photo-simulations, are required to determine if
development above the 150-foot elevation would result in any significant, unavoidable, adverse impacts, and to determine
appropriate mitigation measures.
Due to the visual sensitivity of the site, implementation of the proposed project could result in potentially significant project-
specific and cumulative impacts to a scenic vista, scenic resources, and the visual character and/or quality of the site and its
surroundings. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR, in addition to
an evaluation of the project’s consistency with hillside and scenic viewshed protection policies identified in the General Plan.
d) Although the project site is primarily undeveloped, it is located in an urbanized area with existing light sources from
neighboring commercial development, parking areas and surrounding roadways, including Los Osos Valley Road and U.S.
Highway 101. Development of the proposed project could result in increased ambient nighttime lighting and glare through the
addition of residential and commercial uses and associated structural development in a primarily undeveloped area. The project
will be required to comply with the Night Sky Preservation Ordinance (Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.23), which sets operational
standards and requirements for lighting installations. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further
examination in the EIR.
Conclusion: Potentially significant project-specific, secondary, and cumulative impacts related to aesthetics will be addressed in
the Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR.
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
8 X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract? 4 X
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use?
4 X
a) The Froom Ranch Specific Plan area includes land designated as grazing land and farmland of local potential by the
California Natural Resources Agency, Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP).
Currently, portions of the site are used for grazing purposes. Implementation of the proposed project would not convert Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. These impacts are considered less than significant.
b) The Froom Ranch Specific Plan area does not include land currently under Williamson Act and no Williamson Act
contracted lands are located within 0.5 mile of the Specific Plan area; therefore, no conflicts with an existing Williamson Act
contract would occur as a result of the proposed project. The project site currently includes land designated for agriculture and
Packet Pg 130
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
12
commercial retail land uses and land that is currently used for livestock grazing. A portion of the site is also subject to an existing
agricultural conservation easement. Implementation of the proposed project would include pre-zoning the site prior to annexation
into the City, with the anticipation that the proposed development would comply with the proposed underlying zoning. The EIR
will evaluate the potential effects resulting from the anticipated pre-zoning, any potential direct or indirect effects to the existing
agricultural conservation easement, and compatibility with adjacent properties.
c) The Froom Ranch Specific Plan area is surrounded by urbanized and developed land uses and public streets to the north,
east, and south, and open space to the west and southwest. The property currently supports limited grazing and implementation
of the proposed project could result in potential conflicts with grazing uses on the property. These impacts are considered
potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to adversely affect onsite and adjacent agricultural uses and
the existing agricultural conservation easement as a result of the anticipated pre-zoning and implementation of incompatible land
uses. These potentially significant project-specific, secondary, and cumulative impacts will be further examined in the EIR.
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
10, 11,
14 X
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
10, 11,
14 X
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
10, 11,
14 X
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? 11 X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people? 11 X
a), b), c), d) The Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County was developed and adopted by the San Luis Obispo Air
Pollution Control District (APCD) and is a comprehensive planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional
industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor vehicle use. Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 2.3.2 states
that the City will help the APCD implement the CAP. The EIR shall include an assessment of the project’s consistency with the
CAP transportation, land use, and circulation policies.
Implementation of the proposed project would generate both short-term emissions associated with construction and long-term
emissions associated with operation of the project. Construction and grading equipment would emit carbon monoxide and ozone
precursors, such as nitrogen oxide and reactive organic compounds, as well as dust and suspended particulates. There is also a
potential for exposure to naturally-occurring asbestos and asbestos containing materials. Construction and operation of the project
would generate new vehicle trips and increase the combustion of natural gas and electricity in the area, thereby generating regional
air pollutants. Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to result in significant impacts associated with air quality.
Assessment of potential air quality impacts that may result from the proposed project will need to be conducted using the April
2012 CEQA Air Quality Handbook. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in
the EIR.
e) Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to generate odors during construction and operation. Odors that
have the potential to be generated during construction activities would be associated with exhaust from construction equipment
and would be short-term during the construction phase of the project. Odors that have the potential to be generated during operation
of the project could include odors associated with solid waste generation and proposed commercial facilities. These impacts are
considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
Packet Pg 131
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
13
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to generate both short-term emissions associated with
construction and long-term emissions associated with operation of the project. Potentially significant project-specific, secondary,
and cumulative impacts will be further examined in the Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
4, 5, 26 X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
4, 5, 26,
44, 45,
46, 47
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
4, 5, 26,
27 X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
4, 5 X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
4, 5, 35 X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
28, 31,
44, 45,
46, 47
X
a) The Froom Ranch Specific Plan area is composed of a variety of plant communities including annual and native
grasslands, coast live oak/California bay woodland, and coastal scrub/chaparral habitats. Non-native annual grassland is the
dominant plant community on the property, primarily present in the flatter portions of the Specific Plan area where cattle and
horse feeding activities occurred in the past. The site is bisected by various natural drainages. Froom Creek traverses the Specific
Plan area in a mostly north-to-south direction and converges with San Luis Obispo Creek south of the Specific Plan area before
flowing toward its outlet to the Pacific Ocean in Avila Beach. Wetland habitat is present in the flat grassland areas in the eastern
portion of the site. The Los Osos Valley Road roadside channel is dominated by arroyo willow monoculture.
A Biological Resources Inventory was prepared for the proposed project in January 2016 (Kevin Merk Associates, LLC 2016),
and a supplemental report is forthcoming that will include potential off-site improvements (drainage/stormwater basin); all
biological reports submitted by the applicant shall be peer reviewed by a qualified biologist in association with the EIR. The
floristic inventory conducted in support of the Biological Resources Inventory identified the following special-status plants
occurring in the serpentinite bunchgrass grassland, wetland habitat, and on scattered serpentinite outcrops in the southwest portion
of the site:
Blochman’s dudleya (Dudleya blochmaniae; CRPR List 1B.1);
Brewer’s spineflower (Chorizanthebreweri; CRPR List 1B.3);
Cambria morning glory (Calystegia subacaulis ssp. episcopalis; CRPR List 4.2);
Chaparral ragwort (Senecio aphanactis; CRPR List 2.2);
Chorro Creek bog thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense; federal and state endangered and CRPR List 1B.2);
Club haired mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus ssp. clavatus; CRPR List 4.3);
Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii; CRPR List 1B.1);
Packet Pg 132
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
14
Eastwood’s larkspur (Delphinium parryi ssp. eastwoodiae; CRPR List 1B.2);
Jones’ layia (Layia jonesii; CRPR List 1B.2);
Mouse-gray dudleya (Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina; CRPR List 1B.2);
Palmer’s spineflower (Chorizanthe palmeri; CRPR List 4.2);
San Luis mariposa lily (Calochortus obispoensis; CRPR List 1B.2); and,
San Luis Obispo owl’s-clover (Castilleja densiflora ssp. obispoensis; CRPR List 1B.2).
No rare animals were observed on-site during the field surveys; however, based on a habitat suitability analysis, the following
special-status animals were identified as having the potential to occur within the project area:
American badger (Taxidea taxus; species of special concern);
Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; species of special concern);
California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia; watch list);
Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi; watch list);
Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos; watch list and CDFW Fully Protected);
Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus; species of special concern);
Merlin (Falco columbarius; watch list);
Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus; species of special concern);
Purple martin (Progne subis; species of special concern);
Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus; watch list);
Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor; candidate species and species of special concern);
White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus; CDFW Fully Protected);
Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechial brewsteri; species of special concern);
Big free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis; species of special concern);
Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus; special animal);
Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus; species of special concern);
San Diego woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia; species of special concern);
Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus; federal threatened and species of special concern);
Townsend’s western big-eared bat (Corynorhynus townsendi; species of special concern);
Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus; species of special concern);
Western red bat (Lasiurus blossevilli; species of special concern); and,
Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis; special animal).
In addition, California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii; state species of special concern and federal threatened) and mountain lion
(Puma concolor; state “specially protected species”) have been observed on adjacent properties. Additional information is
provided in the Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (USFWS 2002), Chorro Creek Bog Thistle: 5-Year Review
Summary and Evaluation (USFWS 2007), South-Central California Coast Steelhead Recovery Plan (NOAA 2013), and Recovery
Plan for the Morro Shoulderband Snail and Four Plants from Western San Luis Obispo County (USFWS 1998).
A variety of birds and bats could also utilize the larger trees within the oak/bay woodland and riparian habitat for nesting and
roosting activities, and several bird species could potentially use the grassland habitat in the project area for nesting.
Implementation of the proposed project could result in direct and indirect impacts to special-status species through the conversion
of land that currently supports special-status plants and changes to proximate habitat conditions (e.g. hydrological changes that
may adversely affect Chorro Creek bog thistle or Congdon’s tarplant); and land that provides suitable habitat for special-status
animals, including direct conversion of habitat and construction and operational effects (e.g., noise, lighting) that could affect the
behavior or special-status wildlife. Potentially significant short-term and long-term impacts to aquatic species could also occur as
a result of the proposed relocation and realignment of Froom Creek. The EIR shall consider and assess feasible mitigation
measures to address potentially significant impacts, including avoidance, on and off-site mitigation, and preservation of land
above the 150-foot elevation for habitat enhancement or restoration. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will
require further examination in the EIR.
Packet Pg 133
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
15
b) Three sensitive natural communities have been identified within the project area: arroyo willow riparian scrub (1.87
acres), wetland (7.25 acres), and serpentine bunchgrass grassland (13.46 acres). Implementation of the proposed project could
result in direct and indirect impacts to these sensitive natural communities through direct conversion or indirect impacts associated
with construction activities and operation of the project, including but not limited to grading and development, hydrological
modifications, realignment of Froom Creek, and long-term fire safety vegetative fuel reductions. These impacts are considered
potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
c) Based on the Biological Resources Inventory prepared by the applicant, the project area supports approximately 7.25
acres of wetland habitat and 2.66 acres of drainage features (also refer to the Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination submitted
by the applicant). The wetland habitat present on-site is a combination of coastal and valley freshwater marsh and vernal marsh
vegetation communities. Implementation of the proposed project could result in direct and indirect impacts to federally-protected
wetlands through construction activities, grading, modification of existing drainage patterns and detention basins, development
of new impervious surfaces, and the realignment of Froom Creek, hydrological modifications, and long-term fire safety vegetative
fuel reductions. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
d) Implementation of the proposed project would convert land that is currently undeveloped and provides suitable habitat for a
variety of native resident and migratory fish and wildlife species. The project area is identified in the Conservation and Open
Space Element of the City’s General Plan as supporting a designated wildlife zone and wildlife corridor. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project could result in direct and indirect interference with the movement of wildlife species and
their use of existing wildlife corridors and habitat resources within the area. These impacts are considered potentially significant
and will require further examination in the EIR.
e) The Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan includes policies related to species of local concern,
wildlife habitat and corridors, trees and other plants, natural communities, and creek setbacks. In addition, the City’s Tree
Ordinance (Ordinance 1544) establishes regulations related to tree protection, tree removal, and designation and protection of
heritage trees. Implementation of the proposed project would likely require tree removal, which shall be quantified and assessed
in the EIR. The EIR shall include preliminary identification of the project’s consistency with General Plan policies related to
natural and biological resources.
f) The project site is located between property covered by the Irish Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan and the Johnson
Ranch Open Space Conservation Plan. Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to result in conflicts between land
uses on the project site and the adjacent conservation plan areas if development were to impact sensitive habitat, encroach into
conserved areas, or otherwise indirectly affect conserved areas. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will
require further examination in the EIR.
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to result in direct and indirect impacts to existing
undeveloped habitat, sensitive natural communities and riparian habitat, federally-protected wetlands, special-status plants and
animals, and wildlife corridors, and could conflict with local policies, ordinances, and identified Conservation Plans. Preparation
of the EIR will include peer review of the biological reports provided by the applicant, and coordination meetings with resource
agencies including, but not limited to the City Natural Resources Manager and City Biologist, California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Fisheries
(NOAA Fisheries), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Potentially significant
project-specific, secondary, and cumulative impacts will be further examined in the EIR.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource as defined in §15064.5.
4, 12,
32, 36,
37
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5) 4, 12, 32 X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature? 4 X
Packet Pg 134
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
16
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries? X
a), b), d) A Section 106 Prehistoric and Historic Report was prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) for the Froom Ranch
Specific Plan area (FCS 2015). This report and additional information and analysis provided by the applicant shall be peer
reviewed by a qualified architectural historian and a qualified archaeologist in association with the EIR.
The Froom Ranch Historic Complex is located in the northwest portion of the project site, and with the exception of a historic
dairy barn, the complex is located below the 150-foot elevation. This historic resource (P-40-040991) was evaluated for National
Register of Historic Properties eligibility by a qualified architectural historian and was found to meet identified criteria for an
historic resource. The applicant’s team, including an architectural historian and structural engineer, are working on a plan to
address the individual structures and the complex as a whole. Preliminary concepts include repositioning and/or reconstruction of
structures onsite, possibly in association with the proposed trailhead park, potential removal of structures, and incorporation of
interpretive and educational elements. The EIR shall include a preliminary assessment of the project’s consistency with General
Plan policies specific to cultural resources, the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines, and Secretary of Interior Standards. The EIR shall evaluate the project’s potential impacts to historic (built
environment) resources, pursuant to CEQA and City regulations and policies.
Based on the Section 106 Report prepared by the project applicant, a records search was conducted for the project area and a 0.5-
mile radius by staff at the Central California Information Center (CCIC), located at the University of California, Santa Barbara
on January 5, 2015. Results from the records search indicate that two prehistoric resources and one historic resource have been
previously recorded within the area of potential effect (APE). The two prehistoric resources are CA-SLO-783, a bedrock mortar
site, and CA-SLO-1195, a lithic/bone/shell scatter. The historic resource, P-40-040991, is the complex of buildings comprising
the Froom Ranch and Dairy (see above). Five studies have been previously conducted within the APE; three of the study/survey
reports (E-590, E2723, and E-3708) detail the findings of the two previously recorded prehistoric resources and the one historic
resource, while the other two studies conducted within the APE (E-4663 and E-4706) did not produce any findings of cultural
resources.
FCS Archaeologists conducted an intensive pedestrian survey of the project APE from January 6-8, 2015. Two previously
recorded prehistoric resources (CA-SLO-783 and CA-SLO-1195) located within the project APE were investigated to ascertain
the current condition of the resources. In addition, Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Archaeological Site Records for
each site were updated to reflect current findings for both resources. No additional prehistoric resource sites were discovered
during the course of the survey; however, isolate prehistoric lithic tools and debitage (waste flakes from the manufacture of stone
tools) were encountered and mapped during the survey. In addition, four rock walls, a stone revetment/retaining wall, and a recent
stone fire pit were mapped and photographed. It is currently unknown when these rock features were constructed; however, the
property owner, John Madonna, believes they are related to the historic era Froom Ranch and Dairy.
Due to the history of the area and known presence of previously recorded prehistoric and historic sites within the project area, the
potential for additional cultural resources to be present on-site is considered high. Implementation of the proposed project could
result in direct and/or indirect impacts to historic resources, archaeological resources, and/or human remains, if present, during
ground-disturbing construction activities and project operation. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will
require further examination in the EIR.
c) Three vertebrate localities have been identified along the coast within 9 miles of the project site. These localities occur in
Pleistocene fluvial deposits overlying marine terraces, and include assemblages of the Rancholabrean mammals Equus sp. and E.
occidentalis (horse); Camelops sp. and C. hesternus (camel); Bison antiquus and B. latifrons (bison), and Mammut americanum
(mammoth). Other, more distal localities in San Luis Obispo County have been identified as well. Due to the known presence of
previously recorded significant paleontological resources in the project vicinity, the potential project-related impacts on
paleontological resources is considered potentially significant. The paleontological sensitivity of the project site and potential
effects on paleontological resources will be further examined in the EIR.
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project could result in direct and/or indirect impacts to historic resources,
archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and/or human remains, if present, during ground-disturbing construction
Packet Pg 135
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
17
activities and project operation. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the
EIR.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
3, 4, 6,
9, 13
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
X
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? X
III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X
IV. Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
3, 4, 6,
9, 13 X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 of
the California Building Code (2013), creating substantial risks
to life or property?
3, 4, 6,
9, 13 X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
X
a), b, c), d) The project area is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province, which extends along the coastline
from central California to Oregon. This region is characterized by extensive folding, faulting, and fracturing of variable intensity.
In general, the folds and faults of this geomorphic province comprise the pronounced northwest trending ridge-valley system of
the central and northern coast of California. According to the Geologic Map of California, San Luis Obispo Sheet published by
the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) in 1978, the site vicinity is underlain by Quaternary-aged alluvium
(unconsolidated deposits of sand, silt, clay, and gravel). The surrounding hills are comprised of the Franciscan and Monterey
Formations and Quaternary aged non-marine terrace deposits.
Recent geological analysis conducted by the project applicant indicates that potentially active fault trace(s) traverse the project
site. The project area is identified in the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan as being located in an area with moderate
landslide potential and high liquefaction potential. Implementation of the proposed project could expose people and structures to
potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving geologic hazards such as fault rupture,
ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslides. Geologic hazards of concern that are not seismically-induced events at the site
include soil hazards such as settlement, expansive soils, subsidence, and slope stability. Construction activities such as grading,
modification of existing slopes and drainage channels, and development of new impervious surfaces could contribute to non-
seismic geologic hazards in the project area. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further
examination in the EIR.
e) The project does not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems; the project proposes extension
and connection to the City’s existing wastewater facilities. No geologic impacts related to the alternative disposal of wastewater
would occur.
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to expose people and structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving seismic and non-seismic geologic hazards. These impacts are
considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
Packet Pg 136
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
18
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
4, 10,
11, 14 X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
4, 10,
11, 14 X
a), b) The state of California passed Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solution Act of 2006 and Executive
Order S-3-05 (June 1, 2005), both requiring reductions of greenhouse gases in the state of California and establishing goals to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and to be 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. More recently, the state of
California passed Senate Bill 32 (SB 32), which established goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990
levels by 2030. Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to generate greenhouse gas emissions during construction
and operation, including through short-term construction and long-term operational vehicle emissions and point-source emissions.
These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR, consistent with the
methodologies identified in the SLO APCD CEQA Handbook. In addition, the EIR shall assess the project’s consistency with the
City’s Climate Action Plan.
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to generate greenhouse gas emissions during construction
and operation. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
1, 4 X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
1, 4, 15,
16 X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
1, 4 X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
1, 4, 15,
16 X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area?
4, 17, 18 X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
4, 17, 18 X
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
1, 4, 6 X
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
4, 6 X
Packet Pg 137
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
19
a), b), c), d) The proposed project includes the development of new residential and commercial uses, which are not
anticipated to involve the routine use, transportation, disposal or emission of hazardous materials. Hazardous materials such as
fuel, oil, and other materials may be stored and used for maintenance and operation of equipment used during construction and
operation of the proposed project; therefore, implementation of the proposed project could create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment.
The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area is primarily undeveloped with the exception of some agricultural support development and
offices associated with John Madonna Construction, Inc. Pacific Beach High School, located at 11950 Los Osos Valley Road, is
located within 0.25 mile of the project site. There are no records of previous or existing sources of contamination in this area and,
based on a preliminary review, the project site is not on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5. However, historic agricultural use on-site may have resulted in undocumented residual quantities of
presently‐banned agricultural chemicals, which could pose a health hazard to construction workers or future residents or visitors.
It is also possible that existing hazardous materials releases from off-site properties could potentially affect the project site.
Although there are no documented hazardous materials sites located on the project site, based on the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) Geotracker database, there are several documented closed cases of leaking underground storage tank
(LUST) sites, and one permitted underground storage tank (UST), located on the east side of Los Osos Valley Road, opposite the
project site. The potential exposure of construction workers, and future residents and visitors to the site could result in potential
impacts.
These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
e) The project area is primarily located within Safety Zone 2 of the County’s current Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), with
a small portion close to Los Osos Valley Road located within ALUP Zones S-1b (3 acres) and S-1c (4 acres). Safety Zone 2,
where the residential development is envisioned to occur within the Specific Plan Area, allows 6 to 12 dwelling units per acre.
The applicant requested a pre-application review by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and the ALUC considered the
project on April 19, 2017. Although portions of the project are within Safety Zones S-1b and S-1c per the current ALUP, a
corrected version of the analog map used in Figure 3 of the ALUP has been more recently utilized by the ALUC to review the
consistency of other recent specific plans (San Luis Ranch and Avila Ranch) with the ALUP. The new map has adjusted the
locations of safety zones to the true GIS bearings of Runways 7-25 and 11-29. When the project site is overlain on the revised
safety zones map, it is located outside of both Safety Zones S-1b and S-1c.
Although no formal direction was provided, the ALUC indicated that consistency with the requirements of Safety Zone 2
throughout the entire site would be appropriate. Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to conflict with the
County’s ALUP. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
f) The Specific Plan Area is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, potential impacts would be less than
significant.
g), h) The project site is designated as moderate and high wildland fire hazard areas due primarily to its location along the
outskirts of the city where the wildland and urban areas interface. Future development and human occupation could therefore be
exposed to potential wildland fire hazards, and in turn, increased human presence may increase the potential for wildfire.
Development of the proposed project could interfere with emergency evacuation routes if potential traffic impacts are not
adequately mitigated. In addition, the LPC component of the project may require additional provisions for safe evacuation of
residents, staff, patients, and guests. The EIR shall assess whether compliance with applicable Uniform Fire Code (UFC),
California Building Code (CBC) and General Plan policies would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels, or if
additional mitigation is necessary. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the
EIR.
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to result in significant impacts related to upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, inconsistencies with the County’s ALUP, wildland
fire hazards, and interference with emergency evacuation routes. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will
require further examination in the EIR.
Packet Pg 138
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
20
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
1, 4, 5,
21, 26,
27
X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on or off site?
1, 38 X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off
site?
1, 38 X
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
38 X
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped
on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
X
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows? X
i) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
X
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
a), f) The proposed project is subject to the current stormwater regulations as set forth by the RWQCB. The proposed project
is also subject to the requirements for Interim Low Impact Development. Implementation of the proposed project could result in
an increase of point and non‐point sources of contamination during construction and operation of the project, including
realignment of Froom Creek, that could affect water quality onsite and in the vicinity of the project area. These impacts are
considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
b) The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area is located within and drains to the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin.
The project is anticipated to be served by the City’s sewer and water systems and is not expected to deplete groundwater resources.
However, increase demand on City water supplies and development of the project would increase the amount of impervious
surfaces within the Specific Plan Area, which could result in impacts related to groundwater supply, percolation, recharge, and
the alteration of existing drainage patterns. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further
examination in the EIR. Preparation of a Water Supply Assessment that meets the requirements of SB 610 will be required; this
assessment will be provided by the applicant and peer reviewed by the EIR consultant in coordination with the City Utilities
Department.
c), d), e) Implementation of the proposed project would result in physical modifications to the existing project area
including construction activities such as grading, modification of existing slopes and drainage channels, realignment and
relocation of the existing creek and detention basin, the potential creation of a new drainage/stormwater basin offsite (on the
Mountainbrook Church property), and development of new impervious surfaces. The applicant has submitted a preliminary
Packet Pg 139
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
21
Stormwater Memorandum (RRM 2015), and will provide additional analysis in compliance with the City’s Waterways
Management Plan Drainage Design Manual; these documents shall be peer reviewed by the EIR consultant in coordination with
the City Public Works Department. Physical modification of the project site would be required to comply with the drainage
requirements of the City’s Waterways Management Plan (City of San Luis Obispo 2003). This plan was adopted for the purpose
of insuring water quality and proper drainage within the City’s watershed. The Waterways Management Plan requires that site
development be designed so that post-development site drainage does not significantly exceed pre-development runoff.
Implementation of the proposed project could substantially alter the existing drainage pattern on-site through the realignment and
relocation of the existing creek and detention basin in the eastern portion of the site, which could result in substantial erosion and
siltation on- and off-site. Modification of existing drainage patterns and development of new impervious surfaces on-site has the
potential to substantially increase the rate and amount of surface runoff in a manner that could result in flooding on- and off-site.
Additionally, modification of existing drainage patterns and development of new impervious surfaces on-site has the potential to
contribute runoff water, which could exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or create substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in
the EIR.
g), h), i) A portion of the low-lying areas within the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area are within the 100‐year flood zone, as
identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The low-lying portions of the site near Los Osos Valley Road
include wetland areas that are subject to flooding during heavy storm events. Implementation of the proposed project could place
housing or other structures within a 100-year flood hazard area and expose people and structure to significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving flooding. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
j) The project area is located outside the zone of impacts from seiche or tsunami, and the existing site conditions do not
create a potential for inundation from mudflow.
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to violate water quality standards and waste discharge
requirements; interfere with groundwater percolation and recharge; alter existing drainage patterns in a manner which could result
in erosion, siltation, increased runoff, and flooding; degrade water quality; place housing within a 100-year floodplain; and, expose
people and structures to flooding hazards. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further
examination in the EIR.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 1, 4 X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
1, 4, 5,
6, 7 X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
4, 5, 28,
31 X
a) Lands surrounding the Specific Plan Area generally consist of the Irish Hills Natural Reserve (open space and recreation)
and unincorporated undeveloped rural and agricultural lands to the west, and urban development to the north and east in the City
of San Luis Obispo, and a mix of urban development and undeveloped/agricultural land to the south. Development north, south
and east of the Specific Plan Area in the City of San Luis Obispo includes large shopping centers, auto dealerships, hotels, and
roadways, parking lots, and other urban infrastructure. The project site is located adjacent to City limits, is located within the
City’s Sphere of Influence, and was anticipated to be considered for annexation as identified in the City’s General Plan. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project would not physically divide an established community, and potential impacts would be
less than significant.
b) As noted above, the City’s General Plan Land Use Map designates the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area as a Special
Focus Area in the City’s Sphere of Influence and anticipates annexation of this area into the City. The Land Use and Circulation
Element (LUCE) Update and certified Final EIR assumed a certain level and type of development when assessing potential
impacts and mitigation measures associated with build-out of the City and Specific Plan Area 3 (project site). The EIR shall
Packet Pg 140
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
22
consider the scale and intensity of the applicant’s project scope relative to the General Plan, and shall work with the City to
determine how policies should be applied to the LPC, and whether the LPC should be considered residential, commercial, or a
combination of both. Preparation of the EIR shall include a preliminary assessment of the project’s consistency with applicable
land use plans, policies, and regulations.
c) The project site is located between property covered by the Irish Hills Conservation Plan and the Johnson Ranch Conservation
Plan. Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to result in conflicts between land uses on the project site and the
adjacent conservation plan areas if development were to impact sensitive habitat, encroach into conserved areas, or otherwise
indirectly affect conserved areas. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the
EIR.
Conclusion: Preparation of the EIR shall include a preliminary assessment of the project’s consistency with applicable land use
plans, policies, and regulations. The Land Use section of the EIR shall identify any potentially significant land use impacts that
would occur as a result of potential inconsistencies with policies and/or regulations specifically in place to avoid or mitigate
environmental impacts.
11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
5 X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
5 X
a), b) There are no known mineral resources that are of known value to the region and residents of the state within the project
area and the project site is not identified as a locally-important mineral resource recovery site. However, the site currently contains
a small quarry to support the operations of John Madonna Construction, Inc.
Conclusion: Potentially significant impacts related to mineral resources are not anticipated; however, these impacts will be
evaluated further in the EIR, as warranted.
12. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess
of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
7 X
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 7 X
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 7 X
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
7 X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
17, 18 X
X
a), b), c), d) The Noise Element of the City’s General Plan includes noise exposure standards for noise-sensitive land uses,
and performance standards for new commercial and industrial uses. Noise-sensitive uses generally include residences, hotels,
Packet Pg 141
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
23
motels, hospitals, nursing homes, theaters, auditoriums, music halls, churches, meeting halls, office buildings, mortuaries, schools,
libraries, museums, neighborhood parks, and playgrounds. The nearest noise-sensitive receptors to the project site include
Mountainbrook Community Church, Courtyard by Marriot San Luis Obispo, Hampton Inn & Suites San Luis Obispo, and Motel
6 located immediately south of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area. The Noise Element indicates that acceptable noise exposure
levels in the vicinity of motels, hotels and churches is 50 to 60 dB and conditionally acceptable noise levels are 60 to 75 dB. The
ambient noise environment within the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area ranges from 60 to 70 dB with primary sources of noise
being traffic along U.S. Highway 101 and Los Osos Valley Road. Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to
generate short-term construction noise as well as long-term operational noise and result in temporary and permanent increased
ambient noise levels that could exceed the City’s noise exposure standards for noise-sensitive land uses. Additionally, construction
activities have the potential to generate excessive groundborne vibration and groundborne noise levels. These impacts are
considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
e) The project site is located within the projected 50-55 dB contour from the County Airport, based on the ALUP. Table 1
of the General Plan Noise Element indicates that the maximum noise exposure for outside residential activities is 60 dB. Therefore,
implementation of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan is not anticipated to expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels associated with the County Airport. Although significant impacts are not expected, this issue will require
further examination in the EIR.
f) The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to generate short-term construction noise and groundborne
vibration as well as long-term operational noise and result in temporary and permanent increased ambient noise levels that could
exceed the City’s noise exposure standards for noise-sensitive land uses. These impacts are considered potentially significant and
will require further examination in the EIR.
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
4, 29 X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
X
X
a) Implementation of the proposed project would directly induce population growth within the Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Area through the development of new residential uses and commercial businesses and annexation of the property into the City.
The Froom Ranch Specific Plan is currently envisioned as a primarily residential project with some commercial development in
the northeast portion of the site closest to Los Osos Valley Road and the adjacent Irish Hills Plaza. A major component of the
planned residential uses is a Life Plan Community (LPC) known as Il Villaggio. Il Villaggio would provide a variety of different
unit types for independent senior housing, recreation and dining facilities, as well as access to higher levels of care such as Assisted
Living, Memory Care, and Skilled Nursing, when needed. Additional residential uses in the northern portion of the site will be
multiple-family. Impacts related to inducing population growth are considered potentially significant and will require further
examination in the EIR.
b), c) Implementation of the project would not displace existing houses or residents.
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project would directly induce population growth within the Froom Ranch Specific
Plan Area through the development of new residences and commercial businesses. These impacts are considered potentially
significant and will require further examination in the Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR.
Packet Pg 142
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
24
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of
the public services:
a) Fire protection? 4, 6 X
b) Police protection? 4, 6 X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X
a), b) The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area is located approximately 3 miles southwest of the City’s Police Department, 0.5
mile south of City Fire Station No. 4, and is within the four‐minute response area of the fire station. Development of the Froom
Ranch Specific Plan would increase the population and sources of fire ignition within the Specific Plan Area and could place an
increased demand on the City’s fire protection and police services, which could require the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities. In addition, the creation of a LPC may require new or modified facilities to serve residents and patients.
These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
c) Implementation of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan would induce population growth within the Specific Plan Area through
the development of new residential units, including multi-family residential units. Therefore, development of the project could
place an increased demand on local schools, which could require the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities.
These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
d), e) Implementation of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan would induce population growth within the Specific Plan Area through
the development of new residential units, including multi-family residential units and independent housing associated with the
LPC. The Froom Ranch Specific Plan is anticipated to include approximately 58.4 acres of conservation/open space and a new
neighborhood trailhead park encompassing approximately 2.9 acres. However, implementation of the proposed project could
place an increased demand on off-site local park facilities, including the adjacent Irish Hills Natural Reserve and Open Space
area, which could require the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities. These impacts are considered
potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
Conclusion: Implementation of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan would induce population growth within the Specific Plan Area
through the development of new residential units, which could place an increased demand on the City’s fire and police protection
services, as well as local schools, parks, and other public facilities. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will
require further examination in the EIR.
15. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
4, 5 X
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
X
a), b) Implementation of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan would induce population growth within the Specific Plan Area through
the development of new residential units, including multi-family residential units and independent housing associated with the
LPC. The Froom Ranch Specific Plan is anticipated to include 58.4 acres of conservation/open space and a new public
neighborhood/trailhead park encompassing approximately 2.9 acres, which would connect to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve and
potentially incorporate on-site historic structures. However, implementation of the proposed project could place an increased
demand on existing local and regional recreation facilities, including the adjacent Irish Hills Natural Reserve and Open Space
area, which could require the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities. These impacts are considered
potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
Packet Pg 143
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
25
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project could place an increased demand on existing local and regional recreation
facilities, which could require the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, and includes the construction of
new private and public recreational facilities which could have an adverse physical effect on the environment. These impacts are
considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of
the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation system, including
but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
4, 23,
24, 25,
30
X
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other standards established by the
county congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
4, 23,
24, 25,
30
X
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
17 X
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?
30 X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
4, 23,
24, 25,
30
X
a), b) Implementation of the proposed project would generate short-term construction trips as well as long-term operational
trips to and from the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area. Project trips have the potential to result in impacts to local roadways and
intersections. The LUCE EIR identified the following areas near the proposed project as being potentially adversely impacted by
future development within the City, including development within the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area:
Los Osos Valley Road (just west of the City Limits). Due to land use changes in the vicinity of the interchange and
changes in traffic patterns, these segments will experience significant increases in volume.
Prado (US 101 – Higuera and Higuera – Broad). Due to the construction of the interchange at US 101/Prado Road, these
segments will experience significant increases in volume.
Higuera & Tank Farm (#85). Due to increases in traffic along Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road, the SB left‐turn
movement experiences significant delay.
A Preliminary Transportation Analysis was prepared for the proposed project by Central Coast Transportation Consulting in April
2015 (Central Coast Transportation Consulting 2015), which did not assess the currently-proposed project and associated mix and
intensity of land uses, and notes that the proposed project includes more residential units and less retail square footage than the
City’s LUCE provided for. Based on the analysis included in the Preliminary Transportation Analysis, the proposed project has
the potential to generate trip levels that could exceed the levels evaluated as part of the Circulation Element’s technical analysis,
but would be below the daily and PM peak hour trips that would be generated at the maximum intensity in the Land Use Element.
This suggests that the project may result in additional multi-modal transportation impacts beyond those identified in the LUCE
EIR. Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to generate increased short-term and long-term trips, contribute to
local congestion and operational deficiencies, and increase traffic volumes and vehicle speeds in the vicinity of the Specific Plan
Area. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR. The City Public Works
Department will issue a separate Request for Proposals for preparation of multi-modal transportation study, which shall be
reviewed and approved by City Public Works and incorporated in the EIR.
Packet Pg 144
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
26
c) The majority of the project site is within Safety Zone 2 of the ALUP with a smaller portion close to Los Osos Valley
Road located within the 1B (3 acres) and 1C (4 acres) Zones. Development of the project site is not anticipated to result in
increased risks associated with air traffic, and it is the applicant’s intention to demonstrate consistency with the ALUP (as
determined by the Airport Land Use Commission). These impacts are anticipated to be less than significant; however, this issue
will require further examination in the EIR.
d) Final project design has the potential to increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. The proposed
project will be required to meet City Engineering Standards to avoid safety risks; however, project-specific impacts related to site
design and potential safety hazards will require additional analysis. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will
require further examination in the EIR.
e) Access to the site is constrained by surrounding development/alternative ownership, topography, and natural site
conditions (i.e., the presence of drainages, floodplains, wetlands) and final project design has the potential to result in inadequate
emergency access to all developed portions of the site. The project design will be reviewed by the City Fire Marshal to ensure
adequate emergency access has been provided; however, project-specific impacts related to site design and potential safety hazards
will require additional analysis. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the
EIR.
f) The project will be required to be consistent with policies supporting alternative transportation, as described in the City’s
Circulation Element. Consistent with the goal of promoting alternative modes of transportation, the proposed project includes
bicycle circulation routes, sidewalks, public trails, private trails, and public transit service connection. Potential impacts related
to conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities will require
additional analysis. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project could result in changes in traffic volumes or traffic patterns; increase hazards
due to a design feature or incompatible use; and result in conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination
in the EIR. The City Public Works Department will issue a separate Request for Proposals for preparation of multi-modal
transportation study, which shall be reviewed and approved by City Public Works and incorporated in the EIR.
17. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local register as defined in Public
Resources Section 5020.1(k)?
4, 12, 32 X
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the
lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.
4, 12, 32 X
Packet Pg 145
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
27
a), b) Previously conducted studies within the project area have identified prehistoric and historic sites within the Specific Plan
Area; therefore, the project site is considered sensitive for tribal cultural resources. Upon determining the application is complete,
the City will provide formal notification to all tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area of the opportunity
to request consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 and the requirements of Assembly Bill 52. In
addition, the City will conduct consultation under Senate Bill 18 (SB 18), as required for Specific Plans and General Plan
Amendments. Potential impacts to tribal cultural resources and associated avoidance and mitigation measures and pre-zoning to
protect significant resources identified through the AB 52 and SB 18 consultation processes will be identified, examined, and
respectfully disclosed in the EIR.
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project could result in direct and/or indirect impacts to a tribal cultural resource, if
present, during ground-disturbing construction activities and project operation and maintenance. These impacts are considered
potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
18. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
3, 39,
40, 41,
42, 43
X
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
39, 40,
41, 42,
43
X
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
X
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and
expanded entitlements needed?
39, 40,
41, 42,
43
X
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
39, 40,
41, 42,
43
X
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? X
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste? 33 X
a), b), c), e) The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area would be required to be served by City water, recycled water, and
wastewater services. This would require development of private facilities within the Il Villaggio Life Plan Community that connect
to nearby public infrastructure, as well as construction of new public facilities to serve the additional proposed residential,
commercial, and public facility uses. Implementation of the proposed project would place an increased demand on existing City
infrastructure, including potable water treatment and distribution, recycled water, wastewater collection and treatment, and
stormwater facilities. The new on-site water, recycled water, wastewater, and stormwater facilities would be required to comply
with the Uniform Plumbing Code and the City standards. The City Utilities Department will review the applicant-prepared Water
Supply Assessment and water demand and sewer flow analyses and provide feedback to the applicant. These impacts are
considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
d) Implementation of the proposed project would result in a substantial increase in water demand to support proposed
development. Project-specific impacts related to water supply, based on final project design, are considered potentially significant
and will require further examination in the EIR. Preparation of a Water Supply Assessment that meets the requirements of SB 610
will be required; the assessment will be peer reviewed by the EIR consultant in coordination with the City Utilities Department.
Packet Pg 146
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
28
f), g) The proposed project would be served by San Luis Garbage Company, which maintains standards for access to ensure
that collection is feasible, which will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission. San Luis Garbage is supported by
Cold Canyon Landfill and assisted by South County Sanitary, Mission County Garbage, Morro Bay Garbage, and Coastal Roll-
off. Solid waste is disposed of at the Cold Canyon Landfill located approximately 7 miles south of the City of San Luis Obispo
on State Route 227. The Landfill site is comprised of a total of 209 acres, with waste disposal limited to a 121-acre permitted
waste disposal footprint. Cold Canyon Landfill currently has an estimated closure date of 2064 (SWRCB 2015). Implementation
of the proposed project would generate solid waste during construction and operation. To help reduce waste generated by the
project, consistent with the City’s Source Reduction and Recycling Element, recycling facilities must be accommodated on the
project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials must be submitted with the building
permit application. Impacts associated with solid waste are considered potentially significant and will require further examination
in the Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR.
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project would place an increased demand on utilities and service systems. Impacts
to utilities and service systems are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the Froom Ranch
Specific Plan EIR.
19. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
X
As discussed above, impacts related to biological resources are considered potentially significant and will require further
examination in the EIR.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of
the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
X
Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to result in cumulative considerable impacts when viewed in connection
with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. Cumulative
impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
If potentially significant impacts cannot be mitigation to less-than-significant levels, the project could result in substantial direct
and/or indirect adverse impacts on human beings. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further
examination in the Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR.
Packet Pg 147
7
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 29
20. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should
identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
The Draft and Final Program EIRs prepared for the 2035 Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) Update (certified
September 2014) and existing technical studies (refer to Source References below) were used as the basis for identifying
potential project impacts. Project files are available for review at the City of San Luis Obispo’s Community Development
Department.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
These are noted above in the analysis of specific impacts for each issue.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions of the project.
These are noted above in the analysis of specific impacts for each issue.
21. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. Draft Project Plans [2/2/2017]
2. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations, March 2015
3. California Building Code, 2016
4. City of San Luis Obispo Land Use and Circulation Element and Final EIR, last revised December 2014.
5. City of San Luis Obispo Conservation & Open Space Element, 2006.
6. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Safety Element, July 2000.
7. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element, 1996
8. California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, San Luis Obispo County
Important Farmland Map 2014, published October 2016
9. Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey, Accessed March 21, 2017
10. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County, Air Pollution Control District, 2001.
11. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Air Pollution Control District, 2012.
12. City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines, October 2009
13. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990
14. City of SLO 2012 Climate Action Plan, August 2012
15. California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Envirostor Accessed March 21, 2017
16. State Water Resources Control Board, Geotracker Accessed March 21, 2017
17. County of San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan dated May 18, 2005.
18. City of SLO Airport Compatible Open Space Plan, April 2005
19. City of SLO Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
20. City of SLO 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2016
21. Waterway Management Plan, City and County of San Luis Obispo, 2003
22. Federal Emergency Management Agency, FIRM, November 16, 2012
23. City of San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan, November 5, 2013
24. City of San Luis Obispo Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines, March 2015
25. 2014 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Connecting Communities, April 2015
26. Froom Ranch Project, San Luis Obispo County, California, Biological Resources Inventory. Kevin Merk
Associates, LLC (KMA). 2016.
27. Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination. US Army Corps of Engineers dated September 24, 2015
28. Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo. October 2002
Packet Pg 148
7
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
30
29. Report E-5: City/County Population and Housing Estimates. California Department of Finance 2016.
30. Froom/El Villaggio Specific Plan Preliminary Transportation Analysis. Central Coast Transportation Consulting.
2015.
31. Irish Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan. City of San Luis Obispo 2011.
32. Froom Ranch/El Villaggio Specific Plan Section 106 Prehistoric Report, San Luis Obispo. FirstCarbon Solutions.
February 20, 2015.
33. Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. r3-2015-0021 for Cold Canyon Class III Landfill. State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Central Coast Region. 2015.
34. Applicant-prepared photo-simulations
35. City of San Luis Municipal Code
36. City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance
37. City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Program Guidelines
38. Stormwater Memorandum, RRM Design Group, February 26, 2015
39. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Water and Wastewater Element, June 2016
40. City of San Luis Obispo 2016 Water Resources Status Report
41. City of San Luis Obispo Final Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan, December 2015
42. 2017 Recycled Water Master Plan
43. Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy, December 2015
44. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog, 2002
45. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Chorro Creek Bog Thistle: 5-Year Review Summary and Evaluation, 2007
46. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) South-Central California Coast Steelhead Recovery
Plan, 2013
47. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recovery Plan for the Morro Shoulderband Snail and Four Plants from Western
San Luis Obispo County, 1998 (Note: includes Chorro Creek bog thistle)
Additional Information: www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-
development/documents-online/environmental-review-documents/-folder-1911
Packet Pg 149
7
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 150
7
THNewspaper of the Central Coast
Jury 3 0 20V
S1_O CITY �d�...l=R.K
3825 South Higuera • Post Office Box 112 • San Luis Obispo, California 93406-0112 • (805) 781-7800
In The Superior Court of The State of California
In and for the County of San Luis Obispo
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
AD #3129140
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ss,
County of San Luis Obispo
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the
County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen and not
interested in the above entitled matter; I am now, and at
all times embraced in the publication herein mentioned
was, the principal clerk of the printers and publishers of
THE TRIBUNE, a newspaper of general Circulation,
printed and published daily at the City of San Luis
Obispo in the above named county and state; that notice
at which the annexed clippings is a true copy, was
published in the above-named newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof — on the following dates to wit;
JUNE 23, 2017 that said newspaper was duly and
regularly ascertained and established a newspaper of
general circulation by Decree entered in the Superior
Court of San Luis Obispo County, State of California, on
June 9, 1952, Case #19139 under the Government Code
of the State of California.
I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
� c.e �. bx/m�--�
(Sign ire of Principal Clerk)
DATE: JULY 23, 2017
AD COST: $194.88
_ CMOF
%SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
The San Luis Obispo City Council Invites
all interested persons to attend a public
meeling on Wednesday, July 5, 2017, at
8;00 p.m. in the City Holl Council Cham-
ber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, relative to the following:
AUTHORIZE A Rg%WST FVR PROeQ -
AL,3S9FPI FOR THE PREPARATION OF
AN ENVIRONMENTAL INiPACT REPORT
(EIA.) FOR THE PROPOSED FRO_Dlu9
RANCH SPECI,FICNELATED
ENTITLEMENT$ (SPEC•01R32917r W
12185 AND 12893`11.0$ OSOS VALLEY
ROAPI
1. Authorize the Issuance of a Request for
Proposals (RFP) for the preparal ton of an
Environmantal Impact Aapo rl (EIR) for the
proposed Froom Ranch Specific Plan and
related project enil ttements: and
2. Authorize the City Manager to award a
consultant services agreement with the
consultant that best responds to the RFP
In terms of qualifications, cost, and ap-
proach to the project analysis.
For more information on this Item, you are
Invited to contact Shawna Scott of the Cit-
y's Community Developments Department
at (805) 781-7178 or by emalI atssq_g19
efoclt Lma
Reports for this meeting will be available
for review In the City Clerk's Office and on-
line at WwW.slocfy,ora on Wednesday.
Juno 28, 2017. Pleaso cast the City Clerk's
Office at (805) 781-7100 for more Informa-
tion. The City Council meeting will. be tele-
visad live on Charter Cable Channel 20
and live streaming on www.slocftv.org.
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
Juno 23. 2017 3129140