HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-25-2017 PC Agenda PacketCity of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Planning Commission
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda
will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development, 919 Palm Street, during normal
business hours.
Agenda
Planning Commission
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
6:00 p.m. REGULAR MEETING Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Stevenson
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE : Chair Stevenson
ROLL CALL : Commissioners Kim Bisheff, Daniel Knight, Ronald Malak, John Larson,
Hemalata Dandekar, Vice-Chair John Fowler, and Chair Charles Stevenson.
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items.
PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Commission about items not on the
agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their name and address.
Comments are limited to three minutes per person. Items raised at this time are generally referred
to staff, and, if action by the Commission is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting.
BUSINESS ITEMS
1. 3580 Sueldo Street. USE 4117-2016: Request to establish a new Air Vehicle Research and
Development Service land use within the Higuera Commerce Park Specific Plan, with a
categorical exemption from environmental review; C-S-SP zone; Volny Construction, Inc.,
applicant. (Kyle Bell)
2. 3777 Orcutt Road. SBDV-2586-2016: Request to establish a 23-lot Vesting Tentative Tract
Map Subdivision (Tract 3095) including 18 residential lots for the development of 18 single-
family homes, two lots to support onsite detention basins, and three open space lots, and
consideration of an Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration. The project would require
the removal of mature trees, and includes the following exceptions: road design exception to
Planning Commission Agenda Page 2
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs , and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
allow a reduced centerline tangent of 48.25 feet (50 feet is the standard requirement);
residential structure height exceptions on non-sensitive lots up to five feet above the standard
allowed height (25 feet), resulting in structures up to 30 feet in height; temporary grading
(and restoration) and permanent grading and construction of drainage and stormwater
treatment basins within the 20-foot creek setback; and reduced rear yard setbacks ranging
from approximately 6 to 19 feet for proposed Lots 6, 8, 9, and 10 (residential development
standards require a rear setback of 20 feet for residences and five feet for garages/carports).
The project is located within the Orcutt Area Specific Plan; R-1-SP and C/OS-SP zones;
Ambient Communities, applicant. (Shawna Scott)
3. 1035 Madonna Road. SPEC/ANNX/ER 1502-2015: Continuation of the January 11, 2017
Planning Commission hearing to receive additional public comment on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the San Luis Ranch Development Project
during the 45-day public review period (Note: comment period extended 7 days, through
January 30, 2017). This meeting is an opportunity for City and consultant staffs to gather
information from the public regarding the analysis and findings of the Draft EIR. The project
includes plans for development of the area identified as the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan in
the City’s General Plan Land Use Element. Development plans for the site include up to 580
residential units, 150,000 square feet of commercial development, 100,000 square feet of
office development, a 200-room hotel, and portions of the site to remain open space for
agriculture and open-space. Project construction is planned in six phases; Land Use Element
designated Specific Plan Area SP-2 (San Luis Ranch); San Luis Ranch, LLC, applicant.
(John Rickenbach) (90 minutes)
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
1. STAFF
a. Agenda Forecast
ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 8,
2017 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
APPEALS: Any decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council
within 10 days of the action (Recommendations to the City Council cannot be appealed since they are
not a final action.). Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission may file an appeal with
the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available at the Community Development Department office, City
Clerk’s office, or on the City’s website (www.slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $281, and
must accompany the appeal documentation.
Meeting Date: January 25, 2017
Item Number: #1 2
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Request to establish a new Air Vehicle Systems Research & Development Service use
within the Higuera Commerce Park Specific Plan.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 3580 Sueldo Street BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7524
E-mail: kbell@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: USE-4117-2016 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) that allows the approval of the
Industrial Research and Development use within the C-S zone, subject to findings and conditions of
approval.
SITE DATA
Applicant Volny Construction, Inc.
Representative Dan Rutledge
Complete Date December 21, 2016
Zoning C-S-SP, Commercial Services within
the Higuera Commerce Park
Specific Plan
General Plan Services and Manufacturing
Site Area ~1.57 acres
Environmental
Status
Categorically exempt from
environmental review under CEQA
Guidelines section 15301 (Existing
Facilities)
SUMMARY
The applicant has applied for a Planning Commission Use Permit to allow approval of a new Industrial
Research & Development land use, Air Vehicle Systems Research & Development Services, within an
existing building previously occupied by a Wholesaling and Distribution use, known as Del Ozone,
located at 3580 Sueldo Street in the Service Commercial (C-S-SP) zone within the Higuera Commerce
Park Specific Plan.
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The Planning Commission’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the General
Plan, Higuera Commerce Park Specific Plan, and applicable City standards.
PC2 - 1
USE-4117-2016
3580 Sueldo Street
Page 2
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
Site Information/Setting
Site Size ~1.57 acres
Present Use & Development Wholesaling and Distribution
Topography Flat
Access Sueldo Street & Granada Drive
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: C-S-SP (Office Processing)
South: C-S-SP (Laboratory Analytical, Research Testing)
East: C-S-SP (Light Manufacturing & Furniture Store)
West: C-S-SP (Warehousing - Retail)
Project Description
The proposed use, Air Vehicle Systems Research & Development Services, consists of design,
warehousing, fit and distribute components of various prototype hybrid, electric drone aircrafts. The
proposed business will continue to utilize the present layout with the exception of adding two private
offices adjacent to the warehouse, no additional building area is proposed (Attachment 2, Project Plans).
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
Consistency with the Zoning Regulations & General Plan
It is intended that use permits allow flexibility in providing for, regulating, or preventing various uses,
so they will be compatible with existing or desired conditions in their neighborhoods. In order to protect
and promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community a Planning Commission
Use Permit has been required, per Table 9 of the Zoning Regulations, for Industrial Research and
Development1 uses to operate within the C-S-SP zone. The Higuera Commerce Park Specific Plan defers
to the Zoning Regulations for uses allowed or conditionally allowed within the C-S zone.
Industrial Research & Development Use: The proposed use is appropriate at the subject location because
it is consistent and compatible with the uses listed for the Services and Manufacturing Land Use
designation in accordance with the General Plan Land Use Element (LUE Table 1). The proposed use
is consistent and compatible with uses in the immediate vicinity which include Laboratory Research and
Testing, Office Processing, and Warehousing.
Parking: The proposed use requires 46 vehicle parking spaces based on a parking ratio of 1 space per
300 square feet of office area, plus one space per 500 square feet indoor assembly or fabrication area,
plus one space per 1,500 square feet of indoor warehouse area. The project site provides for 48 parking
spaces; no additional parking is required. Condition No. 9 has been included that requires the project site
to comply with all bicycle parking requirements in accordance with Table 6.5 of the Zoning Regulations
for the C-S zone.
1 Zoning Regulations Section 17.100(I) Definitions. Industrial Research and Development: A facility for scientific
research, and the design, development and testing of electrical, electronic, magnetic, optical and computer and
telecommunications components in advance of product manufacturing, and the assembly of related products from
parts produced off-site, where the manufacturing activity is secondary to the research and development activities.
PC2 - 2
USE-4117-2016
3580 Sueldo Street
Page 3
4.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations,
Higuera Commerce Park Specific Plan or other policy document.
5.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Project Plans
PC2 - 3
RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING A NEW INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
USE WITHIN THE HIGUERA COMMERCE PARK SPECIFIC PLAN,
WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND
ATTACHMENTS DATED JANUARY 25, 2017 (3580 SUELDO STREET
USE-4117-2016)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California,
on January 25, 2017, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-4117-2016, Volny
Construction Inc., applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly considered
all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and
recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San
Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Planning Commission hereby grants final approval to the
project (USE-4117-2016), based on the following findings:
1. As conditioned, the use will not harm the general health, safety, and welfare of people
living or working in the vicinity because the proposed use is compatible with the existing
building and surrounding uses.
2. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed use,
Industrial Research and Development, is listed as a use that is appropriate for the Services
and Manufacturing Land Use designation (LUE Table 1).
3. The proposed use is compatible with the project site and with existing and potential uses
in the vicinity within the Commercial Service (C-S) zone.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt under Class 1,
Existing Facilities; Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project will occupy an
existing building that will not result in an expansion beyond that of the previous use which
occupied the building, which will not have a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 3. Action. The Planning Commission hereby grants final approval to the
project with incorporation of the following conditions:
Attachment 1
PC2 - 4
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-17
3580 Sueldo Street, USE-4117-2016
Page 2
Planning Division
1. A building plan check submittal that is in full conformance with submitted project plans,
and incorporating the following conditions of approval, shall be submitted for review and
approval of the Community Development Department. A separate, full-size sheet shall be
included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions of
project approval. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans
requirements are addressed.
2. The Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director for
compliance with conditions of approval, or to determine whether a modification of the Use
Permit is necessary upon significant change to the business as represented in the applicant’s
submitted project application materials and the staff report dated January 25, 2017, or in
the event of a change in ownership which may result in deviation from the project
description or approved plans.
3. This Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Administrative Hearing Officer if the City
receives substantiated written complaints from any citizen, Code Enforcement Officer, or
Police Department employee, which includes information and/or evidence supporting a
conclusion that a violation of this Use Permit, or of City ordinances, regulations or Police
Department resources (calls for service) applicable to the property or the operation of the
business, has occurred. At the time of the Use Permit review, to insure on -going
compatibility of the uses on the project site, conditions of approval may be added, deleted,
modified, or the Use Permit may be revoked.
4. This use permit shall be valid for the operation of Industrial Research and Development.
Expansion or modification of the use not substantially in conformance with this use permit,
shall require City approval.
5. Any proposed exterior lighting shall be shown on plans submitted for a building permit
and shall be downward facing, fully recessed, and shielded to avoid light trespass and
adverse impacts to visibility of the night sky consistent with Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning
Regulations.
6. The Industrial Research and Development use shall operate at all times in accordance with
the City’s Noise Ordinance (M.C. Chapter 9.12, Noise Control).
7. The property shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner at all times, including
maintenance of landscaping.
8. The proposed use generates a parking requirement of 46 parking spaces. The property
owner shall be responsible for maintaining and updating the current parking calculations
for the property. The submitted parking calculation shall be shown on plans submitted for
building permits.
Attachment 1
PC2 - 5
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-17
3580 Sueldo Street, USE-4117-2016
Page 3
9. Long and short-term bicycle parking shall be provided in accordance with Table 6.5 of the
Zoning Regulations. Bicycle parking shall be installed at highly visible locations that are
as close to the main entrance of the destination as possible. Dimensioned locations and
details of the short and long-term bicycle parking shall be provided on the project’s
construction plans including rack design, location, clearances and circulation needs for
users in compliance with manufacturers’ standards. Each parking space shall include a 2x6
ft. footprint unless noted otherwise by the manufacturer.
a. Approved short-term bicycle rack designs include the inverted “U” or “Peak
Racks”. “Ribbon” type racks are not approved for use in the City.
b. Long-term bicycle parking may consist of lockers installed either within or outside
the building. As an alternative, a lockable room within the building that is labeled
and reserved for bicycle storage may substitute for bicycle lockers. Provide details
and specifications for bicycle lockers/rooms to the satisfaction of the Planning
Division.
10. Any new proposed signage shall be reviewed by the Planning Division to ensure
appropriateness for the site, and compliance with the Sign Regulations.
11. The maximum posted occupant load for each space shall not be exceeded at any time. This
permit is strictly limited to allow only the occupant load for the premises as approved by
the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department. Occupant loads approved by the City of San
Luis Obispo Fire Department shall be posted at all times.
Engineering Division – Public Works/Community Development Department
12. The existing driveway approaches shall be verified as complying with ADA and city
standards for accessibility and compliance with current City Engineering Standards. If not
accessible, the approaches shall be altered or upgraded to comply with current standards.
The current city and ADA standard requires a 4’ accessible sidewalk extension behind the
ramp.
13. The building plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed street trees. Street trees
are required at a rate of one 15-gallon street tree for each 35 linear feet of frontage. Tree
species and planting requirements shall be in accordance with City Engineering Standards.
Transportation Division - Public Works Department
14. Plans submitted for a building permit shall show physical location and adequate
dimensions for bike parking. Eight bike parking spots required, seven shall be provided as
long term bike parking. Plans shall identify the type of long term parking facilities that will
be used to meet the requirement, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
Attachment 1
PC2 - 6
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-17
3580 Sueldo Street, USE-4117-2016
Page 4
Building Division – Community Development Department
15. Plans submitted for a building permit shall provide existing and proposed occupancy
classifications for each area of the building.
Utilities Department
16. The property’s existing sewer lateral to the point of connection at the City main must pass
a pipeline video inspection (visual inspection of the interior of the pipeline), including
repair or replacement, as part of the project. The pipeline video inspection shall be
submitted during the Building Permit Review Process for review and approval by the
Utilities Department prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Additional information is
provided below related to this requirement:
The pipeline video inspection shall be submitted on USB drive and shall be in color.
The inspection shall be of adequate resolution in order to display pipe.
Material submitted shall include the project address and a scaled plan of the
building and the lateral location to the connection at the City sewer main.
The inspection shall include tracking of the pipeline length (in feet) from the start
of the inspection to the connection at the City sewer main.
It is optional to provide audio on the report to explain the location, date of
inspection, and pipeline condition observations.
Indemnification
17. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers
and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents,
officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this
project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review
(“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified
Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate
in the defense against an Indemnified Claim.
Code Requirements
1. Plans submitted for a building permit shall provide occupant load and exiting analysis of
the building that includes exit travel distance.
Attachment 1
PC2 - 7
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-17
3580 Sueldo Street, USE-4117-2016
Page 5
On motion by Commissioner ___________, seconded by Commissioner _____________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 25th day of January, 2017.
_____________________________
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Planning Commission
Attachment 1
PC2 - 8
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
P
C
2
-
9
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
P
C
2
-
1
0
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
P
C
2
-
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Consideration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map #3095 and associated exceptions, tree
removals, and improvements to create 18 residential lots, two detention basin lots, and three
open space lots on the Imel Ranch property within the Orcutt Area Specific Plan, and
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, which tiers off the Orcutt Area Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR).
PROJECT ADDRESS: 3777 Orcutt Road BY: Shawna Scott, Associate Planner
Phone: 781-7176
e-mail: sscott@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: SBDV/ER-2586-2016 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director DD
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve Vesting
Tentative Tract Map (VTM) #3095 and adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (see
Attachment 1, Draft Resolution and Attachment 5, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration).
SITE DATA
Applicant Travis Fuentes, Dante Anselmo
Ambient Communities
Representative Todd Smith, Cannon Associates
Zoning R‐1‐SP, C/OS‐SP
General Plan Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP),
Low Density Residential
Site Area 5.49 acres
Environmental
Status
Mitigated Negative Declaration tiering
off the OASP Final EIR (certified 2010).
SUMMARY
The applicant, Ambient Communities, is requesting approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTM)
#3095 on property identified as Imel Ranch (the project site) in the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP),
which would create 23 lots including: 18 residential lots, two lots to support onsite detention basins, and
three open space lots. The project includes: mature tree removals; road design exception; residential
structure height exceptions on identified lots; grading and construction within the 20-foot creek setback;
and reduced rear yard setbacks on specified lots.
Meeting Date: January 25, 2017
Item Number: 2
PC1-1
SBDV/ER-2586-2016 / VTM #3095 (Imel Ranch)
Page 2
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The Planning Commission’s role is to make recommendations to the City Council on the applicant’s
proposal, including identified exceptions and tree removals, and associated Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
The OASP and an associated Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) were approved and certified in
March 2010. The OASP designated the project site for residential development, including 16-17 single-
family residential homes. The project site (as part of the overall Specific Plan area) was annexed into the
City in 2012. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the project tiers
off the certified OASP FEIR and addresses any potential impacts not previously assessed in the FEIR.
2.1 Site Information/Setting
The Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP) includes 230.85 acres located in the southeastern portion
of the City, bounded by Orcutt and Tank Farm Roads, and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR)
tracks near Bullock Lane.
Imel Ranch (the subject site) is located within and along the eastern edge of the OASP, immediately
west of Orcutt Road, opposite from Tiburon Road. Recent subdivision approvals within the OASP
include Jones Ranch VTM #3066 (approved May 19, 2015) to the immediate northwest and
Righetti Ranch VTM #3063 (approved May 19, 2015) to the west and south. Imel Ranch includes
5.49 acres of gently sloping land traversed by two seasonal creeks (one named “Crotalo Creek”,
the other is unnamed). Existing vacant non-historic residential and accessory structures would be
removed from the site. Onsite vegetation includes non-native annual grassland, eucalyptus stands,
sycamore, oak, and pepper trees, and riparian woodland. Lands surrounding the property are largely
undeveloped within the City (with the few exceptions of sporadic homestead lots and homes).
Figure 1. Project Site (Imel) and proximate Jones and Righetti subdivisions
Jones
Righetti
Imel
PC1-2
SBDV/ER-2586-2016 / VTM #3095 (Imel Ranch)
Page 3
2.2 Project Description
The proposed plan is to build 18 market rate single-family detached homes on lots that range from
5,000 to 9,372 square feet each (Lots 1 through 18). Two lots 0.25 and 0.13 acres each are proposed
within the southern and western portions of the project site (Lots 19 and 20), which would support
above or below ground detention basins. Two centrally-located open space parcels (Lots 21 and
22, approximately 0.51 and 0.15 acres each) for the existing (“unnamed”) creek and associated
pedestrian trail are proposed within the project. A third approximately 0.83-acre open space lot
(Lot 23) along the Crotalo Creek corridor is provided in the site design. Stormwater
basins/easements totaling 0.12 acre would be located within the open space lots. A total of three
affordable housing units are required, which are proposed to be transferred from the Imel Ranch
project (VTM #3095) to Jones Ranch (Tract 3066). The applicant for Imel Ranch, Ambient
Communities, is the same developer for Jones Ranch; therefore, sharing of these affordable units
can be considered.
The project includes the following exceptions: road design exception to allow a reduced centerline
tangent of 48.25 feet (50 feet is the standard requirement); residential structure height exceptions
on specified lots up to five feet above the standard allowed height (25 feet), resulting in structures
up to 30 feet in height; temporary grading (and restoration) and permanent grading and construction
of drainage and stormwater treatment basins within the 20-foot creek setback; and reduced rear
yard setbacks ranging from approximately 6 to 19 feet for proposed Lots 6, 8, 9, and 10 (residential
development standards require a rear setback of 20 feet for residences and five feet for
garages/carports). Additional key elements of the project include the following:
1) Site grading to accommodate the residential subdivision, resulting in the need to “export”
excess cut material (proposed to be used in the nearby Righetti Ranch subdivision, VTM
#3063). In addition, residential pad grading along the western property boundary (Lots 1
through 4, 10, and 11) would require a fill slope that will extend into the adjacent
“Neighborhood Park” lot.
2) The removal of three stands of Eucalyptus trees and several other smaller non-native trees.
One large sycamore tree located near the “I” Road creek crossing that was initially proposed
for removal to accommodate necessary internal circulation would be retained through
engineered design (refer to Condition of Approval 30).
3) Other associated site improvements including “I” Street, on and offsite utility extensions,
lighting, and landscaping.
4) Offsite road improvements including B Street and Orcutt Road, as identified in the OASP
(in the event these improvements are not constructed in association with previously
approved Jones Ranch and Righetti Tract Maps).
5) Onsite above ground shallow detention basins or below ground buried detention chambers,
which would partially extend into the 20-foot creek setback. “Over-detention” is proposed
within a Regional Basin downstream of Imel Ranch, located within Righetti Tract 3063.
Additional information regarding the project is available in the Applicant’s Project Description
(Attachment 2), VTM plan set (Attachment 3), and Staff’s Expanded Analysis (Attachment 4).
PC1-3
SBDV/ER-2586-2016 / VTM #3095 (Imel Ranch)
Page 4
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The project analysis summarized below focuses on the project’s consistency with the OASP and
requested exceptions. An Expanded Staff Analysis is available as Attachment 4 to this Agenda Report.
3.1 OASP Chapter 2: Conservation, Open Space, and Recreation
OASP Chapter 2 policies focus on protection of Righetti Hill, creeks, wetland habitats, and visual
resources, while introducing a variety of parks and recreational uses for the residents of the Orcutt
area. Policies 2.2.1, 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 designate specific areas for creeks, wetlands, mitigation areas
and riparian open space as a part of the overall OASP, comprising approximately 19 acres. The
proposed project includes three open space lots totaling 1.49 acres located along the unnamed creek
and Crotalo Creek corridors (see Figure 2. Proposed Open Space Lots below). Stormwater
basins/easements totaling 0.12 acre would be located within the open space lots, and are subject to
the City’s Creek and Drainage Design Manual.1 The applicant’s project description includes the
development of five-foot wide pedestrian pathways within the C/OS zone encompassing the creek,
consistent with the OASP.2
Figure 2. Proposed Open Space Lots (shown in green)
1 Program 2.2.4b: All bridges, culverts, and modifications to the existing creek channels will comply with the City’s
Drainage Design Manual (DDM) and applicable City policies with consultation and approval from the Director of Public
Works. Additional permits may be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and
[Wildlife]. Project proponent will provide proof of consultation and copies of necessary permits to the City Community
Development Director.
2 Policy 2.2.5 notes that some trails will be located parallel to creeks, and may be placed in the outer perimeter of the creek
setback.
PC1-4
SBDV/ER-2586-2016 / VTM #3095 (Imel Ranch)
Page 5
The OASP identifies a 20-foot creek setback, which is applicable to all development.3 Grading and
development within the creek setback requires approval of a creek setback exception, and adoption
of findings (see Attachment 1, Findings).4 Proposed uses within the creek setback are limited to
drainage and stormwater features, which would not include structures or paving, and would be
designed as approved by Public Works. A road crossing over the unnamed creek is also required
to provide adequate internal circulation. The applicant proposes approximately 0.60 acre of
disturbance within the 20-foot setback. Permanent improvements within the creek setback include
drainage basins (0.38 acre), which are required to be designed to support wetlands characteristics
pursuant to Policy 2.2.6. The proposed creek crossing (0.08 acre of permanent disturbance within
the creek setback) with an open bottom culvert structure is allowed via Policy 2.2.3. Approximately
0.12 acre within the creek setback would be restored for use as stormwater treatment basins and
associated easements. The remaining 0.02 acre would be temporarily disturbed and restored.
Consistent with Program 2.2.3a, riparian enhancement along the creek corridors is required, in
addition to compliance with mitigation measures identified in the OASP FEIR.5 Staff supports the
applicant’s creek setback exception request because proposed actions are limited to temporary
grading and restoration, and necessary drainage/stormwater and internal access improvements, and
would comply with OASP policies and mitigation measures outlined above (also refer to
Attachment 1, Findings). In addition, final grading and improvement plans would be reviewed and
approved by Public Works staff and the Natural Resources Manager prior to development.
The project includes the removal of three stands of Eucalyptus trees and several other smaller non-
native trees, and the pruning of two mature oak trees. The tree removals are proposed as part of the
tract improvements; therefore, this issue is within the Planning Commission’s purview. Staff
supports the necessary tree removal, as native oak and sycamore trees would be retained onsite and
non-native trees would be removed and replaced with native trees at a 2 to 1 ratio.6 While the
environmental analysis assumed the removal of one large sycamore tree near the “I” Road creek
crossing, the applicant has been working with the City Arborist and Public Works staff towards an
engineered solution that maintains roadway standards and preserves the sycamore tree.7 If the tree
cannot be retained through final engineering design, the loss shall be mitigated at a minimum 4:1
ratio, onsite (see Mitigation Measure B-2(d) and B-3(a)).8
Regarding recreation, the OASP does not establish any public park areas on the project site;
therefore, this project will contribute to the Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) required by the
OASP, in the form of fee payments to contribute their fair share to improvements constructed on
other properties in the Orcutt Planning Area. OASP regional park facilities would be accessible to
future residents via internal roadways and bicycle and pedestrian paths.
3 Program 2.2.2a
4 As required by Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.025.G.d Discretionary Exceptions
5 See OASP Mitigation Measures B-4(a) Trail Setbacks; B-4(b) Development Setbacks; B-4(c) Riparian/Wetland
Mitigation; D-1(a) Erosion Control Plan; D-1(b) Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan; D-2(a) Vegetative and
Biotechnical Approaches to Bank Stabilization; and D-2(c) Riparian Zone Planting
6 See OASP Mitigation Measure B-3(a)
7 See OASP Mitigation Measures Trees B-3(a) Construction Requirements; B-6(a) Minimized Roadway Width
8 See OASP Mitigation Measure B-2(d) Special-status Species CDFG [CDFW]-approved Mitigation Plan, as amended
PC1-5
SBDV/ER-2586-2016 / VTM #3095 (Imel Ranch)
Page 6
3.2 OASP Chapter 3: Land Use and Development Standards
Proposed VTM #3095 includes low density residential uses and open space as required by the
OASP. Density assigned to Imel Ranch under the OASP called for between 16-17 residential units;
at 18 units, the project is substantially consistent with projected residential densities.9 The project
would comply with the cumulative density anticipated in the OASP, which ranges from 892 to 979
residential units.10 For reference, previously approved tracts would provide 304 (Righetti) and 66
(Jones) residential units. Consistent with Policy 3.2.511, the R-1 lots range in size from 5,000 to
9,372 square feet each.
City Zoning Regulations identify a maximum height of 25 feet within the R-1 zone, and structures
up to 35 feet are allowed with approval of an administrative use permit and adoption of specific
findings (see Attachment 1, Findings).12 The applicant is requesting allowance of structures up to
30 feet in height on all residential lots except Lots 14 and 15. The applicant is requesting the height
exception request in order to provide for additional flexibility to better meet design standards
identified in OASP Chapter 4, Community Design. Regarding visual resources, proposed Lots 14,
15, 16, 17 and 18 are located adjacent to Orcutt Road and are considered “sensitive” by the OASP;
development of these lots require architectural review. Staff supports the applicant’s request
because the project would not block views of Righetti Hill (see Attachment 3 Line of Sight Righetti
Hill) and the project would not include two-story structures within 50 feet of the eastern property
line, consistent with the OASP.13
The applicant proposes to meet the affordable housing requirements identified in OASP Policies
3.3.1 and 3.3.214 by providing two moderate-income units and one low-income level unit on Jones
Ranch.15 These three units would be located alongside R-2 market-rate three bedroom units.
Similar to the previously-approved Jones and Righetti Ranch subdivisions within the OASP,
conditions would be included to require the preparation and approval of an “Affordable Housing
Agreement” by the City Council, to document the timing, guarantees and related details of the
affordable housing program, to be required as a part of presentation of the initial Final Map for
recordation (see Condition 79). It should be noted that the applicant is subdividing several other
tracts within the OASP and that, in order to partially satisfy its inclusionary housing requirements
for these tracts, the applicant is proposing to dedicate a portion of property on a portion of the
“Pratt Property” to People’s Self Help Housing in accordance with OASP Policy 3.3.4. Although
this proposal is not directly related to VTM #3095, it is important for the Commission to know
how these units fit within the applicant’s entire scheme for the provision of affordable housing.
9 Policy 3.1d notes that new subdivisions shall be designed to achieve at least the low range of units
10 OASP Table A-2 Development Potential by Landowner
11 Policy 3.2.5 identifies a range of R-1 lot sizes from 4,500 to 15,000 square feet
12 Required by Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.040 (Height) and 17.58.040 (Findings to Grant a Use Permit)
13 Program 2.4.1d
14 Policy 3.3.2 requires minimum 10% moderate income and 5% low income affordable dwelling units
15 Policy 3.3.3: “To promote reasonable efficiency a project developer may coordinate with another Orcutt Area property
owner or developer to provide the required affordable dwelling units when the units proposed are less than 10.”
PC1-6
SBDV/ER-2586-2016 / VTM #3095 (Imel Ranch)
Page 7
3.3 OASP Chapter 4: Community Design
OASP Community Design Policies express a desire for a compatible mix of architectural designs,
and include design standards for R-1 districts. Roadway and lot configurations consistent with the
OASP are designed to encourage pedestrian connections and accessibility within the Orcutt
neighborhoods as an alternate to vehicle use. The proposed project meets these objectives for both
internal circulation, and provide for Specific-Plan-regional linkages for the overall Plan area.
The applicant requests rear lot setback exceptions specific to: Lot 6 (15.87 feet), Lot 8 (18.75 feet),
Lot 9 (6.6 feet), and Lot 10 (17.77 feet). Granting rear lot setback exceptions for the specified lots
require adoption of findings pursuant to the City’s Subdivision Regulations (see Attachment 1,
Findings).16 The rear setback identified in OASP Table 3.1 Residential Development Standards is
20 feet for the house, and 0-5 feet for garages and carports. The reasons for the rear lot setback
exceptions include resource constraints due to two creeks traversing the project site and to allow
for adequate internal circulation and meet required street yard setbacks. In other words, in order
for the developer to adequately build the previously-approved extension of Tiburon Road (“B
Street”) and proposed cul-de-sac, meet minimum width standards for “I Street”, comply with
OASP front setback standards, and maintain adequate creek setbacks, a rear yard setback exception
is necessary. Moreover, these lots each back-up to either “B Street” (Lot 6), the unnamed creek
(Lots 8 and 9), or future parkland (Lot 10), all of which functionally serve as additional setback
from other structures. Staff supports the applicant’s request based on the constraints summarized
above; in addition, based on the location of these lots, the reduced rear setback would not reduce
solar exposure or affect other residential lots.17
Architectural plans have not been provided; however, all residential development will comply with
the OASP Design Guidelines at the time of future construction. Staff recommends that due to the
presence of “sensitive” lots adjacent to Orcutt Road, and the potential construction of residences
up to 30 feet in height (if the requested exception is approved), these identified lots should be
subject to the public architectural review process, allowing for heightened levels of public review
and comment on proposed architectural plans. In response to the applicant’s request, staff is
recommending a process under Condition #78 that would allow ARC review and comment on a
series of “model unit” buildings and landscaping designs. This process would provide an
opportunity for public comment on the model units, and allow the Community Development
Director to make final determinations on building design based on this input from the ARC.
3.4 OASP Chapter 5: Circulation
On-site circulation for the proposed VTM includes a “horseshoe” residential street referred to as
“I” Street. “I” Street connects to “B” Street (aka. “Tiburon Road”) at two (2) intersections. Where
“I” Street intersects with “B” Street in the northwestern portion of the project site, the centerline
tangent is 48.25 feet, which is slightly less than the 50 feet required by the City Engineering
16 Refer to Subdivision Regulations Section 16.23.020 Required Findings and Conditions for Exceptions and Section
16.23.030 Exceptions Considered with Tentative Map
17 Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.020.E.2.c Variable Other Yards in Subdivisions.
PC1-7
SBDV/ER-2586-2016 / VTM #3095 (Imel Ranch)
Page 8
Standards (January 1, 2016).18 In other words, the standards require 50 feet of straight roadway at
each intersection approach. Given site topography and the locations of the creek and drainages, the
applicant is requesting a “design exception” to required centerline tangents pursuant to City
Subdivision Regulations Chapter 16.23 Exceptions, Appeals, and Applicant Submittal. Granting
this road design exception requires adoption of findings pursuant to the City’s Subdivision
Regulations (see Attachment 1, Findings).19 Based on review by Public Works, staff supports this
exception request because the property is affected by topographic and natural conditions, the
request is minor (difference of 1.75 feet), and would not result in a public health, safety, or welfare
hazard (see Attachment 1, Findings).
Also, “I” Street intersects with “B” Street approximately 85 feet southwest of Orcutt Road, which
is less than the 250 feet as required by the Transportation Research Board Access Management
Manual, which provides federal standards for safe access. The City applies the standards identified
in this Manual until such time that a local access management policy is adopted pursuant to
Circulation Element Policy 7.2.7 Traffic Access Management. The horseshoe street layout presents
superior design; however, given the realignment of “B” Street, the topography and creek locations
on the Imel property, and the need for two access points, separation distance between Orcutt Road
and the initial “I” Street intersection could not be met. As a result, the applicant has proposed this
particular intersection will be restricted to right-turn-in and right-turn-out only, to resolve any
vehicular movement issues because of the reduced distance to Orcutt Road. Left-turn restrictions
would be accomplished with the construction of a “pork chop” island, which is supported by City
Public Works staff.
3.5 OASP Chapters 6 and 7: Public Utilities and Services
The preliminary on-site infrastructure plans proposed for VTM #3095 have been reviewed by
engineering, public works, and utilities staff and are adequate for serving the proposed project.
Policies directed at meeting fire codes, law enforcement, health, maintenance, transportation and
recycling will be applied to any project approvals, consistent with City codes and regulations as
outlined in the OASP.20
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project has been analyzed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
based on the original 2010 OASP Final EIR (FEIR) and an Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
(IS/MND) prepared and circulated in December 2016, which analyzes the more unique and detailed
components of the proposed project (refer to Attachment 5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration). CEQA allows building upon or “tiering” subsequent environmental review from an earlier
EIR, and in this case the IS/MND has been presented. The applicant has agreed to all mitigation measures
previously adopted upon certification of the 2010 FEIR, and all additional and modified mitigation
18 All streets shall intersect other streets at right angles, and shall have at least 50 feet of centerline tangent, as measured
from the prolongation of the cross-street property line to the angle point or beginning of curve.
19 Refer to Subdivision Regulations Section 16.23.020 Required Findings and Conditions for Exceptions and Section
16.23.030 Exceptions Considered with Tentative Map
20 See OASP Chapter 7 Public Services
PC1-8
SBDV/ER-2586-2016 / VTM #3095 (Imel Ranch)
Page 9
measures that are proposed specific to this project. Both the FEIR and subsequent IS/MND shall
constitute the complete environmental determination for the project.
5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Staff comments provided during review of the proposed project are incorporated into the presented
evaluation and conditions of approval.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6.1 Recommend the City Council deny Vesting Tentative Tract Map #3095. Staff does not
recommend this alternative, because the project complies with the Orcutt Area Specific Plan
and would help meet the City’s housing objectives. Findings of the Planning Commission
concerning such a recommendation would require development of findings to support the
recommendation.
6.2 Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional
information or analysis required.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Draft Resolution for Vesting Tentative Tract Map #3095
2. Applicant’s Project Description
3. Project Plans
4. Staff’s Expanded Analysis
5. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Note: attachments to the Initial Study are
available online at <http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-
development/documents-online/environmental-review-documents/-folder-1889> or by
contacting Shawna Scott, Associate Planner at 805-781-7176).
11 x 17 Plan Set Available to Planning Commissioners for Review.
PC1-9
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT AN INITIAL STUDY-MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND APPROVE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
#3095 AND GRANT EXCEPTIONS FOR HEIGHT (EXCLUDING LOTS 14
AND 15), ROAD DESIGN, REAR YARD SETBACKS (LIMITED TO LOTS
6, 8, 9 AND 10), AND GRADING AND DEVELOPMENT OF DRAINAGE
AND STORMWATER FACILITIES WITHIN THE CREEK SETBACK
(SBDV/ER-2586-2016)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing on January 25, 2017 in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, for the purpose of considering SBDV-2586-2016, a vesting tentative tract map
subdividing an approximately 5.49-acre site into 23 lots;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered an Initial Study-Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS-MND) analyzing the proposed vesting tentative tract map; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,
presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. CEQA Findings, Mitigation Measures, and Mitigation Monitoring
Program. Based upon all the evidence, the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council adopt the following CEQA findings in support of the project:
a) The proposed project, as conditioned herein, is consistent with the requirements of
the Orcutt Area Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) certified
and adopted by the City Council on March 2, 2010, and this action incorporates
those FEIR mitigation measures as detailed herein.
b) A supplemental initial study has been prepared for the project, which addresses
potential environmental impacts which were not identified or detailed in the FEIR
for the Orcutt Area Specific Plan. The Community Development Director has
recommended that the results of that additional analysis be incorporated into a
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) of environmental impacts, and
recommends adoption of additional mitigation measures to those imposed by the
FEIR, all of which are incorporated below.
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-10
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2
c) All potentially significant effects were analyzed adequately in the referenced FEIR
and IS/MND, subject to the following mitigation measures being incorporated into
the project and the mitigation monitoring program:
Aesthetics
AES-3(a) Minimize Lighting on Public Areas. Lighting shall be shielded as shown in the
Specific Plan and directed downward. Lighting shall not be mounted more than 16 feet
high. Streetlights, where they are included, shall be primarily for pedestrian safety, and
shall not provide widespread illumination unless necessary to comply with safety
requirements, as determined by the Public Works Director. Street lighting should focus
on intersections and should be placed between intersections only when it is necessary
to comply with safety requirements, as determined by the Public Works Director. Trail
lighting shall be at a scale appropriate for pedestrians, utilizing bollards, although
overhead lighting may be used where vandalism of bollard lights is a concern. Prior to
development of individual lots, proposed lighting shall be indicated on site plans and
shall demonstrate that spill-over of lighting would not affect nearby residential areas.
AES-3(a) Monitoring Program: Compliance with lighting standards shall be shown on all tract
and residential construction drawings, to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Community
Development Directors.
Air Quality
Operational Phase Mitigation
AQ-1(a) Energy Efficiency. The building energy efficiency rating shall be 10% above what is
required by Title 24 requirements for all buildings within the Specific Plan Area. The
following energy-conserving techniques shall be incorporated unless the applicant
demonstrates their infeasibility to the satisfaction of City Planning and Building
Department staff: increase walls and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements;
orient buildings to maximize natural heating and cooling; plant shade trees along
southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer cooling needs; use roof material with
a solar reflectance value meeting the Environmental Protection Agency/Department of
Energy Star rating; build in energy efficient appliances; use low energy street lighting
and traffic signals; use energy efficient interior lighting; use solar water heaters; and
use double-paned windows. Final building construction plans will include needed
solar conduits required for each residential unit for installing a roof-mounted solar
system, at the option of each owner.
AQ-1(d) Telecommuting. All new homes within the Specific Plan area shall be constructed with
internal wiring/cabling that allows telecommuting, teleconferencing, and tele-learning
to occur simultaneously in at least three locations in each home.
AQ-1(e) Pathways. Where feasible, all cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets shall be links by
pathways to encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel.
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-11
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3
AQ-1(a, d, e) Monitoring Program: Compliance will be reviewed with the subdivision plans
and accompanying architectural review plans and ultimately shown on improvement plans and
construction drawings, and confirmed by the Public Works and Community Development
Directors.
Construction Phase Mitigation
AQ-3(a) Application of CBACT (Best Available Control Technology for construction
related equipment). The following measures shall be implemented to reduce
combustion emissions from construction equipment where a project will have an area
of disturbance greater than 1 acre, or for all projects, regardless of the size of ground
disturbance, when that disturbance would be conducted adjacent to sensitive receptors.
Specific Plan applicants shall submit for review by the Community Development
Department and Air Pollution Control District (APCD) staff a grading plan
showing the area to be disturbed and a description of construction equipment that
will be used and pollution reduction measures that will be implemented. Upon
confirmation by the Community Development Department and APCD, appropriate
CBACT features shall be applied. The application of these features shall occur prior
to Specific Plan construction.
Specific Plan applicants shall be required to ensure that all construction equipment
and portable engines are properly maintained and tuned according to manufacturer's
specifications.
Specific Plan applicants shall be required to ensure that off-road and portable diesel
powered equipment, including but not limited to bulldozers, graders, cranes,
loaders, scrapers, backhoes, generator sets, compressors, auxiliary power units,
shall be fueled exclusively with CARB motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed off-
road diesel is acceptable).
Specific Plan applicants shall be required to install a diesel oxidation catalyst on
each of the two pieces of equipment projected to generate the greatest emissions.
Installations must be prepared according to manufacturer's specifications.
Maximize, to the extent feasible, the use of diesel construction equipment meeting
ARB's 1996 and newer certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel
engines.
Maximize, to the extent feasible, the use of on-road heavy-duty equipment and
trucks that meet the ARB's 1998 or newer certification standard for on-road heavy-
duty diesel engines.
All on and off-road diesel equipment shall not be allowed to idle for more than 5
minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and on job sites to
remind drivers and operators of the 5 minute idling limit.
AQ-3(b) Dust Control. The following measures shall be implemented to reduce PM10
emissions during all Specific Plan construction:
Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible.
Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne
dust from leaving the site. Water shall be applied as soon as possible whenever
wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed (nonpotable) water should be
used whenever possible.
All dirt-stock-pile areas shall be sprayed daily as needed.
Permanent dust control measures shall be identified in the approved Specific Plan
revegetation and landscape plans and implemented as soon as possible following
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 4
completion of any soil disturbing activities.
Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one
month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed
and watered until vegetation is established.
All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using
approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance
by the APCD.
All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc., to be paved shall be completed as soon
as possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading
unless seeding or soil binders are used.
Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved
surface at the construction site.
All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials shall be covered or shall
maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of
load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114.
Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or
wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site.
Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent
paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water shall be used where feasible.
AQ-3(c) Cover Stockpiled Soils. If importation, exportation, or stockpiling of fill material is
involved, soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or
treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. Trucks transporting material shall
be tarped from the point of origin.
AQ-3(d) Dust Control Monitor. On all projects with an area of disturbance greater than 1 acre,
the contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control
program and to order increased watering as necessary to prevent transport of dust off-
site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in
progress.
AIR-1 Naturally Occurring Asbestos. Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) has been
identified as a toxic air contaminant by the California Air Resources Board (ARB).
Under the ARB Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading,
Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations, prior to any grading activities a geologic
evaluation should be conducted to determine if NOA is present within the area that will
be disturbed. If NOA is not present, an exemption request must be filed with the
District. If NOA is found at the site, the applicant must comply with all requirements
outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust
Mitigation Plan and an Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the
APCD. Technical Appendix 4.4 of this Handbook includes a map of zones throughout
SLO County where NOA has been found and geological evaluation is required prior
to any grading. More information on NOA can be found at
http://www.slocleanair.org/business/asbestos.asp.
AIR-2 Asbestos Material in Demolition. Demolition activities can have potential negative air
quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper handling, demolition, and
disposal of asbestos containing material (ACM). Asbestos containing materials could
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-13
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 5
be encountered during demolition or remodeling of existing buildings. Asbestos can
also be found in utility pipes/pipelines (transite pipes or insulation on pipes). If utility
pipelines are scheduled for removal or relocation or a building(s) is proposed to be
removed or renovated, various regulatory requirements may apply, including the
requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (40CFR61, Subpart M - asbestos NESHAP). These requirements include but
are not limited to: 1) notification to the APCD, 2) an asbestos survey conducted by a
Certified Asbestos Inspector, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of
identified ACM. More information on Asbestos can be found at
http://www.slocleanair.org/business/asbestos.php.
AQ-3(a-d), AIR-1, and AIR-2 Monitoring Program: These conditions shall be noted on all
project grading and building plans. The applicant will also be required to comply with existing
regulations and secure necessary permits from the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) before
the onset of grading or demolition activities including, but not limited to additional dust control
measures, evaluation for Naturally Occurring Asbestos. The applicant shall present evidence of a
plan for complying with these requirements prior to issuance of a grading or building permit from
the City. The applicant shall provide the City with the name and telephone number of the person
responsible for ensuring compliance with these requirements. The Building Inspector and Public
Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring.
Biological Resources
B-2(b) Special-Status Plant Buffer. Where special-status plants are found, site development
plans shall be modified to avoid such occurrences with a minimum buffer of 50 feet.
The applicant seeking entitlement shall establish conservation easements for such
preserved areas, prior to issuance of the first building permit for subsequent tracts. The
Specific Plan shall be amended at that time to place these areas formally into open
space, possibly as an overlay area. If total avoidance is economically or technologically
infeasible then plants shall be salvaged and relocated under direction of an approved
botanist, in accordance with Mitigation Measures B-2(c) through B-2(f). If total
avoidance can be achieved, Mitigation Measures B-2(c) through B-2(f) would not be
required. (It should be noted that avoidance is likely to be more cost effective in the
long run compared to mitigation in the form of salvage and relocation). If total
avoidance of special-status plant species can be achieved through Mitigation Measure
B-2(b), Mitigation Measures B-2(c) through B-2(f) would not be required.
B-2(c) Incidental Take Permit. In the event that state listed species are discovered, the
applicant seeking entitlements shall submit to the City signed copies of an incidental
take permit and enacting agreements from the CDFG regarding those species as
necessary under Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code prior to the
initiation of grading. If a plant species that is listed under the federal Endangered
Species Act is discovered, the applicant seeking entitlements shall provide proof of
compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act, inclusive as necessary of signed
copies of incidental take permit and associated enacting agreements, to the City prior
to the initiation of grading.
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-14
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 6
B-2(b, c) Monitoring Program: Compliance with mitigation measures will be reviewed with
plans as part of the architectural review submittal and ultimately shown on improvement plans and
construction drawings. As applicable, the Natural Resources Manager will confirm receipt of
required resource agency permits and approvals. Compliance will be verified by the Natural
Resources Manager in consultation with the Community Development Director.
B-2(d) Special-Status Species CDFG-Approved Mitigation Plan. If total avoidance of the
species occurrences is economically or technologically infeasible, a mitigation program
shall be developed by the City in consultation with CDFG as appropriate. A research
study to determine the best mitigation approach for each particular species to be
salvaged shall be conducted. The special-status plant species mitigation program may
include the following:
The overall goal and measurable objectives of the mitigation and monitoring plan;
Specific areas proposed for revegetation and their size.
Potential sites for mitigation would be any suitable site within proposed open space
depending on the species that is appropriately buffered from development. For a
list of suitable habitats for the mitigation of each species refer to the list in
Mitigation Measure B-2(a).
Specific habitat management and protection concepts to be used to ensure long-
term maintenance and protection of the special-status plant species to be included,
including 4:1 in-kind replacement of removed native (i.e. oak and sycamore) trees,
(i.e.: annual population census surveys and habitat assessments; establishment of
monitoring reference sites; fencing of special-status plant species preserves and
signage to identify the environmentally sensitive areas; a seasonally timed weed
abatement program; and seasonally-timed seed and/or topsoil collection,
propagation, and reintroduction of special-status plant species into specified
receiver sites);
Success criteria based on the goals and measurable objectives to ensure a viable
population(s) on the project site in perpetuity;
An education program to inform residents of the presence of special-status plant
species and sensitive biological resources on-site, and to provide methods that
residents can employ to reduce impacts to these species/resources in protected open
space areas;
Reporting requirements to ensure consistent data collection and reporting methods
used by monitoring personnel; and
Funding mechanism.
B-2(e) Special-Status Plant Monitoring Frequency. Monitoring shall occur annually and
shall last at least five years to ensure successful establishment of all re-introduced or
salvaged plants and no-net-loss of the species or its habitat. In the case of annual plants
it is difficult to determine if there has been a net loss or gain in a five year period.
Therefore an important component of the mitigation and monitoring plan shall be
adaptive management. The adaptive management program shall address both foreseen
and unforeseen circumstances relating to the preservation and mitigation programs.
The plan shall include follow up surveys every five years in perpetuity or until a
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-15
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 7
qualified biologist can demonstrate that the target special-status species has not
experienced a net loss. It shall also include remedial measures to address negative
impacts to the special-status plant species and their habitats (i.e.: removal of weeds,
addition of seeding/planting efforts) if the species is suffering a net loss at the time of
the follow up surveys.
B-2(f) Special-Status Species Habitat Replacement. The primary goal of the mitigation and
monitoring plan is to ensure a viable population and no-net-loss of special-status
species habitat within the project site. To ensure the no-net-loss of a species, the
applicant shall create two acres of occupied special-status species habitat for every one
acre of habitat impacted by project development. If resource agencies require a higher
replacement ratio than 2:1, their requirements would prevail. The creation of habitat
can occur in conjunction with the mitigation/relocation of wildflower field habitat if
the research study indicates that the wildflower field and specific special-status plant
species can be relocated and cohabitate.
B-2(g) Bunchgrass Survey. If occurrences of native perennial bunchgrass habitat of 0.5 acre
or greater containing at least 10% or greater coverage of native perennial bunchgrass
are found that area shall be placed in open space and a deed restriction placed over the
area to protect it in perpetuity. If the area cannot be avoided for economical or
technological reasons, then native grasses including perennial bunchgrasses shall be
incorporated into the landscaping plant palette and the erosion control plan to replace
the lost habitat. The most effective areas to receive native grass seed are graded areas
that will be revegetated adjacent to open space. The acreage ratio of lost native
perennial bunchgrass habitat to habitat replaced shall be no less than 1:1. Native
perennial bunchgrass material shall come from locally collected seed stock to avoid
contamination of the local gene pool. Because perennial bunchgrasses grow slowly at
first, a “nurse” crop consisting of Nuttall’s fescue (Vulpia microstachys), California
brome (Bromus carinatus), and pinpoint clover (Trifolium gracilentum) shall be added
to the mix to stabilize any graded areas while the bunchgrasses become established. No
non-native invasive plant species shall be used in landscaping. California Invasive
Plant Council (Cal-IPC) maintains a list of the most important invasive plants to avoid.
This list shall be used when creating a plant palette for landscaping. Planting equipment
(i.e.: hydroseeding tank and dispensing mechanism) shall be cleaned of remaining seed
from previous applications prior to use on-site. The hydroseed applicator shall be
responsible for ensuring tanks have been properly cleaned of any seed that is not a part
of the specified mix.
Additional clarifying mitigation as recommended by applicant’s biologist (Rincon
August 2014): Pertinent and logistic details regarding the creation of valley
needlegrass grassland habitat shall be outlined in a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan for this sensitive resource. This Plan will be approved by the City prior to its
implementation and shall include the following:
Overall goals and measurable plan objectives,
Identification of specific areas for mitigation,
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-16
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 8
Specific habitat management and protection concepts that will be used to ensure
the long term maintenance and continued protection of valley needlegrass
grassland habitat,
Success criteria to be met,
An education program for residents,
Reporting requirements, and
Identification of funding mechanisms.
The valley needlegrass grassland habitat mitigation areas shall be monitored annually
for at least five years to ensure successful establishment and that no-net-loss of this
sensitive habitat has been achieved. To ensure no-net-loss of valley needlegrass
grassland habitat, the applicant shall create one acre of mitigation habitat for every
one acre of valley needlegrass grassland habitat impacted by implementation of the
project. A copy of all permits, or other correspondence stating that no permit is
necessary, shall be filed with the City prior to project implementation. The City shall
ensure that all the required documentation is received prior to initiation of construction
activities and shall oversee implementation of the Valley Needlegrass Grassland
Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Likewise, the City shall ensure that all the
avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures prescribed are fully
implemented.
B-2(d-g) Monitoring Program: The Special-Status Species Mitigation Plan shall be submitted
and approved by the Natural Resources Manager and Community Development Director prior to
issuance of any grading and construction permits. As applicable, the Natural Resources Manager
will confirm receipt of required resource agency permits and approvals. Compliance with the
Mitigation Plan and submittal of required Monitoring Reports will be verified by the Natural
Resources Manager in consultation with the Community Development Director.
Trees (OASP)
B-3(a) Construction Requirements. Development under the Specific Plan shall abide by the
requirements of the City Arborist for construction. Requirements shall include but not
be limited to: the protection of trees with construction setbacks from trees; construction
fencing around trees; grading limits around the base of trees as required; and a
replacement plan for trees removed including replacement at a minimum 2:1 ratio.
Removal of native trees, including sycamore and oak trees, shall require a minimum
4:1 replacement ratio, to be incorporated into the Special-Status Species Mitigation
Plan and Five-Year Monitoring Plan.
B-3(a) Monitoring Program: The Special-Status Species Mitigation Plan shall be submitted and
approved by the Natural Resources Manager and Community Development Director prior to
issuance of any grading and construction permits. As applicable, the Natural Resources Manager
will confirm receipt of required resource agency permits and approvals. Compliance with the
Mitigation Plan and submittal of required Monitoring Reports will be verified by the Natural
Resources Manager in consultation with the Community Development Director.
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-17
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 9
Riparian Woodland and Wetland Habitat (OASP)
B-4(a) Trail Setbacks. Trails shall be setback out of riparian habitat and out of the buffer area.
The trail shall be a minimum distance of 20 feet from top of bank or from the edge of
riparian canopy, whichever is farther. Trails shall be setback from wetland habitat at a
minimum distance of 30 feet and shall not be within the buffer. Native plant species
that will deter human disturbance shall be planted in the area between the trail and the
wetland/riparian habitat including plants such as California rose (Rosa californica) and
California blackberry (Rubus ursinus). No passive recreational use shall be allowed in
the riparian or wetland habitats or drainage corridors.
B-4(b) Development Setbacks. Development that abuts riparian and wetland mitigation areas
shall also be setback at least 20 feet, and be buffered by an appropriately-sized fence
and/or plants that deter human entry listed in BIO-4(a).
B-4(c) Riparian/ Wetland Mitigation. If riparian and/or wetland habitat are proposed for
removal pursuant to development under the Specific Plan, such development shall
apply for all applicable permits and submit a Mitigation Plan for areas of disturbance
to wetlands and/or riparian habitat. The plan shall be prepared by a biologist familiar
with restoration and mitigation techniques. Compensatory mitigation shall occur on-
site using regionally collected native plant material at a minimum ratio of 2:1 (habitat
created to habitat impacted) in areas shown on FEIR Figure 4.4-2 as directed by a
biologist.
The resource agencies may require a higher mitigation ratio. If the Orcutt Regional
Basin is necessary as a mitigation site for waters of the U.S. and State it shall be
designed as directed by a biologist taking into consideration hydrology, soils, and
erosion control and using the final mitigation guidelines and monitoring requirements
(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004). As noted above, the trail shall be setback out
of the buffer area for riparian and wetland habitat.
The plan shall include, but not be limited to the following components:
1) Description of the project/impact site (i.e.: location, responsible parties,
jurisdictional areas to be filled/impacted by habitat type);
2) goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation project (type(s) and area(s) of habitat to be
established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved, specific functions and values of
habitat type(s) to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved);
3) description of the proposed compensatory mitigation-site (location and size,
ownership status, existing functions and values of the compensatory mitigation-site);
4) implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation-site (rationale for expecting
implementation success, responsible parties, schedule, site preparation, planting plan);
5) maintenance activities during the monitoring period (activities, responsible parties,
schedule);
6) monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation-site (performance standards, target
functions and values, target hydrological regime, target jurisdictional and
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-18
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 10
nonjurisdictional acreages to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved,
annual monitoring reports);
7) completion of compensatory mitigation (notification of completion, agency
confirmation); and
8) contingency measures (initiating procedures, alternative locations for contingency
compensatory mitigation, funding mechanism).
In addition, erosion control and landscaping specifications included in the mitigation
plan shall allow only natural-fiber, biodegradable meshes and coir rolls, to prevent
impacts to the environment and to fish and terrestrial wildlife.
B-4(a-c) Monitoring Program: Compliance with mitigation measures will be reviewed with
plans as part of the architectural review submittal and ultimately shown on improvement plans and
construction drawings. As applicable, the Natural Resources Manager will confirm receipt of
required resource agency permits and approvals. The Mitigation Plan shall be submitted and
approved by the Natural Resources Manager and Community Development Director prior to
issuance of any grading and construction permits. As applicable, the Natural Resources Manager
will confirm receipt of required resource agency permits and approvals. Compliance with the
Mitigation Plan and submittal of required Monitoring Reports will be verified by the Natural
Resources Manager in consultation with the Community Development Director.
Impacts to Wildlife (OASP)
B-5(a) Bird Pre-Construction Survey. To avoid impacts to nesting special-status bird
species and raptors including the groundnesting burrowing owl, all initial ground-
disturbing activities and tree removal shall be limited to the time period between
September 15 and February 1. If initial site disturbance, grading, and tree removal
cannot be conducted during this time period, a pre-construction survey for active nests
within the limits of grading shall be conducted by a qualified biologist at the site no
more than 30 days prior to the start of any construction activities (for ground-nesting
burrowing owl survey [OASP FEIR]). If active nests are located, all construction work
must be conducted outside a buffer zone of 250 feet to 500 feet from the nests as
determined in consultation with the CDFG. No direct disturbance to nests shall occur
until the adults and young are no longer reliant on the nest site. A qualified biologist
shall confirm that breeding/nesting is completed and young have fledged the nest prior
to the start of construction.
B-5(c) Monarch Pre-Construction Survey. If initial ground-breaking is to occur between the
months of October and March a preconstruction survey for active monarch roost sites
within the limits of grading shall be conducted by a qualified biologist at the site two
weeks prior to any construction activities. If active roost sites are located no ground-
disturbing activities shall occur within 50 feet of the perimeter of the habitat.
Construction shall not resume within the setback until a qualified biologist has
determined that the monarch butterfly has vacated the site.
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-19
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 11
B-5(a, c) Monitoring Program: Mitigation measures shall be shown on improvement plans and
construction drawings. The Natural Resources Manager will confirm receipt of required pre-
construction survey reports. Compliance will be verified by the Natural Resources Manager in
consultation with the Community Development Director.
B-6(a) Minimized Roadway Widths. Roadway widths adjacent to riparian and wetland
habitats may be reduced to the minimum width possible, while maintaining Fire
Department Requirements for emergency access, with slower speed limits introduced.
Posted speed limits should be 25 mph.
B-6(b) Culvert Design. Although closed culverts are to be the drainage conveyance method
of last resort per the City Waterways Management Plan, where they are required,
culverts connecting the Plan Area drainage corridors with upstream and downstream
drainage corridors shall be evaluated during the suitability analysis pursuant to
Mitigation Measure B-5(e) to determine their importance to wildlife who could use
them to travel to and from the site. If culverts are found to be of importance to wildlife,
the culverts shall be evaluated for their potential for improvement (i.e. retrofitting,
maintenance, or specific improvements depending on the types of species using them).
The development pursuant to the Specific Plan and the City shall develop a plan for the
improvement of the culverts. Preservation of the wildlife corridors that are present on
the project site can be achieved with sufficient setbacks from riparian and wetland
habitats. Refer to B-4 for mitigation regarding riparian and wetland habitat setbacks.
B-6(c) Educational Pet Brochure. Any development pursuant to the Specific Plan shall
prepare a brochure that informs prospective homebuyers and Home Owners
Association (HOA) members about the impacts associated with non- native animals,
especially cats and dogs, to the project site; similarly, the brochure must inform
potential homebuyers and all HOA members of the potential for coyotes to prey on
domestic animals.
B-6(a-c) Monitoring Program: Mitigation measures shall be shown on improvement plans and
construction drawings. Compliance will be verified by the Natural Resources Manager in
consultation with the Community Development Director.
B-6(d) Landscaping Plan Review. To ensure that project landscaping does not introduce
invasive non-native plant and tree species to the region of the site, the final landscaping
plan shall be reviewed and approved by a qualified biologist. The California Invasive
Plant Council (Cal-IPC) maintains several lists of the most important invasive plants
to avoid. The lists shall be used when creating a plant palette for landscaping to ensure
that plants on the lists are not used. The following plants shall not be allowed as part
of potential landscaping plans pursuant to development under the Specific Plan:
• African sumac (Rhus lancea)
• Australian saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata)
• Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia)
• California pepper (Schinus molle) and Brazilian pepper (S. terebinthifolius)
• Cape weed (Arctotheca calendula)
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-20
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 12
• Cotoneaster (Cotoneaster pannosus), (C. lacteus)
• Edible fig (Ficus carica)
• Fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum)
• French broom (Genista monspessulana)
• Ice plant, sea fig (Carpobrotus edulis)
• Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula)
• Myoporum (Myoporum spp.)
• Olive (Olea europaea)
• Pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana), and Andean pampas grass (C. jubata)
• Russian olive (Elaeagnus angusticifolia)
• Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) and striated broom (C. striatus)
• Spanish broom (Spartium junceum)
• Tamarix, salt cedar (Tamarix chinensis), (T. gallica), (T. parviflora), (T.
ramosissima)
• Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus)
• Athel tamarisk (Tamarix aphylla)
With the exception of poison oak, only those species listed in the Specific Plan’s
Suggested Plant List [Orcutt Area Specific Plan Appendix E] shall not be planted
anywhere on-site because they are invasive non-native plant species. Poison oak is a
native plant species and could be used to deter human entrance to an area such as a
mitigation/enhancement area.
B-6(d) Monitoring Program: Compliance with mitigation measures will be reviewed with
landscaping plans as part of the architectural review submittal and ultimately shown on
improvement plans and construction drawings. Compliance will be verified by the Natural
Resources Manager in consultation with the Community Development Director.
Cultural Resources
CR-1(d) Archaeological Resource Construction Monitoring. At the commencement of
project construction, an orientation meeting shall be conducted by an archaeologist for
construction workers associated with earth disturbing procedures. The orientation
meeting shall describe the possibility of exposing unexpected archaeological resources
and directions as to what steps are to be taken if such a find is encountered. In the event
that prehistoric or historic archaeological resources are exposed during project
construction, constructional earth disturbing work within 50 meters (164 feet) of the
find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated
the nature and significance of the find. After the find has been appropriately mitigated
(e.g., curation, preservation in place, etc), work in the area may resume. The City
should consider retaining a Chumash representative to monitor any field work
associated with Native American cultural material.
If human remains are exposed, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires
that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary
findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
5097.98.
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-21
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 13
CR-3(a) Prohibition of Archaeological Site Tampering. Off-road vehicle use, unauthorized
collecting of artifacts, and other activities that could destroy or damage archaeological
or cultural sites shall be prohibited. Signs shall be posted on the property to discourage
these types of activities and warn of trespassing violations and imposed fines.
CR-1(d), CR-3(a) Monitoring Program: Requirements for cultural resource mitigation, in the
event of unforeseen encounter of materials, shall be clearly noted on all plans for project grading
and construction. Compliance will be verified by the Community Development Director.
Drainage and Water Quality
D-1(a) Erosion Control Plan. Prior to issuance of the first Grading Permit or approval of
improvement plans, the applicant shall submit to the Directors of Community
Development and Public Works for review and approval a detailed erosion control plan
(ECP) to mitigate erosion and sedimentation impacts during the construction period.
The detailed ECP shall be accompanied by a written narrative and be approved by the
City Engineer. At a minimum, the ECP and written narrative should be prepared
according to the guidelines outlined in the DDM and should include the following:
A proposed schedule of grading activities, monitoring, and infrastructure
milestones in chronological format;
Identification of critical areas of high erodibility potential and/or unstable slopes;
Soil stabilization techniques such as short-term biodegradable erosion control
blankets and hydroseeding should be utilized. Silt fences should be installed
downslope of all graded slopes. Straw bales should be installed in the flow path of
graded areas receiving concentrated flows, as well as around storm drain inlets;
Description of erosion control measures on slopes, lots, and streets;
Contour and spot elevations indicating runoff patterns before and after grading;
Filter systems at catch basins (drop inlets) in public streets as a means of sediment
control; and
The post-construction inspection of all drainage facilities for accumulated
sediment, and the clearing of these drainage structures of debris and sediment.
D-1(b) Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. The applicant shall comply with NPDES
General Construction Activities Storm Water Permit Requirements established by the
CWA. Pursuant to the NPDES Storm Water Program, an application for coverage
under the statewide General Construction Activities Storm Water Permit (General
Permit) must be obtained for project development. It is the responsibility of the project
applicant to obtain coverage prior to site construction. The applicant can obtain
coverage under the General Permit by filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State
Water Resource Control Board’s (SWRCB) Division of Water Quality. The filing shall
describe erosion control and storm water treatment measures to be implemented during
and following construction and provide a schedule for monitoring performance. These
BMPs will serve to control point and non-point source (NPS) pollutants in storm water
and constitute the project’s SWPPP for construction activities. While the SWPPP will
include several of the same components as the ECP, the SWPPP will also include BMPs
for preventing the discharge of other NPS pollutants besides sediment (such as paint,
concrete, etc.) to downstream waters.
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-22
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 14
Notice of Intent. Prior to beginning construction, the applicant shall file a Notice of
Intent (NOI) for discharge from the proposed development site.
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. The applicant shall require the building
contractor to prepare and submit a SWPPP to the City forty-five (45) days prior to
the start of work for approval. The contractor is responsible for understanding the
State General Permit and instituting the SWPPP during construction. A SWPPP for
site construction shall be developed prior to the initiation of grading and
implemented for all construction activity on the project site in excess of one acre.
The SWPPP shall include specific BMPs to control the discharge of material from
the site. BMP methods may include, but would not be limited to, the use of
temporary detention basins, straw bales, sand bagging, mulching, erosion control
blankets, silt fencing, and soil stabilizers. Additional BMPs should be implemented
for any fuel storage or fuel handling that could occur on-site during construction.
The SWPPP must be prepared in accordance with the guidelines adopted by the
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The SWPPP shall be also
submitted to the City along with grading/development plans for review and
approval.
Notice of Completion of Construction. The applicant shall file a notice of
completion of construction of the development, identifying that pollution sources
were controlled during the construction of the project and implementing a closure
SWPPP for the site.
D-2(a) Vegetative and Biotechnical Approaches to Bank Stabilization. Vegetative or
biotechnical (also referred to as soil bioengineering) approaches to bank stabilization
are preferred over structural approaches. Bank stabilization design must be consistent
with the SLO Creek Stream Management and Maintenance Program Section 6.
Streambank stabilization usually involves one or a combination of the following
activities:
Regrading and revegetating the streambanks to eliminate overhanging banks and
create a more stable slope;
Deflecting erosional water flow away from vulnerable sites;
Reducing the steepness of the channel bed through installation of grade stabilization
structures;
Altering the geometry of the channel to influence flow velocities and sediment
deposition;
Diverting a portion of the higher flow into a secondary or by-pass channel;
Armoring or protecting the bank to control erosion, particularly at the toe of slopes.
The bank stabilization design will:
Be stable over the long term;
Be the least environmentally damaging and the “softest” approach possible;
Not create upstream or downstream flooding or induce other local stream
instabilities;
Minimize impacts to aquatic and riparian habitat.
Specify that only natural-fiber, biodegradable meshes and coir rolls be used, to
prevent impacts to the environment and to fish and terrestrial wildlife.
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-23
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 15
D-2(c) Riparian Zone Planting. The OASP proposes riparian enhancement of creek
corridors. Section 11 guidelines of the SLO Creek Drainage Design Manual shall be
followed for riparian areas that are modified, created and/or managed for flood damage
reduction, stream enhancement, and bank repair. Linear park terrace vegetation,
streambank repair and channel maintenance projects may require stream channel
modifications that include shaping, widening, deepening, straightening, and armoring.
Many channel management projects also require building access roads for maintenance
vehicles and other equipment. These construction activities can cause a variety of
impacts to existing sensitive riparian and aquatic habitat that, depending on the selected
design alternative, range from slight disturbances to complete removal of desirable
woody vegetation and faunal communities. In urban areas within the SLO creek
watershed, riparian vegetation often provides the only remaining natural habitat
available for wildlife populations.
D-4(a) Compliance with City’s Drainage Design Manual. All drainage improvements must
be constructed in accordance with Section 9 of the City’s Drainage Design Manual.
Either subregional facilities shall be constructed with the first phase of development or
interim (on-site) drainage control shall be constructed. Interim facilities can be
abandoned once regional facilities are available. The applicant shall submit a detention
system plan to the Director of Public Works for review and approval. The detention
basins shall be designed to comply with applicable City drainage design standards and
at a minimum have the following features:
Each basin should include an outlet structure to allow the basin to drain completely
within 48 hours. The amount of outflow can be regulated with a fixed outfall
structure. Such a structure must include an outfall pipe of a size and length that will
give positive control on the outfall head. The principal outlet regulates the design
discharge from the watershed above at a water level in the basin that does not
exceed a certain maximum elevation.
Regional, or larger on-site facilities can pose significant hazards to public safety in
the event of failure. In addition to the outlet control structure, an emergency
overflow spillway (secondary overflow) must be provided. This spillway must
satisfy the following requirements:
− The spillway must be designed to pass the 100-year design storm event if the
outlet works fail or if a runoff event exceeds the design event. The spillway
design will be based on peak runoff rates for developed site conditions,
assuming that the basins fill to the crest of the spillway prior to the beginning
of the design event.
− The spillway must be located so overflow is conveyed safely to the downstream
channel.
Each basin shall be designed with an emergency spillway that can pass the 100-
year storm event with 2-foot freeboard between the design water surface elevation
and the top of the embankment. At a minimum the basin must contain the 10-year
flow without release to emergency spillway. If flows over the emergency spillway
do occur, provisions must be made or be in place that will convey such flows safely.
The design volume of the basin must be sized to include the capacity for a five (5)
year accumulation of sediment. Generally, the basin should be cleared out when it
is half-full, as determined on a marked staff in the bottom of the basin, or a mark
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-24
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 16
on a riser pipe. The amount of potential sedimentation in the basin shall be
determined by a soils engineer or hydrologist, using the procedures such as those
outlined in the Association of Bay Area Government’s (ABAG) Manual of
Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control (May 1995) or as approved by the City
Engineer or County Public Works Director.
The basin and its outfall must be sized so that approximately 85% of the total
stormwater storage, excluding sediment storage in the basin, can be recovered
within twenty-four hours of the peak inflow. A basin overflow system must provide
controlled discharge (emergency spillway) for the 100-year design event without
overtopping the basin embankment and maintain adequate freeboard. The design
must provide controlled discharge directly into the downstream conveyance system
or safe drainage way. The principal outlet must be able to drain the detention facility
within 48 hours of the end of the 100-year storm by gravity flow through the
principal outlet.
Any detention basin design must be accompanied by a soils report. This report
should address allowable safe basin slopes with respect to liquefaction, rapid draw
down, wave action and so forth. Additionally, the report should also address
sedimentation transport from areas above the basin and allowable bearing pressures
where structures are to be placed. The soils report must address the level of the
water table and the effects of the basin excavation on the water table.
D-4(b) Final Drainage Detention System Verification. Final detention basin system designs
for project-specific EIRs within the Orcutt Plan Area shall be submitted to the Public
Works Department. Per the Wastewater Management Plan, the project shall not cause
more than a 5% increase of peak run off rates for the 2-, 50-, and 100-year 24 hour
storm event. Final basin designs shall provide stage-storage-outflow curves and outfall
structure details for all detention basins. The San Luis Obispo SLO/Zone 9 HEC-HMS
hydrology model may be used to model final detention basin system cumulative
downstream impacts should specific projects propose substantial changes to conceptual
design, at the discretion of the City Engineer.
D-5(a) Biofilters. The applicant shall submit to the Director of Community Development
for review and approval a plan that incorporates grassed swales (biofilters) into the
project drainage system where feasible for runoff conveyance and filtering of
pollutants. A preferred alternative to concrete drainage swales to transport the runoff
to roadside ditches, these swales shall be lined with grass or appropriate vegetation to
encourage the biofiltration of sediment, phosphorus, trace metals, and petroleum from
runoff prior to discharge into the formal drainage network. General design guidelines
relevant to optimizing the pollutant removal mechanisms of grassed swales are: 1) a
dense, uniform growth of fine-stemmed herbaceous plants for optimal filtering of
pollutants; 2) vegetation that is tolerant to the water, climatological, and soil conditions
of the project site is preferred; 3) grassed swales that maximize water contact with the
vegetation and soil surface have the potential to substantially improve removal rates,
particularly of soluble pollutants; and 4) pollutant removal efficiency is increased as
the flow path length is increased. General maintenance guidelines for biofilters are
discussed in Mitigation Measure D-5(b). A Best Management Practice (BMP) filter
device shall be installed to intercept water flowing off of proposed parking lot and
roadway surfaces. Water quality BMPs shall be those identified in the California
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-25
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 17
Stormwater Quality association’s BMP handbook. Whenever feasible, the preferred
approach to treating surface runoff will be the use of drainage swales rather than
mechanical devices. The chosen method for treating runoff shall be a proven and
documented pollution prevention technology device that removes oil and sediment
from stormwater runoff, and retains the contaminants for safe and easy removal. The
chosen device shall possess design features to prevent resuspension of previously
collected contaminants and materials, and contain a built-in diversion structure to
divert intense runoff events and prevent scouring of the previously collected
sediments. The filter devices shall be designed and sized to treat the run off from the
first 25 mm (1 inch) of rainfall. The storm water quality system must be reviewed and
approved by the City Director of Public Works.
D-5(b) SWPPP Maintenance Guidelines. Prior to issuance of the first grading permit or
approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall submit to the Director of
Community Development and Director of Public Works for review and approval a
long-term storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) to protect storm water
quality after the construction period. The SWPPP shall include the following additional
BMPs to protect storm water quality:
Proper maintenance of parking lots and other paved areas can eliminate the majority
of litter and debris washing into storm drains and thus entering local waterways.
Regular sweeping is a simple and effective BMP aimed at reducing the amount of
litter in storm drain inlets (to prevent clogging) and public waterways (for water
quality). The project applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of San
Luis Obispo to ensure this maintenance is completed prior to approval of
improvement plans or final maps.
Proper maintenance of biofilters is essential to maintain functionality. The
maintenance of biofilters on the project site will be the responsibility of a
homeowner’s association for the proposed project. Biofilter maintenance would
include: 1) Regular mowing to promote growth and increase density and pollutant
uptake (vegetative height should be no more than 8 inches, cuttings must be
promptly removed and properly disposed of); 2) Removal of sediments during
summer months when they build up to 6 inches at any spot, cover biofilter
vegetation, or otherwise interfere with biofilter operation; and 3) Reseeding of
biofilters as necessary, whenever maintenance or natural processes create bare
spots.
Proper maintenance of detention basins is necessary to ensure their effectiveness at
preventing downstream drainage problems and promoting water quality. Necessary
detention basin maintenance includes: 1) regular inspection during the wet season
for sediment buildup and clogging of inlets and outlets; 2) regular (approximately
every 2-3 years) removal of basin sediment; and 3) if an open detention basin is
used, mowing and maintenance of basin vegetation (replant or reseed) as necessary
to control erosion. A maintenance plan must be developed and provided along with
the design documents. Long-term detention basin maintenance plans must clearly
delineate and assign maintenance and monitoring responsibilities for local and
regional detention basins. Maintenance reports shall be submitted annually to
City’s Public Works Department.
For basins greater than 5,000 m3 (4 ac-ft) storage (i.e. the Upper Fork regional
detention basin), vehicular access for maintenance of the basin and outlet works,
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-26
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 18
removal of sediment, and removal of floating objects during all weather conditions
must be provided. An access road must be provided to the basin floor of all
detention facilities. This road must have a minimum width of 3.7 m (12 ft) and a
maximum grade of 20%. Turnarounds at the control structure and the bottom of the
basin must have a 12-m (40-ft) minimum outside turning radius.
The applicant shall prepare informational literature and guidance on residential
BMPs to minimize pollutant contributions from the proposed development. This
information shall be distributed to all residences at the project site. At a minimum
the information should cover: 1) general information on biofilters and detention
basins for residents concerning their purpose and importance of keeping them free
of yard cuttings and leaf litter; 2) proper disposal of household and commercial
chemicals; 3) proper use of landscaping chemicals; 4) clean-up and appropriate
disposal of yard cuttings and leaf litter; and 5) prohibition of any washing and
dumping of materials and chemicals into storm drains.
The stormwater BMP devices shall be inspected, cleaned and maintained in
accordance with the manufacturer’s maintenance specifications. The devices shall
be cleaned prior to the onset of the rainy season (i.e. November 1st) and
immediately after the end of the rainy season (i.e. May 1st). All devices will be
checked after major storm events. The results of the inspection and maintenance
report shall be submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department.
D-5(c) Pervious Paving Material. Consistent with Land Use Element Policy 6.4.7, the
applicant shall be encouraged to use pervious paving material to facilitate rainwater
percolation. Parking lots and paved outdoor storage areas shall, where feasible, use
pervious paving to reduce surface water runoff and aid in groundwater recharge.
D-5(d) Low Impact Development Practices. In addition to the low impact development
(LID) practices described in the above measures, the Specific Plan shall incorporate the
following as requirements of future development within the area, to the extent
appropriate for type and location of development:
Reduced and disconnected impervious surfaces
Preservation of native vegetation where feasible
Use of tree boxes to capture and infiltrate street runoff
Roof leader flows shall be directed to planter boxes and other vegetated areas
Soil amendments shall be utilized in landscaped areas to improve infiltration rates
of clay soils.
Incorporate rain gardens into landscape design These LID practices shall be utilized
wherever feasible and appropriate to ensure that the pre-development stormwater
runoff volume and pre-development peak runoff discharge rate are maintained, and
that the flow frequency and duration of post development conditions are identical
(to the extent feasible) to those of pre-development conditions. LID practices are
subject to the review and approval of the Regional Water Quality Control Board,
as part of the City’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit
compliance.
D-1(a, b), D-2(a, c), D-4(a-b), D-5(a-d) Monitoring Program: Mitigation measures shall be
shown on grading and construction plans. Monitoring will include Natural Resources Department
staff consultation and implementation at time of landscaping construction plan review and
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-27
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 19
Engineering-Public Works staff at the time of tract construction. Compliance will be verified by
the City Public Works Department in consultation with the Natural Resources Manager.
Geology and Soils
G-2(a) Geotechnical Study Parameters. As stated in Program 3.4.1.a. of the proposed
Specific Plan, a geotechnical study shall be prepared by a State-registered engineering
geologist for the project site prior to site development. This report shall include an
analysis of the liquefaction potential of the underlying materials according to the most
current liquefaction analysis procedures. This study shall also:
evaluate the potential for soil settlement beneath the project site;
evaluate the potential for expansive soils beneath the project site; and
assess the stability of all slopes in the areas where construction is to occur. This
evaluation shall determine the potential for adverse soil stability and discuss
appropriate mitigation techniques. Appropriate setbacks from unstable slopes and
areas below potential rockfall zones shall be implemented. No development of
residential structures is to occur in areas where rockfall hazards could damage
buildings.
The following suitable measures to reduce liquefaction impacts could include but need
not be limited to:
specialized design of foundations by a structural engineer;
removal or treatment of liquefiable soils to reduce the potential for liquefaction;
drainage to lower the groundwater table to below the level of liquefiable soil;
in-situ densification of soils or other alterations to the ground characteristics; or
other alterations to the ground characteristics.
G-3(a) Soil Settlement Engineering. If the project site is identified to be in a high potential
for settlement zone (through the Geotechnical Study required in Mitigation Measure
G-2(a)) the building foundations, transportation infrastructure and subgrades shall be
designed by a structural engineer to withstand the existing conditions, or the site shall
be graded in such a manner as to address the condition. Suitable measures to reduce
settlement impacts could include but need not be limited to:
excavation and recompaction of on-site or imported soils;
treatment of existing soils by mixing a chemical grout into the soils prior to
recompaction; or
foundation design that can accommodate certain amounts of differential settlement
such as posttensional slab and/or ribbed foundations designed in accordance with
Chapter 18, Division III of the Uniform Building Code(UBC).
G-4(a) Expansive Soils Grading. If the project site is identified as having expansive soils
(through the Geotechnical Study required in Mitigation Measure G-2(a)), the
foundations and transportation infrastructure shall be designed by a structural engineer
to withstand the existing conditions, or the site shall be graded in such a manner as to
address the condition. Suitable measures to reduce impacts from expansive soils could
include but need not be limited to:
excavation of existing soils and importation of non-expansive soils; and
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-28
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 20
foundation design to accommodate certain amounts of differential expansion such
as posttensional slab and/or ribbed foundations designed in accordance with
Chapter 18, Division III of the UBC.
G-2(a), G-3(a), G-4(a) Monitoring Program: Monitoring will include review and approval by
City Engineering staff and building inspectors. Compliance will be verified by the Community
Development Director.
Noise
N-1(a) Compliance with City Noise Ordinance. Construction hours and noise levels shall be
compliant with the City Noise Ordinance [Municipal Code Chapter 9.12, Section
9.12.050(6)]. Methods to reduce construction noise can include, but are not limited to,
the following:
Equipment Shielding. Stationary construction equipment that generates noise can
be shielded with a barrier.
Diesel Equipment. All diesel equipment can be operated with closed engine doors
and equipped with factory-recommended mufflers.
Electrical Power. Whenever feasible, electrical power can be used to run air
compressors and similar power tools.
Sound Blankets. The use of sound blankets on noise generating equipment.
N-1(a) Monitoring Program: Requirements for construction noise mitigation shall be clearly
noted on all plans for project grading and construction. Compliance will be verified by the
Community Development Director.
Public Safety
S-2(b) Disclosure. Prior to recordation of final map, the applicant shall develop Covenants,
Codes, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that disclose to potential buyers or leasers that
aircraft over-flights occur, and that such flights may result in safety hazard impacts
should an aircraft accident occur. In addition, prior to recordation of final map,
avigation easements shall be recorded over the entire project site for the benefit of the
SLO County Regional Airport.
S-2b Monitoring Program: Monitoring will include Community Development, City Attorney
and Engineering staff approvals of the Disclosure(s) prior to recordation of a final tract map.
Public Services
PS-2(a) Road Widths, Fire Hydrants. Road widths and internal circulation, as well as the
placement of fire hydrants, shall be designed with the guidance of the Fire Department.
A road system that allows unhindered Fire Department access and maneuvering during
emergencies shall be provided. The San Luis Obispo Fire Department shall review all
improvement plans for proposed development in the Orcutt Area to ensure compliance
with City standards and the Uniform Fire Code.
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-29
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 21
PS-2(b) Non-combustible exteriors. Buildings that are in areas of moderate fire hazard and
which are close to areas of high or extreme fire hazard shall have non-combustible
exteriors.
PS-2(c) Defensible Space. Accessible space free of highly combustible vegetation and
materials shall be provided in the area 30 feet around all structures located within the
moderate wildland fire hazard areas.
PS-3(a) Buildout Date Notification. The applicant shall notify the San Luis Coastal Unified
School District of the expected buildout date of each phase of the project to allow the
District time to plan in advance for new students.
PS-3(b) Statutory School Fees. The applicant shall pay the statutory school fees in effect at the
time of issuance of building permits to the appropriate school districts.
PS-2(a-c) and PS-3(a-b) Monitoring Program: Requirements shall be clearly noted on all plans
for project grading and construction, to be verified by the City Fire Marshal and Community
Development Department.
Transportation and Circulation
TR-1 Prior to issuance of grading and construction permits, the applicant shall submit plans
showing the construction of a “pork chop” island at the intersection of “I” Street and
“B” Street”, which would restrict this intersection to right-turn-in and right-turn-out
movements. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Public Works
Department.
TR-1 Monitoring Program: Requirements shall be clearly noted on all plans for project grading
and construction, to be verified by the City Public Works Department.
Utilities and Service Systems
USS-1 Off-site Water Main Line Extensions to the OASP To Meet Fire Flow and Storage
Standards. Concurrent with applications for Final Map(s), the applicant shall submit
a water supply plan to meet adequate fire flow standards for all lots within each Final
Map. Implementation of such a water line extension plan shall be included as a part of
public improvement plans for the subdivision, and approved by Utilities, Public Works
and the City Engineer. This implementation plan may include a financing plan,
including reimbursement provisions, approved by the City Council at the time of
considering any Final Map. Required water main line extension(s) to the subdivision
shall be completed and operational to the satisfaction of the Utilities Director, prior to
issuance of any building permits for any of the residential and/or commercial uses.
USS-1 Monitoring Program: Compliance will be reviewed and implemented by the City
Engineer’ s office with the subdivision plans and shall be completed prior to issuance of any
building permits for Tract 3095.
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-30
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 22
SECTION 2. Vesting Tract Map Approval with Findings & Conditions. The Planning
Commission does hereby recommend the City Council approve application SBDV/ER-2586-2016
(VTM #3095, “Imel Ranch”), a vesting tentative tract map to create up to 23 residential, drainage,
and open space lots, based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions being
incorporated into the project.
Findings:
a) As conditioned, the design of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the
General Plan because the proposed subdivision respects existing site constraints, will
incrementally add to the City’s residential housing inventory, results in parcels that
meet minimum density standards, and will be consistent with the density, lot sizes and
project amenities established by the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP).
b) The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the
C/OS-SP, and R-1 zoning districts.
c) The design of the vesting tentative tract map and the proposed improvements are not
likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or
substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, since further
development or redevelopment of the proposed parcels will occur consistent with VTM
#3095 and the required architectural review process, which will allow for detailed
review of development plans to assure compliance with City plans, policies, and
standards.
d) As conditioned, the design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for
access through (or use of property within) the proposed subdivision, and the project is
consistent with the pattern of development prescribed in the Orcutt Area Specific Plan.
e) The proposed project will provide affordable housing consistent with the intent of
California Government Code §65915, and in compliance with City policies and the
Housing Element.
f) The tentative map, as conditioned, will comply with all environmental mitigation
measures prescribed herein, and therefore is consistent with the California
Environmental Quality Act, the OASP Final EIR, and the Initial Study-Mitigated
Negative Declaration (IS-MND).
g) The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or
natural heating or cooling opportunities.
Road Design Exception and Rear Yard Setback Exception, Required Findings as Required
by Subdivision Regulations Section 16.23.020:
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-31
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 23
h) The property to be divided is of such size or shape, or is affected by such topographic
conditions, that it is impossible, impractical or undesirable, in the particular case, to
conform to the strict application of the regulations codified in the City Subdivision
Regulations and the Orcutt Area Specific Plan, specifically related to the design of “B
Street” and “I Street”, and rear yard setbacks on Lots 6, 8, 9 and 10.
i) The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not the
sole reason for granting the modification to the design of “B Street” and “I Street”, and
rear yard setbacks on Lots 6, 8, 9, and 10.
j) The modifications will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or
be injurious to other properties in the vicinity.
k) Granting the modifications is in accord with the intent and purposes of these
regulations, and is consistent with the General Plan and with all applicable specific
plans or other plans of the City.
Creek Setback Exception, Required Findings as Required by Zoning Regulations Section
17.16.025.G.4.d Discretionary Exceptions:
l) The placement of drainage and stormwater features, bridge crossing, five-foot wide
pedestrian trail, and temporary grading and restoration within the creek setback
satisfies each of the following required findings:
i. The location and design of the feature receiving the creek setback exception
will minimize impacts to scenic resources, water quality, and riparian habitat,
including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement, as the
features would comply with OASP policies Policy 2.2.6, which states that the
on-site drainage detention areas be designed to support wetlands characteristics
they may provide aesthetic, habitat and flood control benefits, and restoration
of the creek corridor is required as part of the project;
ii. The exception will not limit the city’s design options for providing flood control
measures that are needed to achieve adopted city flood policies because the
features will be designed considering the potential for flooding;
iii. The exception will not prevent the implementation of city-adopted plans, nor
increase the adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans, as the
project is consistent with the OASP and incorporates all mitigation adopted
with the certification of the OASP Final Environmental Impact Report;
iv. There are circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape or topography,
which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that
would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the
vicinity with the same zoning, as site is constrained by internal circulation
requirements and two creeks that traverse the site, and the OASP (Figure 6.3
Drainage Plan) calls for the project site (Imel Ranch) to accommodate a new
individual detention basin and separately mitigating drainage, and the OASP
assumed pedestrian trails may be located within identified creek setbacks, and
no residential building pads are located within the creek setback;
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-32
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 24
v. The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege –an entitlement
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the
same zoning, as the features would serve the public benefit by providing
drainage and stormwater management and public access;
vi. The exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
property in the area of the project or downstream;
vii. Based on the design of proposed drainage and stormwater features, site
development cannot be accomplished with a redesign of the project;
viii. Redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the
property as described in the OASP.
Use Permit Findings Allowing Height Exception as Required by Zoning Regulations
Section 17.16.040 (Height) and 17.58.040 (Findings to Grant a Use Permit):
m) The proposed height exception will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare
of persons working or living at the site or within the vicinity, as the additional height
above 25 feet is limited to five feet (for a total of 30 feet) and would not adversely
affect views of Righetti Hill.
Conditions:
Dedications and Easements
1. Any easements including but not limited to provisions for all public and private utilities,
access, grading, drainage, slope banks, construction, public and private streets, pedestrian
and bicycle facilities, common driveways, and maintenance of the same shall be shown on
the final map and/or shall be recorded separately prior to or concurrent with the map, unless a
deferral is requested by the subdivider and granted by the City. Said easements may be
provided for in part or in total as blanket easements.
2. The final map and improvement plans shall show the extent of all on-site and off-site offers
of dedication. Subdivision improvement plans and or preliminary designs may be required
for any deferred improvements so that dedication limits can be established. These
improvements may include but are not limited to road construction and widening, grading
and drainage improvements, utility easements, bridges, bike bridges, transit stops, bikeways,
pedestrian paths, signalized intersections, traffic circles, and roundabouts.
3. Access rights shall be dedicated to the City along Orcutt Road except at approved driveway
locations and intersections as shown on the tentative map or as otherwise approved by the
city.
4. The subdivider shall dedicate a 10’ wide street tree easement and 6’ public utility easement
(P.U.E.) across the frontage of each lot. Said easements shall be adjacent to and contiguous
with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. A 10’ street tree easement and 15’
P.U.E. shall be provided along the Orcutt Road frontage (tract boundary).
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-33
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 25
5. The subdivider shall dedicate any public Open Space lots in fee to the City in conjunction
with or prior to map recordation. If applicable, the land shall be granted free and clear of all
encumbrances to the satisfaction of the City. Unless otherwise amended by the City, Lot 21
shall be a dedicated to the public and lots 19, 20, 22, and 23 shall be private for maintenance
by the HOA.
6. The subdivider shall include a separate offer of dedication for all sections of the Orcutt Area
Specific Plan (OASP) Street B located outside the phase boundary, but within the tract
boundary in accordance with the tentative map street alignments and map conditions in
conjunction with or prior to map recordation. The developer shall include the offers of
dedication for the Orcutt Road widening improvements in conjunction with or prior to map
recordation. The developer shall include any other out-of-phase offers of dedication related
to the need for public utility extensions related to orderly development of the OASP where
not otherwise located within a public street.
7. All private improvements shall be owned and maintained by the individual property owners
or the Homeowner’s Association (HOA) as applicable. Private improvements include but are
not limited to private pedestrian/bike paths, private open space/creek corridors, drainage
systems, detention basin(s), landscape, landscape irrigation, common areas, pocket parks, and
linear park improvements.
8. The private open space and detention basin Lots 19 20, 22, and 23 along with the proposed
improvements, including but not limited to trails, walls, fences, drainage improvements,
landscaping, and landscape irrigation shall be owned and maintained by the HOA. Private
Open Space easements shall be shown and noted on the final map. A creek maintenance
easement and agreement shall be provided for specific private open corridors in a format
approved by the City. The easement agreement shall include provisions to allow for city
maintenance if necessary.
9. A wildland fuel management/reduction zone along with any required easements and/or zone
limits shall be shown and noted on the final map and improvement plans for reference. The
limits of the zone shall be in accordance with the adopted Fire Code and approved to the
satisfaction of the City Fire Chief and City Natural Resources Manager. The HOA shall be
responsible for wildland fuel management and weed abatement within the established fuel
reduction zone(s) and private open space areas.
10. A notice of requirements or other agreement acceptable to the City of San Luis Obispo may
need to be recorded in conjunction with the Final Map to clarify development restrictions,
conditions of development, and references to any pertinent conditions of approval related to
infrastructure phasing.
11. Off-site easements and/or dedications may be required to facilitate through street access and
public water and sewer main extensions beyond the tract boundary and in accordance with
the OASP. Looped water mains may be required in accordance with the tentative map,
development phasing, and the City water model to provide adequate service and compliance
with adopted codes and standards.
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-34
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 26
12. Off-site dedication/acquisition of property for this public right-of-way purpose is necessary to
facilitate orderly development and the anticipated OASP improvements. The subdivider shall
work with the City and the land owner(s) to acquire the necessary rights-of-way. In the event
the subdivider is unable to acquire said rights-of-way, the City Council may consider lending
the subdivider its powers of condemnation to acquire the off-site right-of-way dedication,
including any necessary slope and drainage easements. If condemnation is required, the
subdivider shall agree to pay all costs associated with the off-site right-of-way acquisition
(including attorney fees and court costs).
13. With respect to all off-site improvements, prior to filing of the Final Map, the subdivider shall
either:
a. Clearly demonstrate their right to construct the improvements by showing title or
interest in the property in a form acceptable to the City Engineer; or,
b. Demonstrate, in writing, that the subdivider has exhausted all reasonable efforts to
acquire interest to the subject property and request that the City assist in acquiring
the property required for the construction of such improvements and exercise its
power of eminent domain in accordance with Government Code Section 66462 .5
to do so, if necessary. subdivider shall also enter into an agreement with the City to
pay all costs of such acquisition including, but not limited to, all costs associated
with condemnation. Said agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the City
Engineer and the City Attorney. If condemnation proceedings are required, the
subdivider shall submit, in a form acceptable to the City Engineer, the following
documents regarding the property to be acquired:
i. Property legal description and sketch stamped and signed by a Licensed
Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying in
the State of California;
ii. Preliminary title report including chain of title and litigation guarantee;
iii. Appraisal of the property by a City approved appraiser. In the course of
obtaining such appraisal, the property owner(s) must be given an
opportunity to accompany the appraiser during any inspection of the
property or acknowledge in writing that they knowingly waived the right to
do so;
iv. Copies of all written correspondence with off-site property owners
including purchase summary of formal offers and counter offers to purchase
at the appraised price.
v. Prior to submittal of the aforementioned documents for City Engineer
approval, the Subdivider shall deposit with the City all or a portion of the
anticipated costs, as determined by the City Attorney, of the condemnation
proceedings. The City does not and cannot guarantee that the necessary
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-35
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 27
property rights can be acquired or will, in fact, be acquired. All necessary
procedures of law would apply and would have to be followed.
Transportation
14. Fire Department access shall be provided for each construction phase to the satisfaction of
the Fire Chief. Phased street construction shall consider and provide suitable Fire
Department hydrant access, circulation routes, passing lanes, and turn-around areas in
accordance with current codes and standards. Building permits for combustible construction
may be withheld until adequate services and access are provided.
15. All public streets shall conform to City Engineering Standards including curb, gutter,
sidewalk, driveway approaches, and curb ramps.
16. The improvement plans shall include all final line-of-sight analysis at certain intersections to
the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. Fence heights and plantings in the areas of
control shall be reviewed in conjunction with the analysis. A separate recorded agreement or
Notice of Requirements for private property owner or HOA maintenance of sight lines may
be required.
17. The public improvement plans shall include full frontage improvements on Orcutt Road from
B Street to the edge of Tract 3095. The plans shall show all improvements including concrete
curb, gutter, and sidewalk per City Engineering Standards and previous entitlements to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Department. Lane configurations and transitions for
improvements along Orcutt Road and/or any phased approach for access prior to the full
development of Orcutt Road, shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Department.
18. The east side of Orcutt Road where widening is proposed or required may terminate in an AC
berm to match the existing adjoining road sections per City Engineering Standards or the
appropriate County rural road standards where approved by the City Engineer. The Orcutt
Road plans shall include all phases of construction including road widening, stormdrain
improvements, culvert extensions, grading/walls, and any water quality BMPs. Some off-site
dedication of property for public right-of-way purposes may be required to facilitate the
Orcutt Road improvements and transitions between the OASP full build-out road section and
adjoining road segments beyond the tract boundaries.
19. The Orcutt Road improvements from B Street to the edge of Tract frontage along with any
transition lanes, shall be constructed as a condition of this map unless a deferral is requested
by the subdivider and granted by the City.
Improvement Plans
20. Improvement plans for the entire subdivision, including any off-site improvements shall be
approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Utilities Department, and Fire
Department prior to map recordation. Off-site improvements may include but are not limited
to roadways, sewer mains, water mains, and stormdrain improvements.
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-36
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 28
21. A separate demolition permit will be required from the Building Division for the removal of
any existing structures and related infrastructure. Building removals are subject to the
Building Demolition Regulations including the additional notification and timing
requirements for any structure over 50-years old.
22. The improvement plans shall clearly show all existing structures, site improvements, utilities,
water wells, septic tanks, leach fields, gas and wire services, etc. The plan shall include any
pertinent off-site water well and private waste disposal systems that are located within
regulated distances to the proposed drainage and utility improvements. The plan shall
include the proposed disposition of the improvements and any proposed phasing of the
removal and demolition. All structures and utilities affected by the proposed lot lines shall
be removed and receive final inspection approvals prior to map recordation.
23. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, the construction of the new public street
shall be phased per City Engineering Standard #7110. The engineer of record shall detail this
requirement for phased street construction in the public improvement plans to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
24. The improvement plan submittal shall include a complete construction phasing plan in
accordance with the conditions of approval. A truck circulation plan and construction
management and staging plan shall be included with the improvement plan submittal.
General truck routes shall be submitted for review and acceptance by the City. The engineer
of record shall provide a summary of the extent of cut and fill with estimates on the yards of
import and export material. The summary shall include rough grading, utility trench
construction, road construction, AC paving, concrete delivery, and vertical construction
loading estimates on the existing public roadways. Unless otherwise waived by the City
Engineer, the developer shall either; 1) complete roadway deflection testing before and after
construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall complete repairs to the pre-
construction condition, or 2) shall pay a roadway maintenance fee in accordance with City
Engineering Standards and guidelines, or 3) shall propose a pavement repair/replacement
program to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to acceptance of the subdivision
improvements.
25. Retaining wall and/or retaining wall/fence combinations along property lines shall be
approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Division and shall conform with the zoning
regulations for allowed combined heights or shall be approved through the ARC or separate
Fence Height exception process.
26. The ARC plans and public improvement plans shall show the location of the proposed mail
receptacles or mail box units (MBUs) to the satisfaction of the Post Master and the City
Engineer. Provide a mailbox unit or multiple units to serve all dwelling units within this
development as required by the Post Master. MBUs shall not be located within the public
right-of-way or public sidewalk area unless specifically approved by the City Engineer.
Contact the Post Master at 543-2605 to establish any recommendations regarding the
number, size, location, and placement for any MBUs.
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-37
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 29
27. Street trees are required as a condition of development. Tree species and planting
requirements shall be in accordance with City Engineering Standards. Street trees shall
generally be planted at the rate of one 15-gallon street tree for each 35 lineal feet of property
frontage. The subdivision improvement plans/landscape plans shall also include street tree
plantings along the Orcutt Road frontages of Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 23.
28. The subdivision/public improvement plans shall clearly show and label all existing trees to
remain and trees to be removed. The plan may include generic information on the limits of
tree removals but shall clearly identify the diameter, species, and location of the trees to
remain.
29. A separate tree preservation plan shall be prepared by a certified arborist and shall be
approved by the City Arborist, Planning Division, and Public Works Department prior to
commencing with demolition, grading, or subdivision improvements. Tree preservation
measures shall be shown and noted on all plans. Some tree preservation measures may need
to be implemented and inspected prior to permit issuance and/or plan approvals.
30. The existing Sycamore tree located on Lot 21 shall be preserved unless otherwise determined
to be impractical by the Public Works and Community Development Directors. The road
and utility improvement plans, alignments, methods, and materials shall be reasonably
adjusted to support the tree preservation efforts. A separate tree preservation surety shall be
provided based on standard tree valuation calculations to be approved by the City Arborist.
Utilities
31. Separate utilities, including water, sewer, gas, electricity, telephone, and cable TV shall be
served to each lot to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and serving utility
companies. All public and private sewer mains shall be shown on the public improvement
plans and shall be constructed per City Engineering Standards unless a waiver or alternate
standard is otherwise approved by the City. The plans shall clearly delineate and distinguish
the difference between public and private improvements.
32. City recycled water or another non-potable water source, shall be used for construction water
(dust control, soil compaction, etc.). An annual Construction Water Permit is available from
the City’s Utilities Department. Recycled water is readily available near the intersection of
Tank Farm Road and Orcutt Road.
33. Final grades and alignments of all public and/or private water, sewer and storm drains shall
be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Department. The
final location, configuration, and sizing of service laterals and meters shall be approved in
conjunction with the review of the building plans, fire sprinkler plans, and/or public
improvement plans.
34. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer and Utilities Engineer, the public sewer
main extension from Street I through open space Lot 21 to the future park shall be limited to
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-38
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 30
a single main. Final line and grade shall be approved by the City prior to submittal of the
subdivision improvement plans and shall consider function, maintenance, stability, and tree
preservations.
35. The improvement plans shall show the location of all domestic and landscape water meters.
The plan shall include service lateral sizes and meter sizes. Sizing calculations may be
required to justify service and meter sizing. Water impact fees related to the irrigation water
meter(s) shall be paid prior to approval of the subdivision improvement plans for each
pertinent map and/or construction phase.
36. Off-site utility improvements shall include the water main upgrade/replacement and extension
from the High Pressure/Bishop pressure zone at the intersection of Tanglewood/Johnson
Avenue to serve the subdivision. Pipe sizing is contingent upon the modeling for the proposed
development phases and looping of the main. Improvement plans may be required to clarify
the design for main extensions. Pressure regulating valves, control valves, or other
appurtenances may be required by the Utilities Department as a part of the required water
system improvements to be certain that the new area interacts properly with the existing water
system.
37. A reimbursement request, if proposed for the off-site water main upgrade, shall include all
pertinent details and analysis in accordance with City and State codes and ordinances and shall
be presented separately to the City Council.
38. A final sewer report and supporting documentation for the OASP public sewer main design
may be required prior to approval of the public improvement plans. Said report shall consider
prior entitlements.
39. The depth of the off-site and on-site sewer mains shall be approved to the satisfaction of the
Utilities Director. The depth analysis shall consider the balance between the possible extent of
the gravity sewer basin needed to serve the other OASP properties and the long-term public
maintenance requirements related to sewer depth.
40. The public improvement plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed overhead wire
utilities. Any existing overhead wiring within the tract boundary and adjoining Orcutt Road
frontage shall be undergrounded in conjunction with the subdivision improvements. Unless
otherwise specifically approved, pole relocation in lieu of undergrounding is not supported.
41. Terminal end utility poles shall be located off-site unless otherwise approved by the City.
Preliminary undergrounding plans for the entire subdivision shall be processed through PGE
and any respective wire utility companies with approval by the City in conjunction with the
approval of the subdivision improvement plans.
42. The subdivider shall install public street lighting and all associated facilities including but not
limited to conduits, sidewalk vaults, fusing, wiring, and luminaires along all public streets
including Orcutt Road per City Engineering Standards.
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-39
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 31
43. Private street lighting shall be provided along the private streets per OASP lighting
requirements, City Engineering Standard and/or as approved in conjunction with the final
ARC approvals.
44. Lighting fixtures, including public streetlights shall not exceed 16’ in height in accordance
with the OASP unless otherwise required for traffic safety. The developer shall submit a
streetlight proposal for approval by the City Engineer for any public streetlights. Street lights
associated with the Orcutt Road improvements shall comply with the Highway Design
Manual and City Engineering Standards.
45. Recycled water mains shall be extended from Tank Farm Road in coordination with other
development in the OASP for irrigation of common area landscaping, streetscape, and any
irrigated park or open space areas. Applicant shall work with the Water Division of the City’s
Utilities Department to determine the appropriate size of all proposed recycled water mains.
46. A reimbursement request, if proposed for the off-site potable and recycled water main
improvements shall include all pertinent details and analysis in accordance with City and State
codes and ordinances and shall be presented separately to the City Council.
47. Irrigation systems using recycled water shall be designed and operated as described consistent
with the City’s Procedures for Recycled Water Use, including the requirement that sites utilizing
recycled water require backflow protection on all potable service connections. Three sets of
irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Building Department for review during the City’s
building permit review process.
48. Final alignment of all water and sewer mains to be approved by the Utilities Department.
49. The project’s Landscape Plan shall be consistent with provisions of the City’s declared drought
emergency (estimated total water use (ETWU) cannot exceed 50 percent of maximum applied
water allowance or (MAWA)).
50. Potable city water shall not be used for major construction activities, such as grading and dust
control, as required under Prohibited Water Uses; Chapter 17.07.070.C of the City’s Municipal
Code. Recycled water is available through the City’s Construction Water Permit program.
Information on the program is available at:
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=5909
Grading, Drainage & Stormwater
51. Any permit approvals required from the Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of
Fish and Wildlife, or the Regional Water Quality Control Board shall be secured and
presented to the City prior to the approval of any subdivision grading and/or improvements
related to the proposed phase of construction. The engineer of record shall review the permit
approvals and any specific permit conditions for compliance with the plans, subdivision
improvement designs, drainage system design/report, and soils report. The engineer of
record shall forward the permits to the City with a notation that the permits have been
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-40
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 32
reviewed and are in general conformance with the design of the improvements.
52. The public improvement plans submittal shall clarify how the creek corridors, and riparian
habitat areas will be preserved to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager. Include
any specific details for the proposed creek crossings in accordance with any preservation
strategies, mitigation measures, and higher governmental authority agency permits. Sensitive
areas shall be staked, fenced, or otherwise delineated and protected prior to commencing
with construction, grading, or grubbing.
53. Expansion index testing or other soils analysis may be required on a lot-by-lot basis for all
graded pads and for in-situ soils on natural lots in accordance with the current Building
Codes or where deemed necessary by the City Engineer or Building Official.
54. Final pad certifications shall include the certification of pad construction and elevations. The
soils engineer shall certify all grading prior to acceptance of the public improvements and/or
prior to building permit issuance. The certification shall indicate that the graded pads are
suitable for their intended use.
55. Cut and fill slopes shall be protected as recommended by the soils engineer. Brow ditches,
drainage collection devices, and drainage piping may be required. The public improvement
plans and final map shall reflect any additional improvements and private easements
necessary for slope protection and maintenance. Unless otherwise approved for public
maintenance by the City Engineer, brow ditches and drainage collection devices upslope of
building sites shall be maintained by the HOA.
56. The subdivision improvement plans shall include a complete grading plan to show site
accessibility in accordance with State and Federal regulations for all public and/or private
roads, transit stops, trails, paths, walks, bikeways, parks, and bridges where applicable. The
submittal shall provide additional analysis if site accessibility will not be provided and for
any feature or element where accessibility is purportedly not required. The accessibility
regulations or guidelines in effect at the time of subdivision improvement construction will
be applied.
57. The subdivision improvement plans, grading plans, drainage plans, and drainage reports shall
show and note compliance with City Codes, Standards and Ordinances, Floodplain
Management Regulations, OASP stormwater provisions, Waterways Management Plan
Drainage Design Manual, and the Post Construction Stormwater Regulations as promulgated
by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, whichever pertinent sections are more
restrictive.
58. The improvement plan submittal shall include a complete grading, drainage, and erosion
control plan. The proposed grading shall consider the proposed construction phasing.
Historic off-site and upslope watersheds tributary to the area of phased construction shall be
considered. Run-on from adjoining developed or undeveloped parcels shall be considered.
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-41
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 33
59. The calculated 100-year flood limits shall be shown and noted on the improvement plans and
an additional final map sheet for reference. The drainage report and final plans shall clarify
the 100-year flood elevations, clearances, and freeboard at all new vehicle bridge, pedestrian
bridge, and pipe bridge crossings of the creek corridors.
60. The engineer of record shall provide a digital copy of the final HEC-RAS modeling to the
City in accordance with Section 4.0 of the Waterways Management Plan Drainage Design
Manual.
61. The developer shall prepare an Operations and Maintenance Manual for review and approval
by the City in conjunction with the development of any stormwater BMPs that will be
maintained by the HOA or by the respective private property owner. A Private Stormwater
Conveyance Agreement shall be recorded in a format provided by the City prior to final
inspection approvals and acceptance of subdivision improvements.
62. The subdivider/developer shall provide notification to private property owners regarding any
individual maintenance responsibility of backyard stormwater BMPs in accordance with
Section E.2 of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Resolution R3-2013-
0032. The notification may be by Notice of Requirements or other method acceptable to the
City.
63. The stormwater improvements other than City Standard public stormdrain infrastructure shall
be maintained by the HOA. A separate encroachment/hold harmless agreement may be
required in conjunction with certain improvements proposed for location within the public
rights-of-way.
64. The final details for the proposed bioretention and private stormwater management facilities
along with any improvements located within the public right-of-way shall be approved to the
satisfaction of the City. The project soils engineer shall review and provide
recommendations on the proposed site constructed and/or proprietary retention systems.
Analysis of impacts to the public improvements, protection of utilities, and methods to
minimize piping and protection of private properties shall be addressed in the final analysis.
65. The proposed detention basin and any pre-basin shall be designed in accordance with the
OASP requirements and the Waterways Management Plan Drainage Design Manual. The
proposed surface runoff and drainage from the detention basin(s) shall include a non-erosive
outlet to an approved point of disposal. The outlet(s) design and location should replicate the
historic drainage where feasible. Any off-site detention basin, temporary basin, or other
drainage improvements shall be approved by the City. Any required or proposed off-site
grading or drainage improvements shall be completed within recorded easements or under an
appropriate license or other private agreement.
66. The subdivider shall submit CC&Rs with the Final Map that establishes a Homeowner's
Association (HOA). The HOA shall provide for the optional automatic annexation of all
other tracts in the OASP as it relates to the shared regional detention basin. The subsequent
tracts may, at their sole discretion, annex to the HOA, or demonstrate to the city's satisfaction
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-42
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 34
how they will provide storm drainage mitigation through their own subdivision design and
HOA. The HOA shall provide for maintenance of all private common area drainage
channels, on-site and/or sub-regional drainage basins, water quality treatment and
conveyance improvements. The CC&Rs shall be approved by the City and shall be recorded
prior to or concurrent with recordation of the Final Map.
67. The naming of the local creeks and drainages shall comply with the appropriate and pertinent
creek naming standards and justifications. The inclusion of the naming on the final map
and/or improvement plans shall be approved by the City prior to map and/or plan approval as
applicable.
68. All bridging, culverting and modifications to the existing creek channels along with any
necessary clearing of existing creek and drainage channels, including tree pruning or
removals, and any necessary erosion repairs shall be in compliance with the OASP, city
standards and policies, the Waterways Management Plan and shall be approved by the
Natural Resources Manager, Public Works Department, Army Corp of Engineers, the
Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Fish & Wildlife.
69. Any existing areas of swale, creek and/or channel erosion shall be stabilized to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer, Natural Resources Manager, and other permitting agencies.
70. The project soils engineer shall review the final grading and drainage plans and Low Impact
Development (LID) improvements. The soils report shall include specific recommendations
related to public improvements, site development, utility, and building pad/foundation
construction related to the proposed LID improvements. The project soils engineering report
shall be referenced on the final map in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations and City
Engineering Standards.
71. The final plans and drainage report shall show and note compliance with City Engineering
Standard 1010.B for spring or perched groundwater management and for water quality
treatment of run-off from impervious streets, drive aisles, parking areas, and trash enclosures.
72. A SWPPP is required in accordance with State and local regulations. A hard copy of the
SWPPP shall be provided to the City in conjunction with the Public Improvement Plan
submittal and subsequent building plan submittals. The WDID number shall be included by
reference on all construction plans sets. An erosion control plan shall be included with the
improvement plans and all building plan submittals for demolitions, grading, and new
construction.
73. The project development and grading shall comply with all air quality standards and
mitigation measures. The developer shall provide written notification from the County Air
Pollution Control District (APCD) regarding compliance with all local, state, and federal
regulations including but not limited to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations related to Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA).
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-43
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 35
Planning Requirements
74. At the time of submittal of a request for a final map, the subdivider shall provide a written
report detailing the methods and techniques employed for complying with all required
environmental mitigation measures as adopted herein.
75. In order to be consistent with the requirements of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan and County
Airport Land Use Plan, the property owner shall grant an avigation easement for the benefit
and protection of the City of San Luis Obispo, the County of San Luis Obispo and the San
Luis Obispo County Airport via an avigation easement document prior to the recordation of
the final map.
76. All owners, potential purchasers, occupants (whether as owners or renters), and potential
occupants (whether as owners or renters) shall receive full and accurate disclosure
concerning the noise, safety, or overflight impacts associated with airport operations prior to
entering any contractual obligation to purchase, lease, rent, or otherwise occupy any property
or properties within the airport area.
77. Provisions for trash, recycle, and green waste containment, screening, and collection shall be
approved to the satisfaction of the City and San Luis Obispo Garbage Company. Proposed
refuse storage area(s) and on -site conveyance shall consider convenience, aesthetics, safety,
and functionality. Ownership boundaries and/ or easements shall be considered in the final
design. Any common storage areas shall be maintained by the HOA and shall be included in
the OCR' s or other property maintenance agreement accordingly. The solid waste solutions
shall be shown and noted on the submittal(s) for Architectural Review Commission (ARC)
approvals.
78. Prior to the issuance of building permits for residential units, the Architectural Review
Commission shall review the residential building program, including building and landscape
improvements, and provide comments and recommendations to the Community
Development Director. Final architectural design approval authority shall be vested in the
Community Development Director.
79. Prior to recordation of any phase of the final map, the applicant shall either enter into an
Affordable Housing Agreement with the City or verify an Affordable Housing Agreement
has already been recorded; which details proposed transfer of affordable units to other
parcels, timing of construction of affordable units, and contains guarantees for failure to
complete any or all affordable housing units required.
80. The invasive species Tamarisk, commonly known as Salt Cedar, shall be removed from the
easterly drainage tangent to Orcutt Road, in coordination with and to the satisfaction of the
Natural Resources Manager.
81. A construction phasing plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Director prior
to the issuance of the first building permit.
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-44
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 36
82. The subdivider shall develop a Construction Management Plan for review and approval by the
Public Works and Community Development Directors. The plan shall be submitted prior to
the issuance of a building permit for proposed project buildings and/ or a phase of buildings.
In addition, the contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the
Construction Management Plan components and provide their contact names and phone
numbers. The Construction Management Plan shall include at least the following items and
requirements:
a. A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major
truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic and pedestrian hours, detour signs if
required, directional signs for construction vehicles, and designated construction
access routes.
b. Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel
regarding when major deliveries and more intensive site work may be occurring,
c. Location of construction staging areas which shall be located on the project site, for
materials, equipment, and vehicles.
d. Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would
minimize impacts on vehicular and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety, and
noise impacts to surrounding neighbors.
e. The applicant shall ensure that the construction contractor employs the following
noise reducing measures:
i. Standard construction activities shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and
7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday.
ii. All equipment shall have sound- control devices no less effective than those
provided by the manufacturer. No equipment shall have un- muffled
exhaust pipes; and
iii. Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as
possible, and they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, or
insulation barriers or other measures shall be incorporated to the extent
possible.
f. Temporary construction fences to contain debris and material and to secure the site.
g. Provisions for removal of trash generated by project construction activity.
h. A process for responding to, and tracking, complaints pertaining to construction
activity.
i. Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for truck routes so that any damage
and debris attributable to the trucks can be identified and corrected.
j. Designated location(s) for construction worker parking.
83. Pursuant to Government Code § 66474.9(b), the subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold
harmless the City and /or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or
proceeding against the City and /or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void
or annul, the approval by the City of this subdivision, and all actions relating thereto, including
but not limited to environmental review.
84. Conditions relating to phasing and timing of infrastructure are approved as contained herein,
or as approved by the Community Development and Public Works Directors during review of
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-45
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 37
public improvement plans and final maps.
85. Financing and " fair share" contribution plans may be submitted for City Council review with
any final map application. The City Council will have sole discretion as to any reimbursement
and /or fee credit programs implemented with said final maps.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2017.
____________________________________
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Planning Commission
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-46
Imel Ranch Vesting Tentative Tract Map Application
Ambient Communities Central Coast Page 1
Project Description and Statements
Imel Parcel
Orcutt Area Specific Plan
I. Project Description
Ambient Communities is requesting the review and approval of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map for the
“Imel Ranch” property within the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP). The property and specific plan area
were recently annexed into the City of San Luis Obispo.1 The OASP was approved on March 2, 2010.2
These actions allocated an estimated 17 single family residential homes on the Imel Ranch property.3
The Imel Ranch property is 5.45 acres4 of gently sloping land traversed by two creeks or seasonal
drainage channels. The proposed plan is to build eighteen (18) market rate single-family detached
homes on lots that range from 5,000 square feet to 9,700 square feet. Most lots are sized in the 5,000 –
7,000 square feet range and the average lot size is 6,280. The proposed lots meet the lot standard
requirements of the specific plan.5
The general layout of the proposed map will provide a public street in a looped or horseshoe
configuration with a cul-de-sac off the interior lot side of the west arm of the horseshoe. The public
street will be designed where the east-west length will provide street parking, but the north-south arms
will not. Signs will be posted where there is no parking allowed. Narrower street is one of the ways we
1 Orcutt Area annexed November 16, 2011
2 Resolution No. 10154 (2010 Series)
3 See Table A-2 of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan
4 Lot Line Adjustment SLAL 15-0104 reduced the property from 6.49 acres listed in the OASP to 5.45 acres now
5 OASP Policy 3.2.5 and Table 3.1
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1-47
Imel Ranch Vesting Tentative Tract Map Application
Ambient Communities Central Coast Page 2
are able to respond to the new requirements for storm water and low impact development to reduce
impervious surfaces. Parking provided meets the minimum requirements. The narrow street design
without on-street parking is encouraged in the OASP.6 In addition, the Water Quality Control Board Post-
Construction Requirements notes, “construct streets, sidewalks, or parking lot aisles to the minimum
widths necessary, provided that public safety or mobility are not compromised.”
The Imel Ranch property main natural feature is two creeks or drainage channels, Crotalo Creek and
another drainage fork or creek that traverses the property. These areas will be maintained as open
space and are protected as valued property features. Appropriate creek setbacks and open space
treatment is provided in the site design.7 Some grading will occur in limited locations of creek setbacks
(see below).
The property has trees scattered in several locations. Most of the trees are identified as non-native (e.g.
Eucalyptus, Pepper), some are actually a threat to healthy habitat. The project will require the removal
of the two large stands of Eucalyptus trees in the center of the property as well as a small stand in the
northwest corner of the property. Several other mostly smaller non-native trees scattered around the
property will be removed. There is a large sycamore in the drainage channel on the west side of the
property that impedes the necessary creek crossing for the roadway. A qualified arborist has
determined the tree to be unhealthy and it will have to be removed. Appropriate mitigation will be
provided for the removal of this tree. There are two oak trees at the southeast corner of the property
that will be retained, but may require pruning. An arborist will provide guidance with respect to tree
mitigation and treatment. The arborist report provides more detail on tree identity and removal and
mitigation.
Due to the constraints of the creek and drainage locations combined with the topography sloping east to
west, a lot line adjustment is needed to push the northern half of the west property line 11 feet further
west. This will encroach into the park and occupy about 2,400 square feet. In order to remedy this
encroachment, the southern half of the west property line will shift 11 feet to the east and take about
2,400 feet from lots 10 and 11. The end result is no loss of park space. There is currently a lot line
adjustment under City review that details this realignment of the west property line.
In order to grade lots 1 – 4, and 10 and 11 to level pads, a fill slope will extend into the park. The fill
slopes behind lots 1-4, 10, and 11 have been reviewed and approved by the City Parks department.
The creek and drainage channel that traverse the property will place some housing, particularly lot 10
and lot 11, in a location where the sewer will possibly have to cross the creek. A sewer line will cross the
park property with final routing to be determined in conjunction with the design of final park layout. An
easement to cross the park will be recorded.
Imel Ranch will create a community that successfully accomplishes the goals and objectives of the OASP.
It will provide a new community that brings needed housing to the City while creating a community that
6 OASP Policy 5.6
7 See OASP Figure 2.1 and policy 2.2.1 and policy 2.2.2 and program 2.2.2C et al
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1-48
Imel Ranch Vesting Tentative Tract Map Application
Ambient Communities Central Coast Page 3
is balanced with the natural setting. The natural beauty will be maintained and protected alongside the
new home sites. In addition, Imel Ranch will provide the ability to align “B” Street with Tiburon Road
and provide continuity with the neighboring Jones Ranch and Righetti Ranch neighborhoods.
The community protects and emphasizes creeks and riparian areas. By focusing the design on balancing
and meeting all of the goals and objectives of the OASP, the Imel Ranch project will provide a livable,
walkable, desirable community with a unique sense of place for all to enjoy.8
II. Statement of Existing and Proposed Land Use
The Imel property consists of single family residential zoning established by the approval of the OASP
and annexation of the property into the City of San Luis Obispo. The zoning currently established
includes the open space zone covering riparian areas including creek setbacks and R-1 low density
zoning.
The proposed Ambient Communities Vesting Tentative Tract Map for Imel Ranch will maintain the same
zoning and land use as indicated in the OASP.
III. Statement of Proposed Landscape Improvements
INTRODUCTION
The project is designed to meet the intent of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan and City of San Luis Obispo
standards. The project includes open space adjacent a creek as well as stormwater collection ponds and
common landscape areas. The project contains eighteen single family lots. The character of the project
is intended to mimic the natural ranch and adjacent creek setting, utilize native and drought-tolerant
vegetation, and reduce impacts to the surrounding environment where possible.
RESIDENTIAL & COMMON LOT AREAS
The landscaping for Imel project area will primarily consist of drought-tolerant trees and shrubs, with
riparian species used along the existing creek corridor and within bio-infiltration areas. Turf will be kept
within the allowable standards set forth within the City and State of California’s latest Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance requirements. Where possible, turf will only be used on a select number of front
yards of residences. The design principles for the Imel Property landscaping includes the following:
Shrubs
• Planting will be located with low groundcover and shrubs in the foreground and layered with
higher plants behind. Blank walls will utilize taller vegetation to soften expanses, and low
planting will be placed along entries, walkways and driveways. Shrubs will be located to
maintain views out of windows.
8 See OASP Section 1.6
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1-49
Imel Ranch Vesting Tentative Tract Map Application
Ambient Communities Central Coast Page 4
• Sun and shade preferences will be considered for planting under trees and along building
foundations.
• Plants will be placed based on their ultimate width at maturity, and shrubs planted under tree
canopies will not grow more that 0.75% of the canopy height.
• Stormwater treatment areas are proposed amongst the private lots. These areas will treat
storm water, and shrubs will consist of riparian species that can tolerate periodic flows and
standing water.
• Shrub areas adjacent to riparian corridors will transition into each other, and not have abrupt
edges designating the zones.
Trees
• Trees with low root damage potential will be used when planted within 5’ of hardscape
elements.
• Trees will be placed so that canopies do not extend into buildings or other trees to alleviate the
need for future pruning.
• Trees should be utilized to provide shading of buildings and parking areas whenever feasible.
CREEK OPEN SPACE
A centrally located open space for the existing creek is proposed within the project, and it is
approximately 0.45 acres in size. The open space will include a pedestrian trail for pedestrians to walk
along the creek bank. Lighting will be limited to primary pedestrian entrances and parking areas as
needed for security.
• Pedestrian Paths: Pedestrian pathways will be provided, and they will be 5 feet wide and will
likely be constructed of decomposed granite or concrete.
IV. Exceptions from Design Standards
The presence of Crotalo Creek and the fork of the creek and the associated creek setbacks and open
space requirements create difficulty in the design and configuration of lots and the subdivision of the
land. The creek meanders and the setbacks are therefore highly irregular and meandering. This
presents many challenges and limitations for lot design and site planning. In addition, the site
topography falling from Orcutt Road to the west creates grading and design challenges. The required
alignment of “B” Street with Tiburon Way also created intersection alignment and stacking difficulty.
Thus some exceptions are being requested with the proposed vesting tentative tract map. Granting
these exceptions will be consistent with Section 16.23.020 of the subdivision regulations.
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1-50
Imel Ranch Vesting Tentative Tract Map Application
Ambient Communities Central Coast Page 5
A. BUILDING HEIGHT 25 FEET IN R-1 ZONE:
Building heights in the R-1 zone on the Imel Ranch tract map could exceed 25 feet from existing grade.
City ordinance requires height to be measured from the “existing topography” of the site.9 The City
Zoning Ordinance defines “existing topography” to be “the topography resulting from grading activity
legally permitted in conjunction with subdivision improvements…” which is design grade in a
subdivision.10
Additionally, the code allows discretion to the director to allow a house in the R-1 zone to exceed the
25-foot building height limit.11 The building heights in the R-1 could exceed 25 feet so this application
will request an adjustment for Houses in the R-1 zone that exceed the 25-feet height limit. The houses
will be less than 30 feet. This provides architecture and design flexibility to better meet the design
objectives of the OASP.
This height exception is not requested for lots 14 and 15 where the structure is limited to single story
within the sensitive height setback along Orcutt Road consistent with OASP Program 2.4.1d. Any second
story will be outside the scenic setback depicted in the OASP
B. GRADING WITHIN CREEK SETBACK:
The creek and drainage channel crossing the property present a challenge to locate useable lots. Creek
areas and setbacks will be avoided to the greatest extent possible. Due to topography and creek
locations there will be some grading that occurs within the creek setback, but outside the defined creek
areas. Once completed, the disturbed areas will be restored to the satisfaction of the City Natural
Resources Manager. In addition, there will be portions of drainage basins and stormwater treatment
basins that encroach into the creek setback. This approach has been preliminarily reviewed and
accepted by the Natural Resources Manager.
C. STORM WATER DETENTION
In order to accomplish the peak flow management requirements in the OASP, detention for Imel is
proposed using a combination of the following methods:
• Onsite detention facilities sized for the 10 year storm to satisfy RWQCB post-construction storm
water requirements. This will consist of either above ground shallow detention basins or below
ground buried detention chambers12.
• “Overdetention” within a Regional Basin downstream of Imel located within Tract 306313.
9 City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Ordinance Section 17.16.040
10 City of san Luis Obispo Zoning Ordinance Section 17.100(E) Definitions – “Existing Topography”
11 City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Ordinance Section 17.24.020(C)
12 See Included Letter to Hal Hannula dated June 20, 2016 “Imel Onsite Detention Strategy”
13 See Included Letter to Hal Hannula dated March 11, 2016 “Imel Offsite Detention Strategy and Feasibility”
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1-51
Imel Ranch Vesting Tentative Tract Map Application
Ambient Communities Central Coast Page 6
D. STREET INTERSECTIONS AND TANGENTS:
Where “I” Street intersects with “B” Street, the centerline tangent is slightly less than the required 50
feet. Given site topography and the locations of the creek and drainages, there was no way to get the
necessary two access points and maintain the centerline tangents. The requirement of the alignment of
“B” Street to Tiburon Way as a condition of the Jones Ranch tentative map exacerbates the challenge as
it adds curves to “B” Street.
Also, where “I” Street intersects with “B” Street, closest to Orcutt Road, is less than 250 feet. The
horseshoe street layout presents superior design. However, given the realignment of “B” Street, the
topography and creek locations on the Imel property, and the need for two access points, separation
distance could not be met. As a result, this particular intersection will be restricted to right turn in and
right turn out only to mitigate the reduced distance to Orcutt Road.
E. REAR YARD:
Lots 6, 8, 9 and 10 will require a rear yard setback exception. In each case the reduction is minor and
generally only needed for a corner of the home not the entire width of the lot or home.
Lot 6 rear yard is constrained due to the realignment of Tiburon Road curving southward. As an offset
lot 6 has a larger side yard.
Lots 8 and 9 are constrained by the creek behind them and the dimension requirements of the cul de
sac. “I” Street is designed to the minimum width to help alleviate the lot setback constraint but cannot
get all the way while the driveway and garage setbacks are being met.
Lot 10 is pushed back in order to accommodate the turn knuckle on I Street while maintaining front
driveway and garage setbacks.
V. Low Impact Development
The project is subject to the RWQCB Post-construction Stormwater Management Requirements and, as
such, will include the following LID components:
• Limit disturbance with a 20-foot setback from top of creek banks and riparian vegetation
• Minimize impervious surfaces by using the minimum required travel lane width where possible
• Direct roof runoff into vegetated areas
• Treat stormwater runoff with vegetated biofiltration areas, underground detention chamber
filtration (for below ground detention), or Filterra planter boxes (for above ground detention).
• Manage peak flows with stormwater detention basins
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1-52
Imel Ranch Vesting Tentative Tract Map Application
Ambient Communities Central Coast Page 7
VI. Inclusionary Housing
The Imel Ranch vesting tentative tract map proposes eighteen (18) housing units of which sixteen (16)
will be market rate units. Thus, Imel Ranch will be required to provide three (3) units that meet the
OASP affordable housing requirements14. Two units will be provided at moderate income level and one
unit at the low income level. These units will be interspersed on the Jones Ranch property via transfer or
sharing of units according to the implementation of policy 3.3.3 which allows the cooperation of
properties to share the affordable housing responsibility. This will bring the total affordable housing
unit sales by Jones Ranch to 20 (9 from Righetti, 3 from Imel and 8 from Jones). The Imel affordable
units will be sold throughout the Jones Property with the 8 units Jones Ranch is responsible to provide
as affordable and will be located in the R-2 units as two bedroom homes there. The affordable units will
be built alongside market rate three bedroom units. The construction and treatment of the affordable
units will be the same as the market rate units in the R-2 attached housing product.
VII. Architecture Review
City subdivision regulations indicate that a Vesting Tentative Tract Map within a specific plan is exempt
from the requirement for architecture review15. The intention of this application is to comply with the
OASP design guidelines. Consistency with the design guidelines and requesting a vesting tentative tract
map with a specific plan exempts this application from architecture review.
VIII. Consistent with Current Zoning
This request for a Vesting Tentative Tract Map is in general conformance with the existing zoning of the
OASP and remains the same with the proposed map application. There is no zone change request with
this application so the proposed zoning is the same as the existing R1 zoning for the subdivided
property.
IX. Status of Approvals from other Agencies
Applications to the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Fish and Wildlife have been
submitted. We can provide those at your request if needed prior to the CEQA review process.
14 OASP Policy 3.3.2
15 Subdivision Regulations Section 16.12.020(B)(1); Page 32 of City of SLO Subdivision Regulations
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1-53
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
ATTACHMENT 3 PC1-54
x x
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
ATTACHMENT 3 PC1-55
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
ATTACHMENT 3 PC1-56
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
ATTACHMENT 3 PC1-57
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
ATTACHMENT 3 PC1-58
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
ATTACHMENT 3 PC1-59
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
ATTACHMENT 3 PC1-60
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
ATTACHMENT 3 PC1-61
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
ATTACHMENT 3 PC1-62
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
ATTACHMENT 3 PC1-63
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
ATTACHMENT 3 PC1-64
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
ATTACHMENT 3 PC1-65
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
ATTACHMENT 3 PC1-66
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
ATTACHMENT 3 PC1-67
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
ATTACHMENT 3 PC1-68
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
ATTACHMENT 3 PC1-69
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
ATTACHMENT 3 PC1-70
10
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
P
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
7
4
0
7
F
8
0
5
.
5
4
4
.
3
8
6
3
ATTACHMENT 3 PC1-71
Expanded Staff Analysis, Imel Ranch Vesting Tentative Tract Map #3095
Imel Ranch consists of 5.49 acres of the overall 231-acre Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP). The
applicant has submitted a “Project Description” narrative (Attachment 2) and Vesting Tentative
Tract Map (VTM) Sheets (Attachment 3), which provide a detailed description of the proposed
project.
Detailed Project Information
Project Location: Within the Orcutt Area Specific Plan; west side of Orcutt Road, immediately
southwest of Tiburon Way, approximately 0.26 mile southeast of Johnson Avenue. APN 004-706-
002.
Project Sponsor and Representative:
Ambient Communities
Attn: Travis Fuentes
979 Osos Street, Suite E
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Todd Smith
Cannon Associates
1050 Southwood Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
General Plan – Orcutt Area Specific Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
Zoning: R-1-SP (Low Density Residential, Specific Plan), C/OS-SP (Conservation/Open Space,
Specific Plan)
Setting and Land Use: The OASP is located in the southeastern portion of the City, bounded by
Orcutt and Tank Farm Roads, and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks near Bullock Lane.
The OASP planning area is 230.85 acres in size, generally divided into thirteen (13) differing
ownerships (and 21 separate parcels) ranging in size from less than 1 acre to the largest holding
being just over 143 acres.
Imel Ranch (the subject site) is located within and along the eastern edge of the OASP,
immediately west of Orcutt Road, opposite from Tiburon Road. Lands surrounding the property
are largely undeveloped within the City (with the few exceptions of sporadic homestead lots and
homes). Jones Ranch is located to Imel Ranch’s immediate north, Righetti Ranch to its west, the
Garay property to the south, and as noted, unincorporated residential larger-lot lands are located
to the east of Orcutt Road in San Luis Obispo County.
The Imel Ranch property is 5.49 acres of gently sloping land traversed by two seasonal creeks (one
named “Crotalo Creek”, the other is unnamed). Onsite vegetation includes non-native annual
grassland, eucalyptus stands, sycamore trees, oak trees, pepper trees, and riparian woodland.
ATTACHMENT 4
PC1-72
Description of the Project: Ambient Communities is requesting approval of a Vesting Tentative
Tract Map (VTM) for the “Imel Ranch” property within the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP).
The OASP and an associated Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) were approved and
certified in March 2010. The OASP designated the property for residential development, and
allocated an estimated 16-17 single-family residential homes on the Imel Ranch property. The
5.49-acre subject property (as part of the overall Specific Plan area) was annexed into the City of
San Luis Obispo in 2012. This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration tiers off the certified
OASP FEIR and addresses any potential impacts not already addressed in the OASP FEIR.
The proposed plan is to build 18 market rate single-family detached homes on lots that range from
5,000 to 9,372 square feet each (Lots 1 through 18). Lighting is proposed to be limited to primary
pedestrian entrances and parking areas as needed for security. The project would connect to public
trails, stormwater management features, roadways and utilities to support internal uses, and also
would also tie into the City’s regional networks of roadways, water, wastewater, and recycled
water utilities. Two lots 0.25 and 0.13 acres each are proposed within the southern and western
portions of the project site (Lots 19 and 20), which would support above or below ground detention
basins. Two centrally located open space parcels for the existing (“unnamed”) creek are proposed
within the project, approximately 0.51 and 0.15 acres each (Lots 21 and 22). A third approximately
0.83-acre open space lot (Lot 23) along the Crotalo Creek corridor is provided in the site design
(see Figure 1 below). Stormwater basins/easements totaling 0.12 acre would be located within the
open space lots.
Figure 1. Proposed Open Space Lots (green)
A total of three affordable housing units are required, which are proposed to be transferred from
the Imel Ranch project (VTM #3095) to Jones Ranch (Tract 3066). The applicant for Imel Ranch,
Ambient Communities, is the same developer for Jones Ranch; therefore, sharing of these
affordable units can be considered.
ATTACHMENT 4
PC1-73
The project includes the removal of three stands of Eucalyptus trees and several other smaller non-
native trees; this analysis also assumes the removal of one large sycamore tree near the “I” Road
creek crossing. Two oak trees in the southeast corner of the property may require pruning.
The project includes the removal of the existing residence and accessory structures onsite; based
on the OASP FEIR and Cultural Resources Study (Rincon Consultants 2016) these structures are
not considered historic resources based on established federal, state, and local criteria.
Site Disturbance and Grading
The project would result in the disturbance of approximately five acres, including 14,000 cubic
yards of cut and 9,500 cubic yards of fill for tract improvements and residential pad grading;
approximately 4,500 cubic yards of soils would be exported from the project site to be used in the
nearby Righetti Ranch subdivision. Approximately 0.57 acre of area proposed for disturbance
would be restored onsite, including graded areas within the 20-foot setback. In addition, residential
pad grading along the western property boundary (Lots 1 through 4, 10, and 11) would require a
fill slope that will extend into the adjacent “Neighborhood Park” lot.
In the event construction of the proposed Imel Ranch subdivision occurs prior to adjacent tracts in
the OASP, additional offsite grading associated with B Street and Orcutt Road improvements
would result in the disturbance of as many as 1.5 additional acres, and would include
approximately 3,000 cubic yards of cut and 2,000 cubic yards of fill; 1,000 cubic yards of soil
would be exported.
Offsite utility improvements would include extension of the wastewater line serving the property
through the Neighborhood Park to “B” Street. The Imel Ranch project will also utilize planned
offsite potable and recycled water line improvements. The potable water line improvements are
under construction by the Righetti Ranch project, including extending a 12-inch water main from
approximately the intersection of Johnson and Tanglewood to the intersection of Orcutt Road and
Tiburon Road. The recycled water line that would serve the Imel Ranch property is proposed to be
extended from Tank Farm Road along Righetti Ranch Road then northeast to serve both the Jones
Ranch and Imel Ranch properties.
Drainage and Stormwater Management
In order to address storm water peak flow management requirements in the OASP, detention for
Imel Ranch is proposed using a combination of the following methods:
Onsite detention facilities sized for the 10-year storm to satisfy Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) post-construction storm water requirements. This will consist
of either above ground shallow detention basins or below ground buried detention
chambers. The location of onsite detention and storm water facilities would partially extend
into the 20-foot creek setback.
“Over-detention” within a Regional Basin downstream of Imel Ranch, located within
Righetti Tract 3063.
Requested Exceptions
On-site circulation for the proposed VTM includes a “horseshoe” residential street referred to as
“I” Street. “I” Street connects to “B” Street (aka. “Tiburon Road”) at two (2) intersections. Where
ATTACHMENT 4
PC1-74
“I” Street intersects with “B” Street in the northwestern portion of the project site, the centerline
tangent is 48.25 feet, which is slightly less than the 50 feet required by the City Engineering
Standards (January 1, 2016). Given site topography and the locations of the creek and drainages,
the applicant is requesting a “design exception” to required centerline tangents pursuant to City
Subdivision Regulations Chapter 16.23 Exceptions, Appeals, and Applicant Submittal.
Also, “I” Street intersects with “B” Street approximately 85 feet southwest of Orcutt Road, which
is less than the 250 feet as required by the Transportation Research Board Access Management
Manual. The horseshoe street layout presents superior design; however, given the realignment of
“B” Street, the topography and creek locations on the Imel property, and the need for two access
points, separation distance between Orcutt Road and the initial “I” Street intersection could not
be met. As a result, the applicant has proposed this particular intersection will be restricted to
right-turn-in and right-turn-out only, to resolve any vehicular movement issues because of the
reduced distance to Orcutt Road. Left-turn restrictions would be accomplished with the
construction of a “pork chop” island (see Attachment 3 Sheets C6 Grading Plan and C9 Sight
Distance Analysis).
City Zoning Regulations identify a maximum height of 25 feet within the R-1 zone, and structures
up to 35 feet are allowed with approval of an administrative use permit. The applicant is
requesting allowance of structures up to 30 feet in height. The applicant’s proposal does not
include a second story on structures within 50 feet of Orcutt Road, consistent with the OASP.
The OASP identifies a 20-foot creek setback, which is applicable to all development. The
applicant proposes approximately 0.60 acre of disturbance within the 20-foot setback. Permanent
improvements within the creek setback include drainage basins (0.38 acre) and one creek crossing
(0.08 acre). Approximately 0.12 acre within the creek setback would be restored for use as
stormwater treatment basins and associated easements. The remaining 0.02 acre would be
temporarily disturbed and restored.
The project includes a Rear Yard Exception for Lots 6, 8, 9, and 10 due to the presence of two
meandering creeks and minimum roadway standards. Residential development standards require
20-foot (house) and up to 5-foot (garage/carport) rear setbacks. The proposed exception would
result in rear yard setbacks ranging from approximately 6 to 19 feet.
Summary
In summary, the proposed project will consist of the following significant features:
1) Eighteen (18) proposed single family residential lots/units, including site preparation,
grading, construction, and operation.
2) Three (3) open space parcels totaling 1.49 acres, proposed for public dedication, which
would remain undeveloped with the exception of a five-foot wide pedestrian trail and
four stormwater treatment basins to be located partially within the 20-foot creek
setback.
3) Site grading to accommodate the residential subdivision, resulting in the need to
“export” excess cut material (proposed to be used in the nearby Righetti Ranch
subdivision, VTM #3063).
ATTACHMENT 4
PC1-75
4) Other associated site improvements including “I” Street, on and offsite utility
extensions, lighting, and landscaping.
5) Offsite road improvements including B Street and Orcutt Road, as identified in the
OASP (in the event these improvements are not constructed in association with
previously approved Jones Ranch and Righetti Tract Maps).
Orcutt Area Specific Plan
Chapter 2: Conservation, Open Space, and Recreation
OASP Policies concerning Conservation, Open Space and Recreation are focused on protection of
Righetti Hill, creeks, wetland habitats, and visual resources, while introducing a variety of parks
and recreational uses for the residents of the Orcutt area. The various land use and development
standards contained in the OASP result in about a third of the planning area remaining in open
space (80 acres).
Policies 2.2.1, 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 designate specific areas for creeks, wetlands, mitigation areas and
riparian open space as a part of the overall OASP, comprising approximately 19 acres. The
proposed project includes three open space lots totaling 1.49 acres located along the unnamed
creek and Crotalo Creek corridors. Stormwater basins/easements totaling 0.12 acre would be
located within the open space lots, and are subject to the City’s Creek and Drainage Design
Manual.1 The applicant’s project description includes the development of five-foot wide pedestrian
pathways within the C/OS zone encompassing the creek, consistent with the OASP.2
The OASP identifies a 20-foot creek setback, which is applicable to all development.3 Grading
and development within the creek setback requires approval of a creek setback exception, and
adoption of findings (see Attachment 1, Findings).4 Proposed uses within the creek setback are
limited to drainage and stormwater features, which would not include structures or paving, and
would be designed as approved by Public Works. A road crossing over the unnamed creek is also
required to provide adequate internal circulation.
The applicant proposes approximately 0.60 acre of disturbance within the 20-foot setback.
Permanent improvements within the creek setback include drainage basins (0.38 acre), which are
required to be designed to support wetlands characteristics pursuant to Policy 2.2.6. The proposed
creek crossing (0.08 acre of permanent disturbance within the creek setback) with an open bottom
culvert structure is allowed via Policy 2.2.3. Approximately 0.12 acre within the creek setback
would be restored for use as stormwater treatment basins and associated easements. The remaining
0.02 acre would be temporarily disturbed and restored. Consistent with Program 2.2.3a, riparian
enhancement along the creek corridors is required, in addition to compliance with mitigation
1 Program 2.2.4b: All bridges, culverts, and modifications to the existing creek channels will comply with the City’s
Drainage Design Manual (DDM) and applicable City policies with consultation and approval from the Director of
Public Works. Additional permits may be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and California
Department of Fish and [Wildlife]. Project proponent will provide proof of consultation and copies of necessary
permits to the City Community Development Director.
2 Policy 2.2.5 notes that some trails will be located parallel to creeks, and may be placed in the outer perimeter of the
creek setback.
3 Program 2.2.2a
4 As required by Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.025.G.d Discretionary Exceptions
ATTACHMENT 4
PC1-76
measures identified in the OASP FEIR.5 Staff supports the applicant’s creek setback exception
request because proposed actions are limited to temporary grading and restoration, and necessary
drainage/stormwater and internal access improvements, and would comply with OASP policies
and mitigation measures outlined above (also refer to Attachment 1, Findings). In addition, final
grading and improvement plans would be reviewed and approved by Public Works staff and the
Natural Resources Manager prior to development.
As discussed in detail in the IS/MND and Biological Resources Assessment (Rincon Consultants
2014), the project would impact special-status species and plant communities, and is subject to
Policy 2.2.8 (avoid or minimize impacts to special-status species, mitigation may include in-kind
replacement at a 2:1 ratio) and mitigation measures identified in the OASP FEIR and additional
project-specific measures presented in the IS/MND.6 The introduced landscaping and other trees
and vegetation must comply with Policy 2.2.7 and OASP FEIR Mitigation Measure B-6(d)
Landscaping Plan Review, which would ensure that invasive non-native plant and tree species are
not introduced by the project.
The project includes the removal of three stands of Eucalyptus trees and several other smaller non-
native trees. The tree removals are proposed as part of the tract improvements; therefore, this issue
is within the Planning Commission’s purview. Two oak trees in the southeast corner of the property
may require pruning. The tree removals are proposed as part of the tract improvements; therefore,
this issue is within the Planning Commission’s purview. Staff supports the necessary tree removal,
as native oak and sycamore trees would be retained onsite and non-native trees would be removed
and replaced with native trees at a 2 to 1 ratio.7. While the environmental analysis assumed the
removal of one large sycamore tree near the “I” Road creek crossing, the applicant has been
working with the City Arborist and Public Works staff towards an engineered solution that
maintains roadway standards and preserves the sycamore tree.8 If the tree cannot be retained
through final engineering design, the loss shall be mitigated at a minimum 4:1 ratio, onsite.9
Regarding recreation, the OASP does not establish any public park areas on the project site;
therefore, this project will contribute to the Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) required by
the OASP, in the form of fee payments to contribute their fair share to improvements constructed
on other properties in the Orcutt Planning Area. OASP regional park facilities would be accessible
to future residents via internal roadways and bicycle and pedestrian paths
Chapter 3: Land Use and Development Standards
Proposed VTM #3095 includes low density residential uses and open space as required by the
OASP. Density assigned to Imel Ranch under the OASP called for between 16-17 residential units;
5 See OASP Mitigation Measures B-4(a) Trail Setbacks; B-4(b) Development Setbacks; B-4(c) Riparian/Wetland
Mitigation; D-1(a) Erosion Control Plan; D-1(b) Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan; D-2(a) Vegetative and
Biotechnical Approaches to Bank Stabilization; and D-2(c) Riparian Zone Planting
6 See OASP Mitigation Measures B-2(b) Special-Status Plant Buffer; B-2(c) Incidental Take Permit; B-2(d) Special-
Status Species CDFG-approved Mitigation Plan; B-2(e) Special-Status Plant Monitoring Frequency; B-2(f) Special-
Status Species Habitat Replacement; B-2(g) Bunchgrass Survey; B-5(a) Bird Pre-construction Survey; B-5(c)
Monarch Pre-construction Survey
7 See OASP Mitigation Measure B-3(a)
8 See OASP Mitigation Measures Trees B-3(a) Construction Requirements; B-6(a) Minimized Roadway Width
9 See OASP Mitigation Measure B-2(d) Special-status Species CDFG-approved Mitigation Plan, as amended
ATTACHMENT 4
PC1-77
at 18 units, the project is substantially consistent with projected residential densities.10 The project
would comply with the cumulative density anticipated in the OASP, which ranges from 892 to 979
residential units.11 For reference, previously approved tracts would provide 304 (Righetti) and 66
(Jones) residential units. Consistent with Policy 3.2.512, the R-1 lots range in size from 5,000 to
9,372 square feet each.
Consistent with Program 2.4.1a (under Policy 2.4.1: Minimize impacts to public views from scenic
roadways), the project plans incorporate the required 20-foot setback from Orcutt Road
(Attachment 3, Constraints and Hazards Map). Lots 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 are located adjacent to
Orcutt Road, and are considered “sensitive” by the OASP; development of these lots require
architectural review. City Zoning Regulations identify a maximum height of 25 feet within the R-
1 zone, and structures up to 35 feet are allowed with approval of an administrative use permit. The
applicant is requesting allowance of structures up to 30 feet in height on all residential lots except
Lots 14 and 15. The project would not include two-story structures within 50 feet of the eastern
property line, consistent with the OASP.13
The applicant proposes to meet the affordable housing requirements identified in OASP Policies
3.3.1 and 3.3.214 by providing two moderate income and one low income level units on Jones
Ranch.15 These three units would be located alongside R-2 market-rate three bedroom units.
While staff supports the transfer of units from Imel Ranch to Jones Ranch, it is important to note
OASP and Housing Element policies that encourage affordable housing to be developed early on
in projects, and if possible in step with the main market-rate housing units. For example, it is
appropriate to time affordable housing with the sequence of market-rate housing, recognizing that
initial grading, infrastructure, and other improvements need to be completed to begin the
production of any housing. Therefore, similar to the previously-approved Jones and Righetti Ranch
subdivisions within the OASP, conditions would be included to require the preparation and
approval of an “Affordable Housing Agreement” by the City Council, to document the timing,
guarantees and related details of the affordable housing program, to be required as a part of
presentation of the initial Final Map for recordation (see Condition #79).
In addition, it should be noted that the applicant is subdividing several other tracts within the OASP
and that, in order to partially satisfy its inclusionary housing requirements for these tracts, the
applicant is proposing to dedicate a portion of property on a portion of the “Pratt Property” to
People’s Self Help Housing in accordance with OASP Policy 3.3.4. Although this proposal is not
directly related to VTM #3095, it is important for the Commission to know how these units fit
within the applicant’s entire scheme for the provision of affordable housing.
Chapter 4: Community Design
10 Policy 3.1d notes that new subdivisions shall be designed to achieve at least the low range of units
11 OASP Table A-2 Development Potential by Landowner
12 Policy 3.2.5 identifies a range of R-1 lot sizes from 4,500 to 15,000 square feet
13 See OASP Program 2.4.1d
14 Policy 3.3.2 requires minimum 10% moderate income and 5% low income affordable dwelling units
15 Policy 3.3.3: “To promote reasonable efficiency a project developer may coordinate with another Orcutt Area
property owner or developer to provide the required affordable dwelling units when the units proposed are less than
10.”
ATTACHMENT 4
PC1-78
OASP Community Design Policies express a desire for a compatible mix of architectural designs,
and include design standards for R-1 districts. Roadway and lot configurations consistent with the
OASP are designed to encourage pedestrian connections and accessibility within the Orcutt
neighborhoods as an alternate to vehicle use. The proposed project meets these objectives for both
internal circulation, and provide for Specific-Plan-regional linkages for the overall Plan area.
The applicant requests rear lot setback exceptions specific to residential lots 6, 8, 9, and 10.
Granting rear lot setback exceptions for the specified lots require adoption of findings pursuant to
the City’s Subdivision Regulations (see Attachment 1, Findings).16 The rear setback identified in
OASP Table 3.1 Residential Development Standards is 20 feet for the house, and 0-5 feet for
garages and carports. The identified exceptions, based on the shortest measurement from the
proposed rear property line and identified building envelope would be as follows:
Lot 6 rear yard is constrained due to the realignment of Tiburon Road curving southward.
As an offset lot 6 has a larger side yard (rear setback 15.87 feet).
Lots 8 and 9 are constrained by the creek and the dimension requirements of the cul-de-
sac. “I” Street is designed to the minimum width to help alleviate the lot setback constraint
but cannot get all the way while the driveway and garage setbacks are being met (rear
setback 18.75 and 6.6 feet, respectively).
Lot 10 is pushed back in order to accommodate the turn knuckle on I Street while
maintaining front driveway and garage setbacks (rear setback 17.77 feet).
In other words, in order for the developer to adequately build the previously-approved extension
of Tiburon Road (“B Street”) and proposed cul-de-sac, meet minimum width standards for “I
Street”, comply with OASP front setback standards, and maintain adequate creek setbacks, a rear
yard setback exception is necessary. Moreover, these lots each back-up to either “B Street” (Lot
6), the unnamed creek (Lots 8 and 9), or future parkland (Lot 10), all of which functionally serve
as additional setback from other structures. Staff supports the applicant’s request based on the
constraints summarized above; in addition, based on the location of these lots, the reduced rear
setback would not reduce solar exposure or affect other residential lots.17
Architectural plans have not been provided; however, all residential development will comply with
the OASP Design Guidelines at the time of future construction. The applicant has proposed that
the provisions of the City’s Subdivision Regulations, and by extension the OASP, permit the
Community Development Director to approve residential development pursuant to a “minor
architectural review permit”.
Staff recommends that due to the presence of “sensitive” lots adjacent to Orcutt Road, and the
potential construction of residences up to 30 feet in height (if the requested exception is approved),
these identified lots should be subject to the public architectural review process, allowing for
heightened levels of public review and comment on proposed architectural plans. In response to
16 Refer to Subdivision Regulations Section 16.23.020 Required Findings and Conditions for Exceptions and Section
16.23.030 Exceptions Considered with Tentative Map
17 Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.020.E.2.c Variable Other Yards in Subdivisions
ATTACHMENT 4
PC1-79
the applicant’ s request, staff is recommending a process under Condition #78 that would allow
Architectural Review Commission (ARC) review and comment on a series of “model unit”
buildings and landscaping designs. This process would provide an opportunity for public comment
on the model units, and allow the Community Development Director to make final determinations
on building design based on this input from the ARC.
Chapter 5: Circulation
As noted on the plan set, improvements to Orcutt Road are required based on an existing condition
of approval for the adjacent Righetti subdivision.18 In addition, the B Street to Tiburon Way
alignment presented in the project’s plan set was approved during the Council’s consideration of
the Righetti and Jones subdivisions, and it is the applicant’s intent to construct these improvements
in association with these previously-approved VTMs. As noted by the applicant and captured on
VTM #3095 Sheet C6 Grading Plan (see Attachment 3), Orcutt Road and B Street public
improvements are required pursuant to conditions of Tract #3063 (Righetti Ranch) and Tract
#3066 (Jones Ranch), respectively, but will be superseded by Tract #3095 (Imel Ranch) if
construction occurs prior to these adjacent tracts. Therefore, public improvements within the
OASP in association with these three subdivisions would occur prior to construction of residences
within Tract #3095 (Imel Ranch).
On-site circulation for the proposed VTM includes a “horseshoe” residential street referred to as
“I” Street. “I” Street connects to “B” Street (aka. “Tiburon Road”) at two (2) intersections. Where
“I” Street intersects with “B” Street in the northwestern portion of the project site, the centerline
tangent is 48.25 feet, which is slightly less than the 50 feet required by the City Engineering
Standards (January 1, 2016)19. In other words, the standards require 50 feet of straight roadway at
each intersection approach. Given site topography and the locations of the creek and drainages,
the applicant is requesting a “design exception” to required centerline tangents pursuant to City
Subdivision Regulations Chapter 16.23 Exceptions, Appeals, and Applicant Submittal. Granting
this road design exception requires adoption of findings pursuant to the City’s Subdivision
Regulations (see Attachment 1, Findings).20
Based on review by Public Works, staff supports this exception request because the property is
affected by topographic and natural conditions, the request is minor (difference of 1.75 feet), and
would not result in a public health, safety, or welfare hazard (see Attachment 1, Findings).
Also, “I” Street intersects with “B” Street approximately 85 feet southwest of Orcutt Road, which
is less than the 250 feet as required by the Transportation Research Board Access Management
Manual, which provides federal standards for safe access. The City applies the standards identified
in this Manual until such time that a local access management policy is adopted pursuant to
Circulation Element Policy 7.2.7 Traffic Access Management. The horseshoe street layout
presents superior design; however, given the realignment of “B” Street, the topography and creek
18 As required by OASP Policy 5.1.a, Existing arterial roadways should be improved where necessary in order to
provide safe, adequate circulation
19 All streets shall intersect other streets at right angles, and shall have at least 50 feet of centerline tangent, as
measured from the prolongation of the cross-street property line to the angle point or beginning of curve.
20 Refer to Subdivision Regulations Section 16.23.020 Required Findings and Conditions for Exceptions and Section
16.23.030 Exceptions Considered with Tentative Map
ATTACHMENT 4
PC1-80
locations on the Imel property, and the need for two access points, separation distance between
Orcutt Road and the initial “I” Street intersection could not be met. As a result, the applicant has
proposed this particular intersection will be restricted to right-turn-in and right-turn-out only, to
resolve any vehicular movement issues because of the reduced distance to Orcutt Road. Left-turn
restrictions would be accomplished with the construction of a “pork chop” island, which is
supported by City Public Works staff.
Chapter 6: Public Utilities
The preliminary on-site infrastructure plans proposed for VTM #3095 have been reviewed by
engineering, public works, and utilities staff and are adequate for serving the proposed project.
Related to delivery of domestic water to the project, new information developed after the FEIR
was certified and after the OASP was adopted (in 2010) is now available from the City’s 2015
Water Master Plan and hydraulic model related to the provision of water service to the Orcutt
Specific Plan Area. To serve the area with adequate fire flow (1,500 gallons per minute for
residential areas), and average daily storage requirements, a 12-inch water main needs to be
extended from the Terrace Hill pressure zone at the intersection of Johnson and Tanglewood Drive
in a south/southeast direction to the intersection of Orcutt Road and B Street. A 12-inch water
main will also need to be extended west to Orcutt and A Street. Under City fire and safety
standards, these improvements will be required prior to occupancy of any new residential uses.
Adequate fire flow and storage, based on the extension into the project, is available for the
development of the Orcutt Specific Plan area. Conditions and mitigation measures of the nearby
Righetti (VTM #3063) and Jones (VTM #3066) were adopted to require these extensions in
coordination with Utility Department requirements. These conditions are replicated in the
proposed VTM #3095 requirements to address these off-site improvements in conjunction with
the project (refer to Condition 36). In addition, a water supply plan is required for all OASP Final
Maps.21
The developer will be required to construct on -site sewer facilities according to City and Uniform
Plumbing Code standards. The project proposal includes internal collection lines; off-site utility
construction is currently proposed as a part of the Righetti Ranch #3063 subdivision to the west,
which would connect the Planning Area to existing main line facilities at Tank Farm Road. From
Tank Farm Road, generated wastewater will follow existing conveyance facilities to the City’s
Water Resource Recovery Facility.
Chapter 7: Public Services
The project site is located within a moderate fire hazard severity zone (see OASP FEIR and Land
Use and Circulation Element Figure 4.8-1 City of SLO Planning Area Fire Hazard Severity
Zones).22 Policies directed at meeting fire codes, law enforcement, health, maintenance,
transportation and recycling will be applied to any project approvals, consistent with City codes
and regulations as outlined in the OASP.23
21 See OASP Mitigation Measure USS-1 Off-site Water Main Line Extensions to the OASP to meet Fire Flow and
Storage Standards
22 Policy 7.2.1 requires non-combustible exteriors and defensible space and Policy 7.2.2 requires compliance with
Fire Code and City fire protection standards
23 See OASP Chapter 7 Public Services
ATTACHMENT 4
PC1-81
1
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016
1. Project Title:
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No. 3095 – Imel Ranch Subdivision
Imel Ranch residential development plans including Vesting Tentative Tract Map #3095
(Application SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016), which would create 18 residential lots for the
development of 18 single-family homes, two lots to support onsite detention basins, and three
open space lots. The project would result in the disturbance of approximately five acres, and
would require the removal of mature trees. The project includes the following exceptions: road
design exception to allow a reduced centerline tangent of 48.25 feet (50 feet is the standard
requirement); residential structure height exceptions on non-sensitive lots up to five feet above
the standard allowed height (25 feet), resulting in structures up to 30 feet in height; temporary
grading (and restoration) and permanent grading and construction of drainage and stormwater
treatment basins within the 20-foot creek setback; and reduced rear yard setbacks ranging from
approximately 6 to 19 feet for proposed Lots 6, 8, 9, and 10 (residential development standards
require a rear setback of 20 feet for residences and five feet for garages/carports).
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Shawna Scott, Associate Planner
Phone: 805-781-7176; Email: sscott@slocity.org
Prepared By:
David Watson, AICP
Watson Planning Consultants, Inc.
www.watsonplanning.us
4. Project Location:
Within the Orcutt Area Specific Plan; west side of Orcutt Road, immediately southwest of
Tiburon Way, approximately 0.26 mile southeast of Johnson Avenue. APN 004-706-002
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-82
2
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Ambient Communities
Attn: Travis Fuentes
979 Osos Street, Suite E
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Project Representative Name and Address:
Todd Smith
Cannon Associates
1050 Southwood Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan – Orcutt Area Specific Plan Designation:
Low Density Residential
7. Zoning:
R-1-SP (Low Density Residential, Specific Plan)
C/OS-SP (Conservation/Open Space, Specific Plan)
8. Description of the Project:
Ambient Communities is requesting approval of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTM) for the
“Imel Ranch” property within the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP). The OASP and an
associated Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) were approved and certified in March
2010. The OASP designated the property for residential development, and allocated an estimated
16-17 single-family residential homes on the Imel Ranch property. The 5.49-acre subject
property (as part of the overall Specific Plan area) was annexed into the City of San Luis Obispo
in 2012. This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration tiers off the certified OASP FEIR and
addresses any potential impacts not already addressed in the OASP FEIR.
The proposed plan is to build 18 market rate single-family detached homes on lots that range
from 5,000 to 9,372 square feet each (Lots 1 through 18). Lighting is proposed to be limited to
primary pedestrian entrances and parking areas as needed for security.
Two lots 0.25 and 0.13 acres each are proposed within the southern and western portions of the
project site (Lots 19 and 20), which would support above or below ground detention basins. Two
centrally located open space parcels for the existing (“unnamed”) creek are proposed within the
project, approximately 0.51 and 0.15 acres each (Lots 21 and 22). A third approximately 0.83-
acre open space lot (Lot 23) along the Crotalo Creek corridor is provided in the site design.
Stormwater basins/easements totaling 0.12 acre would be located within the open space lots. The
project includes the removal of three stands of Eucalyptus trees and several other smaller non-
native trees; this analysis also assumes the removal of one large sycamore tree near the “I” Road
creek crossing. Two oak trees in the southeast corner of the property may require pruning.
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-83
3
Site Disturbance and Grading
The project would result in the disturbance of approximately five acres, including 14,000 cubic
yards of cut and 9,500 cubic yards of fill for tract improvements and residential pad grading;
approximately 4,500 cubic yards of soils would be exported from the project site to be used in
the nearby Righetti Ranch subdivision. Approximately 0.57 acre of area proposed for disturbance
would be restored onsite, including graded areas within the 20-foot setback. In addition,
residential pad grading along the western property boundary (Lots 1 through 4, 10, and 11)
would require a fill slope that will extend into the adjacent “Neighborhood Park” lot. In the event
construction of the proposed Imel Ranch subdivision occurs prior to adjacent tracts in the OASP,
additional offsite grading associated with B Street and Orcutt Road improvements would result
in the disturbance of as many as 1.5 additional acres, and would include approximately 3,000
cubic yards of cut and 2,000 cubic yards of fill; 1,000 cubic yards of soil would be exported.
Offsite utility improvements would include extension of the wastewater line serving the property
through the Neighborhood Park to “B” Street. The Imel Ranch project will also utilize planned
offsite potable and recycled water line improvements. The potable water line improvements are
under construction by the Righetti Ranch project, including extending a 12-inch water main from
approximately the intersection of Johnson and Tanglewood to the intersection of Orcutt Road
and Tiburon Road. The recycled water line that would serve the Imel Ranch property is proposed
to be extended from Tank Farm Road along Righetti Ranch Road then northeast to serve both the
Jones Ranch and Imel Ranch properties.
Drainage and Stormwater Management
In order to address storm water peak flow management requirements in the OASP, detention for
Imel Ranch is proposed using a combination of the following methods:
Onsite detention facilities sized for the 10-year storm to satisfy Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) post-construction storm water requirements. This will consist
of either above ground shallow detention basins or below ground buried detention
chambers. The location of onsite detention and storm water facilities would partially
extend into the 20-foot creek setback.
“Over-detention” within a Regional Basin downstream of Imel Ranch, located within
Righetti Tract 3063.
Requested Exceptions
On-site circulation for the proposed VTM includes a “horseshoe” residential street referred to as
“I” Street. “I” Street connects to “B” Street (aka. “Tiburon Road”) at two (2) intersections.
Where “I” Street intersects with “B” Street in the northwestern portion of the project site, the
centerline tangent is 48.25 feet, which is slightly less than the 50 feet required by the City
Engineering Standards (January 1, 2016). Given site topography and the locations of the creek
and drainages, the applicant is requesting a “design exception” to required centerline tangents
pursuant to City Subdivision Regulations Chapter 16.23 Exceptions, Appeals, and Applicant
Submittal.
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-84
4
Also, “I” Street intersects with “B” Street approximately 85 feet southwest of Orcutt Road,
which is less than the 250 feet as required by the Transportation Research Board Access
Management Manual. The horseshoe street layout presents superior design; however, given the
realignment of “B” Street, the topography and creek locations on the Imel property, and the need
for two access points, separation distance between Orcutt Road and the initial “I” Street
intersection could not be met. As a result, the applicant has proposed this particular intersection
will be restricted to right-turn-in and right-turn-out only, to resolve any vehicular movement
issues because of the reduced distance to Orcutt Road. Left-turn restrictions would be
accomplished with the construction of a “pork chop” island.
City Zoning Regulations identify a maximum height of 25 feet within the R-1 zone, and
structures up to 35 feet are allowed with approval of an administrative use permit. The applicant
is requesting allowance of structures up to 30 feet in height. The applicant’s proposal does not
include a second story on structures within 50 feet of Orcutt Road, consistent with the OASP.
The OASP identifies a 20-foot creek setback, which is applicable to all development. The
applicant proposes approximately 0.60 acre of disturbance within the 20-foot setback. Permanent
improvements within the creek setback include drainage basins (0.38 acre) and one creek
crossing (0.08 acre). Approximately 0.12 acre within the creek setback would be restored for use
as stormwater treatment basins and associated easements. The remaining 0.02 acre would be
temporarily disturbed and restored.
The project includes a Rear Yard Exception for Lots 6, 8, 9, and 10 due to the presence of two
meandering creeks and minimum roadway standards. Residential development standards require
20-foot (house) and up to 5-foot (garage/carport) rear setbacks. The proposed exception would
result in rear yard setbacks ranging from approximately 6 to 19 feet.
Summary
In summary, the proposed project will consist of the following significant features:
1) Eighteen (18) proposed single family residential lots/units, including site preparation,
grading, construction, and operation.
2) Three (3) open space parcels totaling 1.49 acres, proposed for public dedication, which
would remain undeveloped with the exception of a five-foot wide pedestrian trail and four
stormwater treatment basins to be located partially within the 20-foot setback from the
Unnamed Creek.
3) Site grading to accommodate the residential subdivision, resulting in the need to “export”
excess cut material (proposed to be used in the nearby Righetti Ranch subdivision, VTM
#3063).
4) Other associated site improvements including “I” Street, on and offsite utility extensions,
lighting, and landscaping.
5) Offsite road improvements including B Street and Orcutt Road, as identified in the OASP
(in the event these improvements are not constructed in association with previously
approved Jones Ranch and Righetti Tract Maps).
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-85
5
9. Setting and Surrounding Land Uses:
The Orcutt Specific Plan Area (OASP) is located in the southeastern portion of the City, bounded
by Orcutt and Tank Farm Roads, and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks near Bullock
Lane. The OASP planning area is 230.85 acres in size, generally divided into thirteen (13)
differing ownerships (and 21 separate parcels) ranging in size from less than 1 acre to the largest
holding being just over 143 acres.
Imel Ranch (the subject site) is located within and along the eastern edge of the OASP,
immediately west of Orcutt Road, opposite from Tiburon Road. Lands surrounding the property
are largely undeveloped within the City (with the few exceptions of sporadic homestead lots and
homes). Jones Ranch is located to Imel Ranch’s immediate north, Righetti Ranch to its west, the
Garay property to the south, and as noted, unincorporated residential larger-lot lands are located
to the east of Orcutt Road in San Luis Obispo County.
The Imel Ranch property is 5.49 acres of gently sloping land traversed by two seasonal creeks
(one named “Crotalo Creek”, the other is unnamed). Onsite vegetation includes non-native
annual grassland, eucalyptus stands, sycamore trees, oak trees, pepper trees, and riparian
woodland.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
Vesting Tentative Tract Map approval, Architectural Review, Tree Removal
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.):
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District
Regional Water Quality Control Board
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Fish and Wildlife Service
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-86
6
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.
Aesthetics
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Population / Housing
Agriculture Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Public Services
X
Air Quality
Hydrology / Water Quality
Recreation
X
Biological Resources
Land Use / Planning X
Transportation / Traffic
Cultural and Tribal Cultural
Resources
Mineral Resources
Utilities / Service Systems
Geology / Soils
Noise X
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FISH AND GAME 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 Wildlife fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Wildlife 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
15073(a)).
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-87
7
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,
based on the analysis and mitigation requirements of the 2010 Orcutt Area Specific Plan Final
EIR, and the specific analysis incorporated herein, 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.
X
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant” impact(s) or “potentially
significant unless mitigated” impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. A tiered 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.
December 20, 2016
David Watson, AICP, Watson Planning Consultants, Inc. Date
F o r : M i c h a e l C o d r o n
Tyler Corey, Principal Planner Community Development Director
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-88
8
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
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-89
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
9
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,5,
18,19,
28,29
--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?
5,12,
18,19,
27
--X--
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
18,19,
27
--X--
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
10,12,
18,19
--X--
Evaluation
As evaluated in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update EIR (October
2014), the City is located eight miles from the Pacific Ocean and lies at the convergence of two main drainages: the Los Osos
Valley which drains westerly into Morro Bay via Los Osos Creek, and San Luis Valley which drains to the south-southwest
into the Pacific Ocean at Avila Beach via the San Luis Obispo Creek. The topography of the city and its surroundings is
generally defined by several low hills and ridges such as Righetti Hill, Bishop Peak and Cerro San Luis. These peaks are also
known as Morros and provide scenic focal points for much of the City. The Santa Lucia Mountains and Irish Hills are the
visual limits of the area and are considered the scenic backdrop for much of the City. The surrounding hills have created a
hard urban edge where development has remained in the lower elevations.
The project site vicinity exhibits quality views of nearby natural landmarks, including Islay Hill, Righetti Hill and the Coast
Range to the northeast and is visually separated from the City core by the Orcutt Area and Broad Street-Highway 227.
a) The primary scenic value from within and around the subject site is the view to the east of the Santa Lucia foothills and
Righetti Hill to the south. As a road of “high or moderate scenic value,” development along this segment of Orcutt Road
would require a design that preserves vistas and views to the maximum extent possible. The OASP FEIR acknowledges that
views of the rural residential area to the east would still be maintained from the road, even with proposed development.
However, the EIR included programs to fulfill the goal of minimizing impacts to surrounding views. The programs pertinent
to this site include:
1. A minimum 20-foot wide landscaped setback along Orcutt Road.
2. A minimum 60-foot setback of residential development from the centerline of Orcutt Road.
3. A minimum 50-foot setback from the property line adjoining Orcutt Road that would restrict buildings to one story.
Buildings with more than a single story shall be set back at least 50 feet from Orcutt Road to maintain views.
4. Architectural Review Commission (ARC) review of development plans on sensitive sites to ensure that the site
design preserves views while allowing for reasonable development.
5. ARC approval of landscape plans for the street setbacks that screen development in foreground views, but also
maintain backdrop views.
Development plans show the dedication of additional street right-of-way along Orcutt Road, the added landscape buffer of 20
feet, and buildings that will comply with the height limitations and setbacks described above. As suggested in 1 above,
Program 2.4.1a of the OASP requires a 20-foot landscaped setback/buffer zone along Orcutt Road. The OASP reference is to
establishing a minimum 20-foot landscaped zone (or visual “buffer”) between Orcutt Road and the project, with two-story
buildings to be set back an additional 30 feet for a total of at least 50 feet (OASP Program 2.4.1d). The ARC will review
detailed landscaping plans with their final review of project plans after Vesting Tentative Map approval.
Original requests for height limit exceptions on lots and associated building pads located within 50 feet of the eastern
property boundary along Orcutt Road have been eliminated from the project. The applicants have submitted a “sight-line”
analysis that describes unobstructed views of Righetti Hill in the vicinity of the proposed VTM #3095 (Source 29; Cannon
2016). With the proposed scale and height of planned development and its distance from the main scenic corridors, the
project will not create a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-90
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
10
b) The segment of Orcutt Road, which bounds the project site to the east, is considered a local scenic roadway. One of the
main objectives of the OASP and companion EIR is to protect natural habitats, including creeks, hills, wetlands, and
corridors between these habitats. The subject site currently contains a house, small accessory structures, fencing, and
landscaping. The site is mostly sloping grassland, but does contain two degraded riparian corridors (Crotalo Creek and an
unnamed creek channel) and stands of eucalyptus and other mature trees. City design policies and the OASP encourage
sensitivity to site grading, while acknowledging the need for more landform modifications than might otherwise occur with
smaller “infill” projects. In effect, this largely rural area will be developed with urban residential uses. This changes the
character and visual backdrop in the immediate neighborhood. While not rising to the level of “potentially adverse
environmental impacts”, the grading and associated retaining features will be conditioned to address visual and design
considerations as part of final architectural design efforts. The new residential units and site improvements will also follow
OASP criteria for building design and street improvements. In this manner the appearance of new development will meet the
design criteria of the OASP, as well as the City’s Community Design Guidelines, and be considered “self-mitigating” in its
compliance with established design and appearance standards. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant for
this project.
c) The existing visual character of the site will change from semi-rural to an urbanized area as a result of the proposed
project, pursuant to and consistent with the objectives of the OASP. The project is required to be consistent with the
distribution of land uses and design standards stated in the OASP to ensure that the appearance of the development is
acceptable and that no new buildings block scenic views. As proposed, the project does not result in development that is
incompatible with the adopted OASP, surrounding neighborhood development, or planned and approved projects within the
OASP, and in this regard is self-mitigating. Ultimately, the design of residential units along Orcutt Road will require the
review and approval of the ARC to ensure consistency with the City’s Community Design Guidelines as well as the OASP,
and must demonstrate compliance with City codes and standards addressing aesthetics and visual character. Regardless, the
proposed development would contribute to the project-wide effect on the aesthetic character of the site vicinity through
alteration of viewsheds from Orcutt and Tank Farm Roads. The OASP FEIR considered this a cumulative significant and
unavoidable impact and considered and approved overriding considerations.
d) The prior OASP FEIR acknowledges that future development pursuant to the OASP will introduce new sources of light,
glare and nighttime illumination, as is typical with residential and commercial development. However, the OASP FEIR
determined that such light and glare impacts can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels during site specific project
review. This is accomplished through compliance with lighting design standards set forth in the OASP and with other
adopted City standards including the Night Sky Preservation Ordinance. The new light source will not adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the established San Luis Obispo urbanized area because construction and lighting standards require new
light to be shielded and directed downward to ensure glare and fugitive light does not leave the OASP site. Therefore,
impacts from new sources of light or glare will be less than significant with OASP FEIR Mitigation Measure AES-3(a)
Minimize Lighting on Public Areas, which would be implemented through compliance with the OASP Lighting Standards
(Program 4.4.3a addressing light spacing and height, shielding and spillover restrictions). Building lighting for the project
will also be reviewed and approved by the ARC in compliance with the aforementioned standards of the OASP and Chapter
17.23 of the City’s Zoning Regulations (Night Sky Preservation Ordinance).
Conclusion: With the subdivision, building design, and lighting requirements discussed above and incorporated into the
project proposal, the project will have a less than significant impact on aesthetics. OASP FEIR-required Mitigation Measure
AES-3(a) ensures compliance with city regulations in minimizing lighting and glare impacts to less than significant.
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?
1, 18,
19
--X--
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract?
1, 12,
18, 19
--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?
1,12,
18, 19
--X--
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-91
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
11
Evaluation
The city is located in the heart of San Luis Obispo County and the Central Coast Region, both of which are important key
agricultural centers within the State of California. The region’s agricultural industry is an important part of the local
economy. It provides employment and income directly for those in agriculture, and it helps drive growth in the tourism
industry, which in turn generates further economic activity and consumer spending.
a) The project site is not designated as Prime or Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The site has not been
actively farmed and is not zoned for agricultural use. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in conversion of such
agricultural resources to nonagricultural use.
b) The project site is not located on active farmland, nor is it under a Williamson Act contract. The project site is designated
for residential uses in the General Plan and Orcutt Area Specific Plan. The project site is surrounded by developed properties
and public streets. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract.
c) Redevelopment of the site will not contribute to conversion of active farmland. No impacts to existing on site or off site
agricultural resources are anticipated with development of the project site.
Conclusion: No impacts to agricultural resources are anticipated.
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?
1,2,
9,11,
13,19,
20,22
--X--
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
1,2,
19,20
--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)?
1,2,
19,20
--X--
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
1,2
19,20
--X--
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
1,2,
19,20
--X--
Evaluation
Air quality in the San Luis Obispo region of the County is characteristically different than other regions of the County (i.e.,
the Upper Salinas River Valley and the East County Plain), although the physical features that divide them provide only
limited barriers to transport pollutants between regions. The County is designated nonattainment for the one‐hour California
Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for ozone and the CAAQS for respirable particulate matter (PM10). The County is
designated attainment for national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Measurements of ambient air quality from the
monitoring station at 3220 South Higuera Street are representative of local air quality conditions.
a-e) The San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLO APCD) adopted the 2001 Clean Air Plan (CAP), which is a
comprehensive planning document intended to provide guidance to the SLO APCD and other local agencies, including the
City, on how to attain and maintain the state standards for ozone and PM10. Conservation and Open Space Element Policy
2.3.2 states that the City will help the SLO APCD implement the CAP. The CAP presents a detailed description of the
sources and pollutants which impact the jurisdiction, future air quality impacts to be expected under current growth trends,
and an appropriate control strategy for reducing ozone precursor emissions, thereby improving air quality. The proposed
project is consistent with the general level of development anticipated and projected in the CAP. The OASP FEIR determined
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-92
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
12
that the OASP is consistent with the population assumptions of the CAP, and identified Land Use and Transportation Control
Measures that would be implemented through the OASP, including but not limited to a pedestrian and bicycle path and traffic
flow improvements on Tank Farm Road and Orcutt Road. The OASP FEIR identified a significant and unavoidable air
quality impact due to the OASP’s inconsistency with the CAP (development outside of the 2010 City Limits and Urban
Reserve Line [URL] and resulting rate of increase in vehicle trips and miles traveled), and associated adopted findings
included a statement of overriding considerations. At the time OASP was approved, the Imel Ranch property was located
within the URL. The Imel Ranch subdivision is consistent with the approved OASP, and is currently located within the City
Limits and URL; therefore, no new impacts would occur that were not addressed in the OASP FEIR.
Both the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established
ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants
representing safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality
standards cover what are called “criteria” pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in
criteria documents. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas that do not
meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. As mentioned above, San Luis Obispo is currently designated as
nonattainment for the state and federal ambient air quality standards for ground-level ozone and PM2.5 as well as the state
standards for PM10.
CEQA Appendix G states the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution
control district may be relied upon to make significance determinations. The April 2012 CEQA Air Quality Handbook is
provided by the SLO APCD for the purpose of assisting lead agencies in assessing the potential air quality impacts from
residential, commercial and industrial development, and includes thresholds of significance and mitigation measures specific
to criteria pollutants and impacts to sensitive receptors. Under CEQA, the SLO APCD is a responsible agency for reviewing
and commenting on projects that have the potential to cause adverse impacts to air quality.
According to the 2010 OASP FEIR, project construction will generate short-term emissions of air pollutants. Construction-
related emissions would primarily be dust (particulates) generated from soil disturbance and combustion emissions generated
by construction equipment. Such dust generation was determined to be a short-term potentially significant impact on air
quality that could exceed established state and federal thresholds for regional or local air quality or otherwise conflict with
City and County air quality plans or programs. In addition, the project site is situated near existing residential units thereby
potentially exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The project will be required by OASP
mitigation measures to submit final tract construction plans to SLO APCD for comment and/or approval prior to grading and
construction of the project.
The OASP FEIR also noted long-term (“operation”) air quality impacts that would result from on-going emissions generated
by the project-related vehicular trips, as well as additional natural gas combustion for space and water heating and additional
fuel combustion at power plants for electricity consumption. To reduce vehicular trips associated with the project, the design
includes many sustainable features and is not auto-centric. The project includes a network of pedestrian pathways internally
throughout that will connect to the property to the south as well as Orcutt Road.
Construction Significance Criteria:
Temporary impacts from the project, including but not limited to excavation and construction activities, hauling, vehicle
emissions from heavy duty equipment, and exposure to naturally occurring asbestos and asbestos containing materials, has
the potential to create dust and emissions that exceed air quality standards for temporary and intermediate periods. The
project is subject to OASP FEIR Mitigation Measure AQ-3(a) Application of CBACT (Best Available Control Technology
for construction related equipment), which would mitigate potential construction-related impacts to less than significant.
Naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) has been identified by the state Air Resources Board as a toxic air contaminant.
Serpentine and ultramafic rocks are very common throughout California and may contain naturally occurring asbestos. The
SLO APCD has identified that NOA may be present throughout the City of San Luis Obispo (APCD 2012 CEQA Handbook,
Technical Appendix 4.4). Pursuant to SLO APCD requirements and ARB Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for
Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (93105), the applicant is required to provide geologic
evaluation prior to any construction activities and comply with existing regulations regarding NOA, if present. Based on
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-93
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
13
compliance with identified mitigation (AIR-1) and existing regulations, this potential impact would be less than significant.
The project will include extensive grading and demolition, which has the potential to disturb asbestos that is often found in
older structures as well as underground utility pipes and pipelines (i.e. transite pipes or insulation on pipes). Demolition can
have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper handling, demolition, and disposal of
asbestos containing material (ACM). As such, the project may be subject to various regulatory jurisdictions, including the
requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40CFR61, Subpart M – asbestos
NESHAP). Based on compliance with identified mitigation (AIR-2) and these existing regulations, potential impacts would
be less than significant.
Construction activities can generate fugitive dust, which could be a nuisance to local residents and businesses in close
proximity to the proposed construction site. Because the project would require approximately five acres of ground
disturbance (and an additional potential 1.5 acres of ground disturbance for off-site road improvements), and is within 1,000
feet of sensitive receptors, OASP FEIR Mitigation Measures AQ-3(a) Application of CBACT, AQ-3(b) Dust Control, AQ-
3(c) Cover Stockpiled Soils, and AQ-3(d) Dust Control Monitor related to fugitive dust emissions during proposed
construction activities are required.
Construction equipment itself can be the source of air quality emission impacts, including sensitive receptor exposure to
diesel particulates and other air pollutants, and may be subject to California Air Resources Board or SLO APCD permitting
requirements. This includes portable equipment, 50 horsepower (hp) or greater or other equipment listed in the SLO APCD’s
2012 CEQA Handbook, Technical Appendices, page 4-4. Truck trips associated with the proposed excavated site material
(i.e., soils) that will be cut from the site may also be a source of emissions subject to SLO APCD permitting requirements,
subject to a specifically selected truck route. The specific requirements and exceptions in the regulations can be reviewed at
the following web sites: www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/2485.pdf and www.arb.ca.gov/react/2007/ordiesl07/frooal.pdf.
Impacts related to vehicle and heavy equipment emissions are considered mitigable under the OASP FEIR subject to SLO
APCD review and/or approval of project plans, and compliance with Best Available Control Technologies (BACT) identified
in OASP FEIR Mitigation Measure AQ-3(a) Application of CBACT.
Operational Screening Criteria for Project Impacts:
Table 1-1 of the SLO APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that the construction of 18 single family residences
would not exceed the threshold of significance for reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Therefore,
operational phase air quality impacts are considered less than significant. In addition, the project would incorporate required
operational mitigation measures identified in the OASP FEIR; refer to AQ-1(a) Energy Efficiency, AQ-1(d) Telecommuting,
and AQ-1(e) Pathways.
Based on the project’s consistency with the OASP and incorporation of OASP FEIR mitigation measures, the project would
not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant.
The project includes the development of a residential project, as anticipated by the OASP R-1 zoning, and does not include
any land uses which would have the potential to produce objectionable odors in the area. There are no uses in the area that
generate objectionable odors that may significantly affect future residents, employees, or visitors. Therefore, potential
impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion: With implementation of OASP FEIR-required and supplemental construction and operational mitigation
measures as referenced above, the project will have a less than significant impact on air quality.
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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
1,5,
15,17,
19,27,
33,35,
36,37
--X--
b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or 1,5, --X--
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-94
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
14
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
15,17,
19,27,
33,35,
36,37
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?
1,5,
15,17,
19,27,
33,35,
36,37
--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?
1,5,
15,17,
19,27,
33,35,
36,37
--X--
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
1,5,
15,17,
19,27,
33,35,
36,37
--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?
1,5,
15,17,
19,27,
33,35,
36,37
--X--
Evaluation
The urbanized area of the City of San Luis Obispo lies at the convergence of two main geologic features: Los Osos Valley,
which drains westerly into Morro Bay via Los Osos Creek, and San Luis Valley, which drains to the south‐ southwest into the
Pacific Ocean at Avila Beach via San Luis Obispo Creek. San Luis Obispo, Stenner, Prefumo, and Brizzolara Creeks, and
numerous tributary channels pass through the city, providing important riparian habitat and migration corridors connecting
urbanized areas to less‐developed habitats in the larger area surrounding the City.
Much of area outside the city limits consist of open rangeland grazed year round, along with agricultural lands dominated by
annual crop rotations and vineyards. A variety of natural habitats and associated plant communities are present within the
City, and support a diverse array of native plants and resident, migratory, and locally nomadic wildlife species, some of
which are considered as rare, threatened, or endangered species. However, the largest concentrations of natural and native
habitats are located in the larger and less developed areas outside the city limits.
The EIR prepared for the OASP included programmatic biological resource impact analyses of special species of plants and
animals, and different habitat values, including riparian corridors and wetlands. The OASP incorporated recommended EIR
policies and programs. Appendix C of the OASP incorporates mitigation measures to be applied to project approvals
consistent with the Specific Plan as applicable. The most significant sensitive natural resource features on the project site are
the creek corridors and associated wetland and woodland areas. As required by OASP FEIR Mitigation Measures B-2(a)
Seasonally-Timed Botanical Surveys, B-2(g) Bunchgrass Survey, and B-5(b) Burrowing Owl Survey, the applicant provided
a Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) (Rincon 2014, Source 37), which includes seasonal botanical surveys, burrowing
owl surveys, and delineation of jurisdictional waters. The results of the BRA are incorporated into the discussion and analysis
below.
a)-d) As described in the OASP FEIR, and confirmed by site visits and the BRA, habitats present within the project site
include non-native annual grassland, eucalyptus, and riparian woodland. Based on the results of the BRA, Cambria morning-
glory (Calystegia subacaulis ssp. episcopalis) and purple needlegrass (Stipa pulchra) are present onsite and would be
impacted by proposed grading and development. At the time the OASP FEIR was certified, Cambria morning-glory was a
California Native Plant Society (CNPS) List 1B (rare, threatened, endangered in California and elsewhere); this species is
currently included on the updated CNPS Rare Plant Rank 4.2 (Watch List; uncommon and fairly endangered in California).
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-95
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
15
Plants with Rare Plant Rank 4 are not defined as “rare” statewide. Cambria morning-glory is identified as a Species of Local
Concern in the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element. Pursuant to the OASP FEIR, the project is subject to
Mitigation Measures: B-2(b) Special-Status Plant Buffer and B-2(d-g) Special-Status Species CDFG-Approved Mitigation
Plan, Monitoring Frequency, Habitat Replacement and Bunchgrass Survey. Based on compliance with mitigation identified
in the OASP FEIR, potential impacts to special-status plant species would be less than significant.
The OASP FEIR notes that grassland habitat and large trees onsite provide suitable habitat for a variety of special status
avian species and monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus). On-site eucalyptus may provide autumnal/winter aggregation sites
for monarchs; however, this species is not known to overwinter in the trees within the OASP. Based on the results of the
BRA, the following special-status species have the potential to occur onsite:
Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), California Species of Special Concern (CSSC)
Sharp shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), CSSC
Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), CSSC
Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), CSSC
White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), Federal Species of Concern (FSC)/State Fully Protected (FP)
California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), CSSC
Merlin (Falco columbarius), CSSC
Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)
Implementation of the project has the potential to result in direct and indirect impacts to these species and their habitat (in
addition to other common and migratory wildlife) as a result of construction activities and long-term use of the site. Prior to
and during construction, the project is subject to OASP FEIR Mitigation Measures B-5(a) Bird Pre-Construction Survey and
B-5(c) Monarch Pre-Construction Survey. The project incorporates required creek buffer and open space requirements (no
residence or garage would be located within the creek buffer), as required by the OASP, which will preserve riparian
woodland habitat present onsite for continued use by wildlife. The project is also subject to the following OASP FEIR
Mitigation Measures: B-6(a) Minimized Roadway Widths; B-6(b) Culvert Design; B-6(c) Educational Pet Brochure; B-6(d)
Landscaping Plan Review. Based on compliance with the OASP and mitigation measures identified in the OASP FEIR,
potential impacts to special-status and native wildlife and their habitat would be less than significant.
Crotalo Creek and an unnamed creek flow through the project site on a seasonal basis. Based on the BRA, the jurisdictional
areas associated with these two creeks within the project site include approximately 0.17 acre (1,458 linear feet) of U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)/Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Other Waters and Drainages and 1.04
acres (1,458 linear feet) of California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) streambed and riparian habitat is present
within the project site. Sheet C2 of the VTM shows that the two creek corridors and adjoining riparian habitat will be located
within proposed Open Space Lots 21, 22 and 23. The lot configurations were specifically developed to include the channel
area, creek banks, and appropriate setbacks, based on the project engineer’s consultation with the City, including the Natural
Resources Manager, and other regulatory agencies. Consistent with OASP policies and development guidance, the creek
corridors will be protected as open space and enhanced with native plantings as appropriate. Proposed “I” Street would cross
the unnamed creek in one location, which would result in temporary and permanent impacts to jurisdictional habitat, which
may include grading, vegetation removal, and placement of structures within areas under the jurisdiction of the USACE
and/or CDFW. Implementation of the project would include grading and construction within the identified 20-foot creek
setback; all areas temporarily disturbed would be restored. Permanent development within the 20-foot setback, aside from the
road crossing, would consist of drainage and stormwater basins. All grading and construction is subject to compliance with
the following OASP FEIR Mitigation Measures, which will protect water quality and creek habitat in the short- and long-
term: B-4(a) Trail Setbacks; B-4(b) Development Setbacks; B-4(c) Riparian/Wetland Mitigation; D-1(a) Erosion Control
Plan; D-1(b) Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan; D-2(a) Vegetative and Biotechnical Approaches to Bank Stabilization;
and D-2(c) Riparian Zone Planting. In addition to protection of jurisdictional areas, the proposed configuration of the open
space lots will create a riparian corridor with an improved high habitat value for wildlife species. The residential component
of the project would occupy just less than half of the project site (47%), with open space and detention basin lots covering
about 34% or about 1.8 acres. The remainder of the site (approximately 1.03 acres, or 19% of the site acreage) would consist
of roads. Therefore, it is not expected that the development would interfere substantially with the movement of any native
wildlife species in the long-term.
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-96
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
16
e) VTM Sheet C3 is the project demolition plan which includes the locations of existing trees and their proposed status with
development. Limited native vegetation exists in the form of trees and native grasses over small portions of the site to be
developed. An Arborist Letter Report (Rincon 2016; Source 33) is included for reference. The report includes a site survey
and analysis of the health and safety of the trees located on the project site. Several varieties of ornamental trees are located
in the vicinity of the existing house. There are no designated significant specimen or heritage trees on the property.
The Rincon Report in part states:
“…Rincon documented 54 trees and 7 groves on the Imel Property. In general, trees on the Imel Property are
concentrated along Crotalo Creek and Tanglewood Creek (also referred to as Unnamed Creek), two ephemeral
creeks that run east to west across the Imel Property. The trees are generally ornamentals associated with the
existing residence, however, some native and nonnative trees are associated with the creeks and some trees are
scattered throughout the remainder of the Imel Property.”
The project includes the removal of three stands of Eucalyptus trees, a sycamore tree, and several other mostly smaller non-
native trees. There are some larger oaks that will be retained as part of the project design. The large sycamore tree proposed
for removal is identified as tree #548, and occurs at the western convergence of the unnamed creek in Lot 22 and the
proposed westerly extension of “I” Street. Rincon indicates that this tree is a large sprawling tree with a diameter at breast
height (dbh) of 61 inches, with several major branches that flair out of main trunk. Rincon goes on to state that the trunk is in
poor health, visible rot damage, poor health within the canopy and its foliage is much more sparse than other sycamore trees
on the Imel property. However, sycamore trees can live for many years under such conditions, especially with proper care
and maintenance.
At this location the extension of “I” Street as designed would effectively destroy the sycamore. The City Arborist and Natural
Resources Manager have suggested that the tree be retained, leading to the need for a redesign of the roadway and creek
crossing in this area. It is clear that preserving this tree would be a preferred policy solution. Conservation and Open Space
Element, Policy 7.5.1 states that significant trees, as defined during City Council review, that make a substantial contribution
to the natural habitat of its localized environment shall be protected. This policy also acknowledges that in the event that
removal of significant trees does occur, that such removal must be addressed through supplemental plantings and
improvements in the localized area. In this instance, the City Arborist would review final project plans and evaluate the
trimming and retention of this tree as a matter of City policy priority (including reasonable techniques such as roadway
narrowing, repositioning, slope steepening and/or retaining - in concert with Engineering and Public Works staff analysis)
versus other new compensatory tree planting alternatives as a part of extension of the “I” Street roadway in this immediate
vicinity. If the tree cannot be retained, OASP FEIR Mitigation Measure B-3(a) Construction Requirements would apply,
which requires replacement of removed trees at a minimum 1:1 ratio, and B-4(c) Riparian/Wetland Mitigation, which
requires compensatory mitigation at a minimum 2:1 ratio. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the tree would
be removed, resulting in a potentially significant impact that would require onsite in-kind mitigation (4:1 replacement ratio)
(see OASP FEIR Mitigation Measures B-2(d), B-2(e) and B-3(a)). In addition, tree removal within the City is, along with
other related guides and standards, specifically governed by the Municipal Code:
12.24.090 Tree removal.
B. Permits for Removal. Removing any tree in the city shall require a tree removal permit, except as otherwise
provided in this chapter.
E. Tree Removal with a Development Permit.
2. Review of the application to remove a tree with a development permit shall proceed as follows:
a. The city arborist shall inspect the property and recommend approving or denying the
application;
b. If no architectural review is required for the development, the tree committee shall approve or
deny the application…
Therefore, based on consistency with the OASP, compliance with the Municipal Code, and implementation of identified
mitigation measures, potential impacts would be mitigated to less than significant.
f) The project site is not part of a local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-97
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
17
Conclusion: The 2010 OASP FEIR included various biological mitigation measures that would be applicable to this project.
These are included at the conclusion of this report, and address special-status plant species (B-2(b) and B-2(d-g), tree
measures coordinated through the City Arborist (B-3a), riparian and development setbacks (B-4(a-b), and riparian and
wetland mitigation pursuant to any resource agency requirements that may be imposed independently of the city (B-4(c)),
vegetation clearing and bird nesting and monarch pre-construction surveys (B-5(a,c)). While potential impacts to wildlife are
not considered significant, OASP FEIR mitigations B-6(a-d) are also included to provide for addressing wildlife and
landscape design measures as part of project planning and construction. With recommended project features as designed, and
implementation of identified mitigation, the project will have a less than significant impact on biological resources.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource as defined in §15064.5.
12,19,
23,24,
25,31
--X--
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5)
12,19,
23,25,
31
--X--
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
12,19,
23,31
--X--
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
12,19,
23,25
--X--
e) Have a significant adverse effect on a Tribal Cultural Resource? 19,23,
25,31
--X--
Evaluation
Pre-Historic Setting: As outlined in the City’s LUCE Update EIR, archaeological evidence demonstrates that Native
American groups (including the Chumash) have occupied the Central Coast for at least 10,000 years, and that Native
American use of the central coast region may have begun during the late Pleistocene, as early as 9000 B.C., demonstrating
that historical resources began their accumulation on the central coast during the prehistoric era. The City of San Luis Obispo
is located within the area historically occupied by the Obispeño Chumash, the northernmost of the Chumash people of
California. The Obispeño Chumash occupied much of San Luis Obispo County, including the Arroyo Grande area, and from
the Santa Maria River north to approximately Point Estero. The earliest evidence of human occupation in the region comes
from archaeological sites along the coast.
Historic Resource Setting: The area of San Luis Obispo became colonialized by the Spanish Incursion initially in 1542, with
the first official settlement on Chumash Territory occurring in 1772, when the Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa was
established. By the 1870s (after the earliest arrivals of Chinese immigrants in 1869), a Chinatown district had been
established in the downtown area near Palm and Morro Street. By 1875, 2,500 residents were documented in a 4-square mile
area around what is now the City of San Luis Obispo. By 1901, the City was served by the Pacific Coast Railway and
mainline Southern Pacific, and in 1903 the California Polytechnic State University was established. The last era of growth
generally lasted from 1945 to the present. Many of the residential subdivisions in the Foothill and Laguna Lake area were
developed between 1945 and 1970 and the city’s population increased by 53% during this time.
Impact Analysis
a-e) The 2010 OASP FEIR did not analyze the Imel property as part of the Specific Plan process. As a result, the EIR
required that a Phase 1 surface survey (Mitigation Measure CR-1a) be performed prior to consideration of a development
project, in order to adequately analyze possible environmental impacts.
Site-Specific Cultural and Historic Resource Evaluation: In order to assess the subject property Rincon Consultants was
commissioned by the applicant to prepare a site evaluation assessment and historic/cultural resources recommendations
(March 4, 2016; Source 31). The Rincon analysis concludes that the property does not contain any known prehistoric or
historic archaeological resources identified on City maintained resource maps. No tribal cultural resources have been
identified within this project site by local Native American tribes during consultation or in response to the City’s invitation to
consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52. Following a Phase 1 site investigation, the Rincon report indicates that
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-98
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
18
archaeological resources are not expected to be identified in the project site. However, if any archaeological material and/or
human remains are encountered during project construction activities, OASP FEIR Mitigation Measure CR-1(d) is provided
to ensure proper handling of said material and discoveries.
Rincon also analyzed the possible historic significance of the existing residential building (slated for demolition). It was
concluded that this 1961 building did not meet city criteria for designating the building as historically important or
significant; therefore, removal of this structure would not result in any impacts to historic resources.
Regarding paleontological resources, the underlying geologic formations include Qa and Qoa, alluvial floodplain deposits.
Based on the limited area of development and amount of cut and fill, the potential for discovery of a significant
paleontological resource is low. In addition, any unanticipated discoveries would be addressed through compliance with
OASP FEIR Mitigation Measures CR-1(d) and CR-3(a). Therefore, the potential impacts to paleontological resources is
considered less than significant.
Conclusion: Based on the results of the Phase I cultural resources survey and compliance with previously adopted OASP
FEIR Mitigation Measures CR-1(d) and CR-3(a), the project will have a less than significant impact on cultural and tribal
cultural resources.
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:
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.
1, 4,
9,14,
19,32
--X--
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? 1,4,
14,19
--X--
III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 1,4
14, 19
--X--
IV. Landslides? 1,4,
14,19
--X--
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1,4,
19,27,
32
--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?
1, 4,
9,14,
19,32
--X--
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2
[Table 1806.2) of the California Building Code (2007) [2010],
creating substantial risks to life or property?
1, 4,
9,14,
19,32
--X--
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
1, 4,
9,14,
19,32
--X--
Evaluation
As discussed in the 2010 OASP FEIR, San Luis Obispo lies within the southern Coast Range Geomorphic Province. This
province lies between the Central Valley of California and the Pacific Ocean and extends from Oregon to northern Santa
Barbara County. The Coast Range province is structurally complex, and is comprised of sub‐parallel northwest‐southeast
trending faults, folds, and mountain ranges.
Rock types in the San Luis Obispo area are mainly comprised of volcanic, metavolcanics, and a mixture of serpentinite and
greywacke sandstone. These rocks are highly fractured and are part of the Mesozoic aged Franciscan Formation. Intrusive
and extrusive volcanic deposits of Tertiary age and marine sedimentary deposits of the Miocene aged Monterey Formation
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-99
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
19
are also found in the area. The most distinctive geomorphological feature of the San Luis Obispo area is the series of Tertiary
aged volcanic plugs (remnants of volcanoes) which extend from the City of San Luis Obispo northwesterly to Morro Bay.
Hollister Peak, Bishop Peak, Cerro San Luis Obispo, Islay Hill, and Morro Rock are all comprised of these volcanic plugs.
Faulting and Seismic Activity: The predominant northwest‐southeast trending structures of the Coast Range Province are
related to the San Andreas Fault Transform Boundary. Other faults in the San Luis Obispo area that are considered active or
potentially active include the San Juan Fault, the East and West Huasna Faults, the Nacimiento Fault Zone, the Oceano Fault,
the Oceanic Fault, Cambria Fault, the Edna Fault, the Hosgri Fault, and the Los Osos Fault. The East and West Huasna
Faults, the Nacimiento Fault Zone, the Cambria Fault, and the Edna Fault have not yet been officially classified by the
California Division of Mines and Geology.
The Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly known as a Special Studies Zone) is an area within 500 feet from a
known active fault trace that has been designated by the State Geologist. Per the Alquist‐Priolo legislation, no structure for
human occupancy is permitted on the trace of an active fault. The portion of the fault zone closest to the city is located near
the southern flank of the Los Osos Valley, northwest of Laguna Lake, but lies just outside of the city limits.
Seismically Induced Ground Acceleration: Seismically induced ground acceleration is the shaking motion that is produced by
an earthquake. Probabilistic modeling is done to predict future ground accelerations, taking into consideration design basis
earthquake ground motion, applicable to residential or commercial, or upper‐bound earthquake ground motion, applied to
public use facilities like schools or hospitals.
Landslides: Landslides occur when the underlying support can no longer maintain the load of material above it, causing a
slope failure. Ground shaking and landslide hazards are mapped by the City and are shown in the General Plan. Much of the
development in San Luis Obispo is in valleys, where there is low potential for slope instability. However, the city contains
extensive hillsides. Several are underlain by the rocks of the Franciscan group, which is a source of significant slope
instability. The actual risk of slope instability is identified by investigation of specific sites, including subsurface sampling,
by qualified professionals. The California Building Code (CBC) requires site‐specific investigations and design proposals by
qualified professionals in areas that are susceptible to slope instability and landslides.
Liquefaction: Liquefaction is defined as the transformation of a granular material from a solid state to a liquefied state as a
consequence of increased pore water pressure. As a result, structures built on this material can sink into the alluvium, buried
structures may rise to the surface or materials on sloped surfaces may run downhill. Other effects of liquefaction include
lateral spread, flow failures, ground oscillations, and loss of bearing strength. Liquefaction is intrinsically linked with the
depth of groundwater below the site and the types of sediments underlying an area.
The soils in the San Luis Obispo area that are most susceptible to ground shaking, and which contain shallow ground water,
are the ones most likely to have a potential for settlement and for liquefaction. The actual risk of settlement or liquefaction is
identified by investigation of specific sites, including subsurface sampling, by qualified professionals. Previous investigations
have found that the risk of settlement for new construction can be reduced to an acceptable level through careful site
preparation and proper foundation design, and that the actual risk of liquefaction is low.
Differential Settlement: Differential settlement is the downward movement of the land surface resulting from the
compression of void space in underlying soils. This compression can occur naturally with the accumulation of sediments over
porous alluvial soils within river valleys. Settlement can also result from human activities including improperly placed
artificial fill, and structures built on soils or bedrock materials with differential settlement rates. This phenomenon can alter
local drainage patterns and result in structural damage. Portions of the City have been identified as possibly being underlain
by soft organic soils, resulting in a high potential for settlement (General Plan Safety Element).
Subsidence: Ground subsidence occurs where underlying geologic materials (typically loosely consolidated surficial silt,
sand, and gravel) undergo a change from looser to tighter compaction. As a result, the ground surface subsides (lowers).
Where compaction increases (either naturally, or due to construction), the geologic materials become more dense. As a result,
the ground surface overlying the compacting subsurface materials subsides as the underlying geologic materials settle.
Ground subsidence can occur under several different conditions, including:
Ground‐water withdrawal (water is removed from pore space as the water table drops, causing the ground surface to
settle)
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-100
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
20
Tectonic subsidence (ground surface is warped or dropped lower due to geologic factors such as faulting or folding);
and
Earthquake‐induced shaking causes sediment liquefaction, which in turn can lead to ground‐surface subsidence.
Expansive Soils: Expansive soils are soils that are generally clayey, swell when wetted and shrink when dried. Wetting can
occur in a number of ways (i.e., absorption from the air, rainfall, groundwater fluctuations, lawn watering, broken water or
sewer lines, etc.). Soil expansion can cause subtle damage that can reduce structural integrity. Portions of the city are known
to exhibit the soil types (refer to General Plan Safety Element) identified as having a moderate to high potential for
expansion.
2010 OASP FEIR: Regional studies indicated that there are no active or potentially active faults within the Specific Plan
area. However, ground shaking associated with nearby faults could damage or destroy property, structures and transportation
infrastructures. In addition, site soils are reported to have a high liquefaction potential, a moderate to high expansion
potential and a potential for subsidence. The FEIR concluded these impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels
through the application of standard CBC and geotechnical/soils investigation recommendations (OASP FEIR Mitigation
Measures G-2(a), G-3(a), and G-4(a)), which are included in the applicant’s proposed VTM.
a)-d) Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity, the site will most likely be subjected to
excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design
criteria established in the CBC. To minimize this potential impact, the CBC and City Codes require new structures be built to
resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake.
The Safety Element of the General Plan indicates that the project site has a high potential for liquefaction, which is true for
most of the City. Development will be required to comply with all City Codes, including Building Codes, which require
proper documentation of soil characteristics for designing structurally sound buildings to ensure new structures are built to
resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake. Incorporation of required CBC, City Codes, and development in
accordance with the General Plan Safety Element will reduce impacts related to seismic hazards to less than significant
levels.
The most significant source of potential erosion of on-site soils would be during initial site ground disturbance/construction
and from stormwater runoff. However, compliance with the City’s Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) will ensure that
the creation of additional impervious areas will not increase the amount of runoff within the watershed, and will not affect
percolation to the groundwater basin or adversely alter drainage patterns. In addition, OASP FEIR Mitigation Measures
addressing potential impacts to drainage and surface waters would be required, including the following: D-1(a) Erosion
Control Plan; D-1(d) Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan; D-2(a) Vegetative and Biotechnical Approaches to Bank
Stabilization; D-2(c) Riparian Zone Planting; D-4(a) Compliance with the City’s Drainage Design Manual; D-4(b) Final
Drainage Detention System Verification; D-5(a) Biofilters; D-5(b) SWPPP Maintenance Guidelines; D-5(c) Pervious Paving
Material; and D-5(d) Low Impact Development Practices. Based on compliance with existing regulations and previously
adopted mitigation measures, potential impacts related to drainage and stormwater would be less than significant.
As discussed in the OASP FEIR, potential impacts may occur as a result of development in areas having a high potential for
settlement, and moderate to high potential for expansion or contraction of soils; these impacts would be mitigated to less than
significant by standard engineering practices in compliance with existing regulations and OASP FEIR Mitigation Measures
G-3(a) Soil Settlement Engineering and G-4(a) Expansive Soils Grading.
e) The proposed project will be required to connect to the City’s sewer system. Septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems
are not proposed and will not be used on the site.
Conclusion:. The 2010 OASP FEIR included various mitigation measures that would be applicable to this project. These are
included at the conclusion of this report, and would mitigate potential drainage and erosion impacts (see D-1(a, b), D-2(a, c),
D-4(a, b), D-5(a-d). In addition to compliance with the CBC and local building code requirements, the applicant would
comply with OASP FEIR mitigation measures to address underlying geologic and soil conditions (see G-2(a), G-3(a), and G-
4(a)). With recommended project features as designed, compliance with existing regulations, and implementation of
identified mitigation, the project will have a less than significant geology and soils impacts.
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-101
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
21
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?
1,13,
20,21,
26
--X--
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
1,13,
20,21,
26
--X--
Evaluation
Prominent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4),
nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Anthropogenic
(human‐caused) GHG emissions in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for intensifying the greenhouse
effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global
warming. Global sources of GHG emissions include fossil fuel combustion in both stationary and mobile sources, fugitive
emissions from landfills, wastewater treatment, agricultural sources, deforestation, high global warming potential (GWP)
gases from industrial and chemical sources, and other activities.
The major sources of GHG emissions in the City are transportation‐related emissions from cars and trucks, followed by
energy consumption in buildings. These local sources constitute the majority of GHG emissions from community‐wide
activities in the city, and combine with regional, statewide, national, and global GHG emissions that result in the cumulative
effect of global warming, which is causing global climate change. A minimum level of climate change is expected to occur
despite local, statewide, or other global efforts to mitigate GHG emissions. The increase in average global temperatures will
result in a number of locally‐important adverse effects, including sea‐level rise, changes to precipitation patterns, and
increased frequency of extreme weather events such as heat waves, drought, and severe storms.
Statewide legislation, rules and regulations that apply to GHG emissions associated with the Project Setting include the
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill [AB] 32), the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act
of 2008 (Senate Bill [SB] 375), Advanced Clean Cars Rule, Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Renewable Portfolio Standard,
California Building Codes, and recent amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to SB 97
with respect to analysis of GHG emissions and climate change impacts.
Plans, policies and guidelines have also been adopted at the regional and local level that address GHG emissions and climate
change effects in the City. The SLO APCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook includes guidance on GHG emission thresholds
and supporting evidence, that may be applied by lead agencies within San Luis Obispo County (APCD 2012, Source 20). The
City also adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that includes a GHG emissions inventory, identifies GHG emission reduction
targets, and includes specific measures and implementing actions to both reduce community‐wide GHG emissions (refer to
Source 13). The CAP also includes measures and actions to help the city build resiliency and adapt to the effects of climate
change.
a-b) Air quality impacts resulting from the buildout of the City’s General Plan have been analyzed in detail under the LUCE
Update EIR. Specifically, in 2009 the City conducted a GHG emissions inventory of annual emissions for the baseline year
2005. The City’s CAP also included forecasted business‐as‐usual (BAU) emissions for 2010, 2020 and 2035. The CAP BAU
forecast supersedes forecasted emissions included in the original 2009 inventory. According to the emissions forecast,
communitywide BAU emissions would increase by approximately 9 percent in 2020 compared to 2005 levels, and would
further increase by approximately 21 percent in 2035 compared to 2005 levels. However, projected growth assumed under
the LUE and OASP is equal to or slightly less than the growth projections used to estimate worst case future GHG emissions
in the CAP. Therefore, expected long‐term operational GHG emissions generated by new development is consistent with the
land use and zoning evaluated under the LUCE Update and would be consistent with forecasted BAU communitywide
emissions in the CAP.
The CAP includes a communitywide GHG emissions reduction target of 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. In order to
address the forecasted increase in long-term operational emission impacts, the CAP includes specific GHG reduction
measures that are designed to achieve this target, in combination with state and federal legislative reductions. As shown in the
LUCE Update EIR, with implementation of the GHG reduction measures, communitywide emissions would be reduced to 16
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-102
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
22
percent below 2005 levels by the year 2020, exceeding the 15 percent target. Please refer to LUCE EIR Table 4.7-3 (titled
“Consistency of Proposed LUCE Update Policies and Programs with Climate Action Plan Measures and Actions”) for a
detailed review of LUE policies and their consistency with applicable CAP measures.
The emissions from project-related vehicle exhaust comprise the vast majority of the total project CO2 emissions.
Construction activities would generate GHG emissions through the use of on‐ and off‐road construction equipment in new
development. Long-term CO2 and GHG emissions are primarily from building heating systems, electricity usage, and
increased regional power plant electricity generation due to the project’s electrical demands.
Table 1-1 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that the construction and operation of 18 single-family residences
would not exceed the threshold of significance for the APCD Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Annual Bright Line threshold (1,150
MT CO2e/year from operational and amortized construction impacts).
The OASP FEIR includes mitigation that would further reduce the generate of GHG during construction and operation of the
project, including: Mitigation Measure AQ-1(a), which requires implementation of energy efficiency measures; Mitigation
Measures AQ-1(b)(d-f) and AQ-4(a) which would reduce vehicle miles traveled during operation; and AQ-3(a), which
addresses vehicle and equipment exhaust during construction. In addition, State Title 24 regulations for building energy
efficiency are routinely enforced with new construction.
Therefore, the proposed project development would be consistent with the communitywide GHG emissions reductions
assumed in the CAP and the incremental contribution of GHG emissions associated with implementation of the proposed
project would not result in significant impacts.
Conclusion: Based on review of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook and incorporation of required OASP FEIR mitigation
measures and Title 24 regulations, impacts are considered less than significant.
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?
4,18,
19,27,
28
--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?
4,18,
19,27,
28
--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?
4,18,
19,27,
28
--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?
4,18,
19,27,
28
--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?
4,18,
19,27,
28
--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?
4,18,
19,27,
28
--X--
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
4,18,
19,27,
28
--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
4,18,
19,27,
28
--X--
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-103
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
23
with wildlands?
Evaluation
a-b) The OASP FEIR determined no hazardous materials, substances or waste exist on the subject site. Construction of the
proposed project would be required to comply with applicable building, health, fire, and safety codes. Hazardous materials
would be used in varying amounts during construction and occupancy of the Project. Construction and maintenance activities
would use hazardous materials such as fuels (gasoline and diesel), oils, and lubricants; paints and paint thinners; glues;
cleaners (which could include solvents and corrosives in addition to soaps and detergents); and possibly pesticides and
herbicides. The amount of materials used would be small, so the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or
to the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, as such uses would have to comply
with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, including but not limited to Titles 8 and 22 of the CCR, the Uniform Fire
Code, and Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
c) The project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Thus there is no impact.
d) The project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
Thus, there is no impact.
e-f) The project site is located in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, and is subject to the County
Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). In its adoption of the OASP, the City Council found the OASP to be consistent with the
ALUP, and ultimately received the endorsement of the Airport Land Use Commission. The OASP includes performance
standards for avigation easements for tracts (Program 3.5.2g) and real estate disclosures to potential owners and renters
(OASP FEIR Mitigation Measures S-2(b)). VTM#3095 conditions of approval are recommended to be included to address
these requirements. Therefore, because the subject project and proposed uses and densities are compliant with the OASP,
and the project will be conditioned per the OASP performance standards; there is not a significant impact.
g) The OASP project and its proposed circulation and land use plan has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal who has
recommended conditions of approval which will assure compliance with adopted fire/emergency-related codes. The project
as designed will not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, the adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plans of the City. Thus there is no impact.
h) The project site is not in an area identified as subject to wildland fire hazards. Thus there is no impact.
Conclusion: Impacts are considered less than significant (in the case of the airport disclosures required pursuant to OASP
FEIR Mitigation Measure S-2(b) referenced above) or there is no impact from the project as proposed.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
1,7,
15,18,
19,34
--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)?
1,7,
15,18,
19,34
--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?
1,7,
15,18,
19,34
--X--
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
1,7,
15,18,
--X--
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-104
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
24
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site?
19,34
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?
1,7,
15,18,
19,34
--X--
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,7,
15,18,
19,34
--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?
1,7,
15,18,
19,27,
34
--X--
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
1,15,
18,19
27,34
--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?
1,15,
18,19,
27,34
--X--
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 4,18,
19,27
--X--
Evaluation
The City of San Luis Obispo is generally located within a low‐lying valley centered on San Luis Obispo Creek. San Luis
Obispo Creek is one of four major drainage features that create flood hazards in the city, with the others being Stenner Creek,
Prefumo Creek, and Old Garden Creek. In addition, many minor waterways drain into these creeks, and these can also
present flood hazards. The OASP is located within the watershed of the East Branch of San Luis Creek and encompasses
about 12.6 square miles. Because of the high surrounding hills and mountains in the area, the drainage sheds of these creeks
are relatively small, but the steep slopes and high gradient can lead to intense, fast moving flood events.
As discussed in the 2010 OASP FEIR, the project site will, as it develops, increase sediment transport downstream and
increase the potential for inundation based on increasing impervious surfaces. The FEIR established requirements to meet
city standards and regulations, as well as RWQCB specifications, for implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs) and
the use of detention and retention basins, as appropriate means to mitigate any adverse impacts from development in the
OASP.
a, f) The project site is located within the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed area. Due to its size and location, the project is
subject to the Drainage Design Manual (DDM) of the Water Way Management Plan (WWMP) and OASP FEIR Mitigation
Measures D-4(a) Compliance with City’s Drainage Design Manual and D-4(b) Final Drainage Detention System
Verification, the Interim Low Impact Development Standards, and City Engineering Standards in effect at the time of original
entitlements. Storm drainage systems will provide water quantity and water quality controls. The system design will limit
the post development runoff to that of the pre-development condition for the 2, 10, 25, 50, & 100-year storm events. The
project will treat runoff in accordance with the Interim Low Impact Development Standards and City Engineering Standard
1010.B. City Engineering Standard for Source Control of Drainage and Erosion Control, page 7 and 8 Standard 1010.B
clarifies that “Projects with pollution generating activities and sources must be designed to implement operation or source
control measures consistent with recommendations from the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA)
Stormwater BMP Handbook for New Development/Redevelopment.” In addition, the project is subject to OASP FEIR
Mitigation Measures D-1(a) Erosion Control Plan, D-1(b) Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, which will protect water
quality during grading and construction of the project.
The proposed project will include the construction of on-site detention facilities to collect and manage runoff, as well as
promote on-site infiltration through design of associated hardscape and landscape. The site is also designed under the OASP
to discharge ultimate runoff into the larger (regional-serving) “west basin” located on the Righetti Ranch property, which
then proceeds into the Arbors basin and beyond.
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-105
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
25
Based on the VTM storm drainage design, and its integration into the larger regional basin located downstream of the Imel
property as discussed above and in the relevant Source Documents, water quality impacts would be considered less than
significant.
b) The project will be served by the City’s sewer and water systems and will not deplete groundwater resources 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. Thus, there is no impact.
c-e) Implementation of the project would create additional impervious surfaces, which has the potential to generate run-off
resulting in erosion and sedimentation. Physical improvement of the project site will be required to comply with the drainage
requirements of the City’s Drainage Design Manual (OASP FEIR Mitigation Measure D-4(a-b)) and Waterways
Management Plan. This plan was adopted for the purpose of insuring water quality and proper drainage within the City’s
watershed. The project is also subject to OASP FEIR Mitigation Measures D-5(a) Biofilters and D-5(b) SWPPP
Maintenance Guidelines, D-5(c) Pervious Paving Material, and D-5(d) Low Impact Development Practices.
The Waterways Management Plan and LID stormwater treatment requires that site development be designed so that post-
development site drainage does not significantly exceed pre-development run-off. The proposed project retains the amount of
stormwater to reduce discharge to pre development rates, and provides treatment and infiltration for the volume of water
required by the RWQCB. OASP FEIR Mitigation Measure D-2(a), to be applied to all development projects, fosters a
vegetative and biotechnical approach to creek bank stabilization within the OASP. Based on the proposed drainage and
stormwater management system and compliance with OASP policies, FEIR mitigation measures, and City and RWQCB
regulations, implementation of the project would not result in significant impacts related to erosion, sedimentation, pollution
of ground and surface waters, or flooding.
g-i) The proposed project as proposed would not include development located in flood waters during a 100-year storm event
per the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map (reference
constraints sheet of VTM; Source 27). The project will not impede or re-direct the flow of any waters. Therefore, no impact
would occur.
j) The proposed development is outside the zone of impacts from seiche or tsunami, and the existing upslope projects do not
generate significant storm water runoff such to create a potential for inundation by mudflow. Therefore, no impact would
occur.
Conclusion: The 2010 OASP FEIR included various hydrology and water quality mitigation measures that would be
applicable to this project. These are included at the conclusion of this report, and address stormwater and water quality
(OASP FEIR Mitigation Measures D-1(a, b), D-2(a, c), D-4(a, b), D-5(a-d)). Based on the proposed preliminary drainage
plan, including construction and operation of drainage basins approved by the City Public Works Department, and
compliance with RWQCB SWPPP regulations and mitigation measures identified above, potential impacts would be less
than significant.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 1,6,
18, 29
--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?
1,6,
18, 19
--X--
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
1,6,
18, 19
--X--
Evaluation
a) The project density established under the OASP anticipated a range of 16-17 single-family residences. This assumption
was predicated on future, detailed project assessments and acknowledged that these ranges were subject to refinement during
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-106
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
26
application processing. The potential density for the site based on the OASP’s range of 3-6 units/acre under Table A-2,
multiplied by 3.0 net acres on the Imel site, yields up to 18 single-family residences. The proposed density is consistent with
the OASP standards noted.
The proposed development project is consistent with the development anticipated for the project site under the 2010 OASP,
and the General Plan and zoning designations for the site, and is designed to fit among OASP developing projects. Imel
development will not physically divide an established community.
b) The proposed project will not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect. The project is proposed to be consistent with the 2010 OASP, as well as all city
regulations and development standards, and incorporates all adopted OASP FEIR mitigation measures.
c) As discussed in subsection 4, Biological Resources, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an
adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
Conclusion: Based on the project’s consistency with the OASP, no impacts to land use planning are anticipated with this
project.
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--
Evaluation
a-b) No known mineral resources are present at the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in
the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. The project site is not designated by the general plan, specific plan, or
other land use plans as a locally important mineral recovery site.
Conclusion: No impacts are anticipated.
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?
2,3,9,
18,19
--X--
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
2,3,9,
18,19
--X--
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
2,3,9,
18,19
--X--
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
2,3,9,
18,19
--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?
2,3,9,
18,19
--X--
2,3,9,
18,19
--X--
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-107
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
27
Evaluation
a) According to the 2010 OASP FEIR, the proposed project is located in an area zoned for residential land uses that are
predicted to be exposed to traffic noise levels that exceed the Noise Element standard of 60 decibels (dB). This is
particularly true for lots adjacent to Orcutt Road, which functions as a major north-south arterial, connects Johnson Avenue
and Tank Farm Road, and carries large volumes of traffic. Based on noise modeling results included in the LUCE FEIR,
residential development on proposed Lots 14 through 18 would be subjected to transportation-related noise ranging between
65 to 70 dB. Consequently, to reduce the effects of such traffic related noise to sensitive residential receptors, the OASP
established goals, policies and programs to reduce noise exposure of new sensitive receptors within the Orcutt Area to meet
City Standards. Specifically, the project complies with OASP noise programs as follows:
1) Outdoor activity areas are located internally to the project and are set back from the centerline of Orcutt Road by
more than 80 feet.
2) Residential portions of dwellings are set back more than 60 feet from the centerline of Orcutt Road.
3) New construction will comply with requirements for 45 dB interior sound levels through standard construction
techniques, consistent with Building Code requirements.
Implementation of the noise program must occur prior to home occupancy for development pursuant to the Specific Plan.
Regardless, cumulative noise impacts were determined significant and unavoidable impact in the OASP FEIR and
corresponding overriding considerations were considered and approved. The IMEL subdivision is consistent with the
approved OASP; therefore, no new noise impacts would occur that were not addressed in the OASP FEIR.
b) The project will not expose people to the generation of excessive ground-borne noise levels or vibrations. Thus, there is no
impact.
c) Site development will result in increases in ambient noise levels, but not to significant levels, since by operation of
mitigation requirements set forth in a) above, noise increases that would affect ambient levels are to be reduced to thresholds
determined to be acceptable in residential areas. In addition, based on noise modeling presented in the OASP FEIR (refer to
Table 4.8-4 Projected Noise Levels along Area Roadways), the project would not result in a significant increase in
transportation-related noise along Orcutt Road, Tank Farm Road, or Johnson Avenue. Thus, impacts to permanent ambient
noise levels are less than significant.
d) Project construction or other temporary or periodic noise generation may result in temporary increases (spikes) in ambient
noise levels. Since there is no way to predict the origin or duration of these types of noise sources for this development, it
can only be regulated if found to be a nuisance by the City’s Noise Ordinance. The project by reference acknowledges that it
will comply with FEIR Mitigation Measure N-1(a) which references the City’s Noise Ordinance in terms of construction
hours and techniques to reduce temporary impacts from noise levels. Thus, the impact is less than significant.
e, f) The project is located in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, and is subject to the County
Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). According to the ALUP and prior OASP FEIR, the project is not within the 60 or 65 dBA-
CNEL contour line. Some residents may be exposed to noise generated by airport operations but the noise levels are not
expected to exceed thresholds established by the ALUP and the City General Plan; therefore, consistent with the OASP
FEIR, this impact is considered less than significant.
Conclusion: Based on the location of the project and compliance with OASP policies and FEIR Mitigation Measure N-1(a),
potential noise impacts would be less than significant.
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)?
1,2,6,
18, 19 --X--
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
1,2,6,
18, 19 --X--
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-108
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
28
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
1,2,6,
18, 19 --X--
Evaluation:
a) The proposed project consists of a residential development of up to eighteen (18) single-family residences. The project
site is designated for residential development under the General Plan, OASP and Zoning Ordinance. According to the 2010
OASP, the proposed project includes development consistent with the anticipated use of the site under the Specific Plan and
Land Use Element. The proposed project would not involve any other components that would induce further growth not
already anticipated under the OASP, General Plan and envisioned under the current site zoning designation. Therefore,
potential impacts would be less than significant.
b) The proposed project includes the demolition of one unoccupied residence and an accessory structure to accommodate 18
new residential lots, which would not be considered a substantial loss of housing, and does not necessitate construction of
replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
c) The proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of people or necessitate the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere. No impact would occur.
Conclusion: Based on the project’s consistency with the OASP and General Plan, no significant impacts would occur.
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? 1, 4,
6,19
--X--
b) Police protection? 1, 4,
6,19
--X--
c) Schools? 1, 4,
6,19
--X--
d) Parks? 1, 4,
6,19
--X--
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? 1, 4,
6,19
--X--
f) Other public facilities? 1, 4,
6,19
--X--
Evaluation
Fire Protection: The San Luis Obispo Fire Department (SLOFD) provides fire and emergency services to the City of San
Luis Obispo. The Fire Department is organized into five divisions: Emergency Operations, Fire Prevention and Life Safety,
Training and Equipment, Administrative, and Support Services. In addition to providing fire and emergency services to the
city, SLOFD maintains an Emergency Services Contract with Cal Poly. Under the current contract, SLOFD provides fire and
emergency services to the university in return for a set annual fee.
Police Protection: The San Luis Obispo Police Department (SLOPD) provides police protection services within the city
limits. SLOPD is responsible for responding to calls for service, investigating crimes and arresting offenders, enforcing
traffic and other laws, and promoting community safety through crime prevention and school‐safety patrols. The Police
Department consists of two bureaus, Administration and Operations, each of which has four divisions. The Police
Department operates out of one main facility located at 1042 Walnut Street and a small additional office at 1016 Walnut
Street.
Public Schools: The San Luis Coastal Unified School District (SLCUSD) serves an area between the coast and the Los
Padres National Forest, and from Morro Bay to the north and Arroyo Grande to the south. In total, the District operates ten
elementary schools, two middle schools, two high schools, one continuation high school, and an adult education facility. In
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-109
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
29
addition to the K‐12 educational program, the SLCUSD offers a variety of additional educational programs, including:
cooperative preschool, preschool early education, and parent participation. Within the San Luis Obispo LUCE Planning
Subarea, the District operates six elementary schools, one middle school, one high school, and one continuation high school.
a) The proposed project site is served by the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department. Implementation of the proposed
project would increase the intensity of use of the site and would marginally increase the demand for fire protection services
over existing conditions. The project would be similar to the land uses on surrounding properties, and the site is already
served by the City for fire protection. The proposed development is consistent with the anticipated land use and zoning for
the site and is consistent with the neighboring uses. The project is required to comply with the Uniform Fire Code and OASP
FEIR Mitigation Measures PS-2(a-c), which require Fire Department-approved road widths, fire hydrants, non-combustive
exteriors, and defensible space. The OASP FEIR determined that implementation and build-out of the OASP will not result in
any significant impacts related to any of the above-listed services due to the ability to offset service needs through the City’s
Development Impact Fee program established via the City General Plan and augmented by the development fee program in
the OASP; therefore, the conclusion was that no further mitigation was necessary. Based on the project’s compliance with
the OASP, potential impacts would be less than significant.
b) The project site is served by the City of San Luis Obispo Police Department for police protection services. Development of
the site would not result in the need for increased patrols or additional units such that new police facilities would need to be
constructed. There would be no physical impacts related to the construction of new police facilities, and impacts related to
police protection would be less than significant.
c) Consistent with Section 65995 (3)(h) of the California Government Code (Senate Bill 50, chaptered August 27, 1998), the
applicant will be required to pay developer fees to the SLCUSD. These fees would be directed toward maintaining adequate
service levels, which include incremental increases in school capacities. Implementation of this state fee system would ensure
that any significant impacts to schools which could result from the proposed project would be offset by development fees,
and in effect, reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Note: The OASP provides for the possibility of a school site being located in the Planning Area, but to date SLCUSD has not
indicated the need for, or a desire to locate, a school in the Orcutt Planning Area. It is incumbent on SLCUSD to identify the
need for a new site and initiate discussions with property owners, and failing that avenue, instead opting to collect school
impact fees. As noted above, authority to collect fees at the time of building is deemed by State law to provide adequate
mitigation for school facility requirements. Thus, based on compliance with OASP FEIR Mitigation Measures PS-3(a)
Buildout Date Notification and PS-3(b) Statutory School Fees, potential impacts are less than significant.
d) Because the proposed project would participate in development of the public park facilities within the OASP Planning
Area, localized parks will not be impacted by the project. Further, deterioration at parks and recreation-oriented public
facilities from the proposed project on a city-wide basis is not expected. The proposed project would have a less than
significant impact on parks.
e-f) Please refer to Section 16, Transportation/Traffic, below for a detailed assessment of required transportation
improvements required. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on transportation infrastructure and
public facilities with the incorporation of the required transportation improvements discussed under the OASP.
Conclusion: The OASP FEIR determined that implementation and build out of the OASP will not result in any significant
impacts related to any of the above-listed services due to the ability to offset service needs through the City’s Development
Impact Fee program established via the City General Plan and augmented by the development fee program in the OASP, and
would comply with OASP FEIR Public Services Mitigation Measures PS-2(a-c), PS-3(a, b); therefore, the conclusion was
that no further mitigation was necessary. Impacts are considered less than significant.
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?
1,18,
19, 27
--X--
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-110
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
30
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?
1,18,
19,27
--X--
Evaluation:
As discussed in the City LUCE Update EIR and the 2010 OASP FEIR, there are 26 parks in the city, consisting of eight
community parks, 10 neighborhood parks, and eight mini parks. There are also six joint use facilities, and several recreation
centers and special facilities (e.g., Damon Garcia Sports Fields and the SLO Swim Center). There is currently approximately
151.65 acres of parkland in the City, of which 33.53 acres are neighborhood parks. In addition to developed parks, the City
owns or manages over 6,970 acres of open space within and adjacent to San Luis Obispo, some of which provide trails that
accommodate hiking and mountain biking.
a-b) The project will be participating in an extensive neighborhood park development plan under the OASP, and is not
expected to add to the demand for city-wide parks or other recreational facilities. The project includes outdoor amenities and
common areas, including limited creek corridor open space and access trails within the site (please refer to the project site
plans for a detailed depiction of outdoor amenity spaces). No significant recreational impacts are expected to occur with
development of the site. Impacts are considered less than significant.
Conclusion: Based on the project’s compliance with the OASP, potential impacts would be less than significant.
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?
2,4,
9,18,
19,21
--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?
2,4,
18,19,
21
--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?
2,4,
18,19,
21
--X--
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?
2,4,
18,19,
21
--X--
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 4,18,
19,27
--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?
2,4,
18,19,
21
--X--
Evaluation
The City is accessed primarily by roadways including US 101, State Route (SR) 1 and SR 227. Routes of regional
significance providing access include Los Osos Valley Road, Foothill Road, Broad Street, O’Connor Way, Prefumo Canyon
Road, South Higuera Street and Orcutt Road. The local roadway system is characterized by a regular street grid in the
downtown area and neighborhood street patterns in other parts of the City.
In accordance with the City General Plan Circulation Element Section 6.1,2 Multimodal Level of Service (LOS) Objectives,
Service Standards, and Significance Criteria, acceptable vehicle traffic operating conditions are LOS E in the Downtown and
LOS D outside of the Downtown. Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure of the effect of a number of factors,
including speed and travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, driving comfort and convenience. LOS are
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-111
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
31
designated A through F from best to worst, which cover the entire range of traffic operations that might occur. LOS A
represents essentially free‐flow conditions, and LOS F indicates substantial congestion and delay.
The City of San Luis Obispo considers roadways operating at LOS D or better to be acceptable, excepting segments
downtown where LOS is allowed to drop to E. The only segment noted to be deficient under existing conditions is Broad
Street south of Buckley Road, which is under State of California and County jurisdiction. Five study intersections operate at
unacceptable levels of service (LOS), E or F, during the AM, Noon, or PM peak hours.
a-b) The subject project, as well as all other development that occurs in the future pursuant to the OASP and the City General
Plan, will increase traffic in the area warranting improvements to several affected intersections. OASP build-out is estimated
to generate 8,342 net new daily trips and 887 net new PM peak-hour trips (518 inbound and 369 outbound). Based on the
traffic study prepared for the OASP FEIR, development of the Orcutt Area is expected to add 772 Average Daily Trips
(ADT) to Orcutt Road between Johnson Avenue and Tank Farm Road at build-out.
Applying the trip generation factor used in the OASP FEIR, the 18 proposed single-family residences would generate
approximately 164 daily trips (9.085 daily trips per residence). The Circulation Plan of the OASP (as well as the Circulation
Element of the City General Plan) identifies the essential primary road system that will be needed to accommodate
development within the plan area and surrounding growth areas of the City. The OASP FEIR determined that the roadway
plans of these planning documents are for the most part self-mitigating in that 1.) Roadway alignments, road extensions, and
new intersections are designed and will be built in response to traffic projected at build-out and, 2.) Development projects in
the OASP areas will also contribute their fair share either through adopted Traffic Impact Fees, OASP development impact
fees, assessments or dedications to specified roadway improvements, and a combination of one or more of these measures.
OASP FEIR Mitigation Measures T-1(a) Orcutt Road/Tank Farm Road Intersection Improvements, T-2(d) Orcutt Road/Tank
Farm Road Intersection Signalization, T-3 Street E-2 & Hanson Lane Alignment, T-4 Street B & Tiburon Way Alignment, T-
5 Tank Farm & Orcutt Frontage Improvements, and T-6 Traffic Calming & Safety Measures, will be implemented prior to
issuance of building permits for Phase 1 of previously approved Tract 3063. Based on compliance with the OASP and OASP
FEIR, potential impacts would be less than significant.
c) The project is located in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County Airport but will not result in any changes to air traffic
patterns. Please refer to Section 8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, for a discussion on project consistency with the
adopted Airport Land Use Plan.
d) The project would not modify existing intersections or roadways. Proposed on-site circulation includes “I” Street, which
connects to “B” Street (aka. “Tiburon Road”) at two (2) intersections. Where “I” Street intersects with “B” Street in the
northwestern portion of the project site, the centerline tangent is 48.25 feet, which is slightly less than the 50 feet required by
the City Engineering Standards (January 1, 2016). Given site topography and the locations of the creek and drainages, the
applicant is requesting a “design exception” to required centerline tangents pursuant to city Subdivision Regulations Chapter
16.23 Exceptions, Appeals, and Applicant Submittal. Also, “I” Street intersects with “B” Street approximately 85 feet
southwest of Orcutt Road, which is less than 250 feet as required by the Transportation Research Board Access Management
Manual design standards. The horseshoe street layout presents superior design. However, given the realignment of “B”
Street, the topography and creek locations on the Imel property, and the need for two access points, separation distance
between Orcutt Road and the initial “I” Street intersection could not be met. As a result, the applicant has proposed this
particular intersection will be restricted to right-turn-in and right-turn-out only, to resolve any vehicular movement issues
because of the reduced distance to Orcutt Road. Permanent left-turn restrictions would be accomplished with the construction
of a “pork chop” island, as recommended by the City Public Works Department based on their review of the project.
Therefore, based on review and approval by the City Public Works Department and implementation of identified mitigation
measure TR-1, granting these exceptions would not result in a significant impact.
The project driveways would be consistent with City code requirements for ingress/egress to safely and adequately serve the
project. Because the project is a similar use to those in the immediate vicinity, the project would not introduce any
incompatible uses.
e) The project has been reviewed by the City Fire Marshal to ensure adequate emergency access has been provided. Based
compliance with the OASP and approval by the City Fire Marshal, no impact would occur.
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-112
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
32
f) The project site is served by the Regional Transit Authority (RTA), and the OASP identifies transit facilities within
walking distance on Orcutt Road and Tank Farm Road. As noted in the OASP FEIR, the pedestrian and bicycle circulation
network identified in the OASP is generally consistent with the City’s Circulation Element and Bicycle Transportation Plan
and is designed to adequately serve new demand generated by build-out of the OASP. The project is consistent with the
OASP, which provides opportunities for alternative transportation; therefore, no impact would occur.
Conclusion: In summary, the proposed project would add vehicular trips to streets that serve as entry/exit routes to the
project site. These streets with the given improvements specified in the OASP and OASP FEIR will serve to accommodate
the added vehicular traffic. Transportation/circulation impacts are considered less than significant with OASP standards
incorporated in the tract design. Thus, the impact from this project with incorporation of the OASP circulation standards,
implementation of mitigation identified by the Public Work Department (TR-1), the imposition of traffic improvement fees
for city-wide improvements, and compliance with OASP FEIR Mitigation Measure S-2(b) will render transportation and
circulation impacts less than significant.
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
1,16,
19,30,
38
--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?
1,16,
18,19,
30,38
--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?
1,16,
18,19,
30,34
--X--
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and
expanded entitlements needed?
1,16,
18,19,
38
--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?
1,18,
19,30
--X--
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
1,8,
18,19
--X--
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
1,8,
18,19
--X--
Evaluation
The OASP FEIR determined that implementation and build-out of the OASP will not result in any significant impacts related
to delivery of domestic water, wastewater collection or treatment, or storm water drainage/retention and concluded that such
impacts related to build-out of the OASP were less than significant and no mitigation was deemed necessary. Build-out under
the OASP will be similar to that anticipated and projected in the City General Plan. The project proposes to provide all water
(both potable and recycled), sewer, and storm drain facilities necessary to adequately serve the subject project, including
distribution, collection and other infrastructure capacity as required by the OASP facility master plan and the City’s Storm
Drain Master Plan/Waterway Management Plan. There is no new evidence that the subject project, as delineated by the
OASP, will exceed RWQCB wastewater treatment requirements, with the potential exceptions described below.
Related to delivery of domestic water to the project, new information developed after the FEIR was certified and after the
OASP was adopted (in 2010) is now available from the City’s 2015 Water Master Plan and hydraulic model related to the
provision of water service to the Orcutt Specific Plan Area. To serve the area with adequate fire flow (1,500 gpm for
residential areas), and average daily storage requirements, a 12-inch water main needs to be extended from the Terrace Hill
pressure zone at the intersection of Johnson and Tanglewood Drive in a south/southeast direction to the intersection of Orcutt
Road and B Street. A 12-inch water main will also need to be extended west to Orcutt and A Street. Under City fire and
safety standards, these improvements will be required prior to occupancy of any new residential uses. Adequate fire flow and
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-113
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
33
storage, based on the extension into the project, is available for the development of the Orcutt Specific Plan area. Conditions
and mitigation measures of the nearby Righetti (VTM3063) and Jones (VTM3066) were adopted to require these extensions
in coordination with Utility Department requirements. These conditions are replicated in the proposed VTM3095
requirements to address these off-site improvements in conjunction with the project.
Water: The City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department provides potable and recycled water to the community and is
responsible for water supply, treatment, distribution, and resource planning. The City is the sole water provider within the
city limits and most of the City’s water is supplied from multiple surface water sources. The City also uses recycled water for
all approved uses consistent with the City’s Master Permit and Title 22. With the update of the City’s Water and Wastewater
Element 2010, the City Council reaffirmed the policy for a multi‐source water supply. The full allocation of Nacimiento
Reservoir approved by Council in March 2016 added an additional 2,102 acre feet (AF) to the City’s annual contractual limit.
Salinas Reservoir (Santa Margarita Lake) and Whale Rock Reservoir: Combined Safe Annual Yield 6,940 AF/year
Nacimiento Reservoir: 5,482 AF/year dependable yield/ contractual limit
Recycled water from the City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF): 187 AF in 2015.
Recycled Water: The project will be required to utilize recycled water as appropriate within the OASP.
Wastewater: The wastewater system for the City includes facilities for wastewater collection and treatment. The City’s
collection system serves residential, commercial, and industrial customers. Sewer service is provided only to properties
within the City limits, with the exception of a few residential properties, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, and the County of San
Luis Obispo Airport. There are approximately 15,200 service connections. The City’s WRRF processes wastewater in
accordance with the standards set by the State. In 2016, the WRRF has an average dry weather flow capacity of 5.1 MGD and
a peak wet weather flow capacity of 22 MGD. Based on average daily influent flow records for 2015 average flows to the
WRRF are approximately 2.74 MGD.
Solid Waste: The City’s Utilities Department is responsible for administering an exclusive franchise agreement with San
Luis Garbage Company to collect and dispose solid waste generated by residential, commercial, and industrial customers in
San Luis Obispo. This agreement also includes curbside recycling, and green waste service. There are three solid waste
disposal facilities within San Luis Obispo County. Most solid waste collected in the city is disposed of at the Cold Canyon
Landfill. Cold Canyon Landfill is currently (2016) permitted to receive up to 1,650 tons of solid waste per day, with an
estimated remaining capacity of 14,500,000 cubic yards (60.1 percent remaining capacity). In 2015, the Cold Canyon
Landfill operator estimated the landfill is expected to reach capacity in 2040.
a-c, e) The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in demand on City infrastructure, including water,
wastewater and storm water facilities. Development of the site is required to be served by City sewer and water service,
which both have adequate capacity to serve the project, and a water supply plan is required for all OASP Final Maps (see
OASP Mitigation Measure USS-1 Off-site Water Main Line Extensions to the OASP to meet Fire Flow and Storage
Standards). The City wastewater treatment plant and existing and proposed sewer lines in the vicinity have sufficient capacity
to serve the project site. The developer will be required to construct on -site sewer facilities according to City and Uniform
Plumbing Code standards. The project proposal includes internal collection lines; off-site utility construction is currently
proposed as a part of the Righetti Ranch #3063 subdivision to the west, which would connect the Planning Area to existing
main line facilities at Tank Farm Road. From Tank Farm Road, generated wastewater will follow existing conveyance
facilities to the City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility. Existing storm water facilities are present in the vicinity of the
project site, please refer to Section 9, Hydrology and Water Quality, for additional discussion regarding proposed
improvements. This project has been reviewed by the City’s Public Works and Utilities Departments and no
resource/infrastructure deficiencies have been identified.
d) The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in demand on potable and recycled water supplies, as
anticipated under the recent General Plan Update and OASP FEIR; the incremental demand from the 18 residences is not
considered to be significant.
Provisions in the City General Plan, specifically the Water and Wastewater Management Element and the OASP, ensure that
increased water use by new development will not cause inadequate water service to existing and future customers. The
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-114
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
34
project is subject to water impact fees which were adopted to ensure that new development pays its share of constructing
additional infrastructure needed to support additional facilities. More specifically, the projects are subject to the citywide
water impact fees. This project has been reviewed by the City’s Utilities Department and no resource/infrastructure
deficiencies have been identified. Thus, compliance with the City and State standards and requirements will assure that
impacts related to water supplies are less than significant.
f-g) The proposed project will be served by San Luis Garbage Company, which maintains standards for residential access to
ensure that collection is feasible. The Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires each city and county in
California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by 50% (from 1989 levels) by 2000. The proposed project is required to
reduce the waste stream generated by development consistent with the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element policies
to coordinate waste reduction and recycling efforts (COSE 5.5.3), and Development Standards for Solid Waste Services
(available at http://www.slocity.org/utilities/download/binstandards08.pdf). A solid waste reduction plan for recycling
discarded construction materials is a submittal requirement with the building permit application. The incremental additional
waste stream generated by this project is not anticipated to create significant impacts to solid waste disposal.
Conclusion: Based on compliance with the OASP and OASP FEIR Mitigation Measure USS-1, impacts are considered to be
less than significant.
18. 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--
The project is an infill residential development in an urbanizing area of the city. Without incorporation of the OASP
development standards and the “self-mitigation” design features called for in the OASP, the project would have the potential
to create significant impacts to the community. As discussed above, potential impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological and
cultural resources, geology and soils and hydrology and water quality will be less than significant with the VTM features
included in the proposed plans and compliance with adopted mitigation measures.
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--
The impacts of the proposed project are individually limited and not considered “cumulatively considerable.” Although
incremental changes in certain issue areas can be expected as a result of the proposed project, all environmental impacts that
could occur as a result of the proposed project would be reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with
existing regulations discussed in this Initial Study and/or implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this
Initial Study for the following resource areas: aesthetics, air quality, biological and cultural resources, geology and soils and
hydrology and water quality.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
--X--
Implementation of the proposed project would result in no environmental effects that would cause substantial direct or
indirect adverse effects on human beings with incorporation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study.
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-115
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
35
19. 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.
City of San Luis Obispo Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update EIR, Orcutt Area Specific Plan Amendment and
Final Environmental Impact Report (2010) are available for review at the City Community Development Department (919
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401). The LUCE Update EIR can also be found at the following website:
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/planning-zoning/general-plan
The OASP and OASP FEIR can also be found at the following website:
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/planning-zoning/specific-area-
plans/orcutt-area
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.
Applicable excerpts, analysis and conclusions from the referenced documents have been added to each impact issue area
discussion. Where project specific impacts and mitigation measures have been identified that are not addressed in the OASP
and FEIR, original analysis has been provided to analyze impact levels as needed.
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.
Please refer to Initial Study and OASP FEIR Required Mitigation and Monitoring Program.
20. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element, December 2014 and Final EIR, October 2014
2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element, December 2014 and Final EIR, October 2014
3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element, May 1996
4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element, March 2012
5. City of SLO General Plan Conservation & Open Space Element, April 2006
6. City of SLO General Plan Housing Element, January 2015
7. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element, June 2016
8. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element, on file in the Utilities Department
9. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
10. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines, June 2010
11. City of San Luis Obispo, Land Use Inventory Database
12. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations, March 2015
13. City of SLO Climate Action Plan, August 2012
14. California Building Code
15. City of SLO Waterways Management Plan
16. Final Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan, December 2015
17. Site Visit
18. Orcutt Area Specific Plan 2010
19. Orcutt Area Specific Plan Final EIR 2010
20. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, SLO APCD, April 2012
21. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, on file in the Community
Development Department
22. 2001 Clean Air Plan San Luis Obispo County, SLO APCD, December 2001
23. City of San Luis Obispo, Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community
Development Department
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-116
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SBDV-2586-2016 / ER-2586-2016
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
36
24. City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Site Map
25. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Map
26. Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Supporting Evidence, SLO APCD, March 28, 2012
27. Vesting Tentative Tract Map (Imel Subdivision) #3095 Project Plans
28. Applicant project statement/description, October 5, 2016
29. Imel Property Line of Sight to Righetti Hill Analysis, Cannon, June 8, 2016
30. Imel Gravity Sewer Analysis, Cannon, February 28, 2016
31. Imel Property Cultural Resources Study, Rincon Consultants, March 4, 2016
32. Existing Slopes Analysis, Cannon, May 2, 2016
33. Certified Arborist Letter Report, Rincon Consultants, April 26, 2016
34. Storm Water Analyses, Cannon; On-site June 20, 2016 and Off-site March 11, 2016
35. Imel Grading and Constraints Overlay, Cannon, August 26, 2016
36. Imel Grading in Creek Setbacks, Cannon, August 29, 2016
37. Jones and Imel Properties Biological Resources Assessment, Rincon Consultants, August 2014
38. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, June 14, 2016
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Project Site Plan/Aerial Photo Overlay
3. Vesting Tentative Tract Map #3095
4. Applicant PD and Statements
5. Additional Plans and Exhibits
6. Biological Resources Assessment, Rincon Consultants, August 2014
7. Arborist Letter Report, Rincon Consultants, April 26, 2016
8. Onsite Detention Capacity, Cannon, June 20, 2016; Offsite Detention Strategy and Feasibility, Cannon,
March 11, 2016
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-117
37
OASP FEIR REQUIRED MITIGATION and MONITORING PROGRAM
Applicable mitigation measures carried forward from the certified Orcutt Area Specific Plan Final EIR
and Mitigation and Monitoring Program are listed below. Additional clarifications and new mitigation
measures applicable to the proposed project are also listed below, and are presented in italics for
distinction from the originally adopted measures.
AESTHETICS
AES-3(a) Minimize Lighting on Public Areas. Lighting shall be shielded as shown in the Specific
Plan and directed downward. Lighting shall not be mounted more than 16 feet high.
Streetlights, where they are included, shall be primarily for pedestrian safety, and shall not
provide widespread illumination unless necessary to comply with safety requirements, as
determined by the Public Works Director. Street lighting should focus on intersections and
should be placed between intersections only when it is necessary to comply with safety
requirements, as determined by the Public Works Director. Trail lighting shall be at a scale
appropriate for pedestrians, utilizing bollards, although overhead lighting may be used where
vandalism of bollard lights is a concern. Prior to development of individual lots, proposed
lighting shall be indicated on site plans and shall demonstrate that spill-over of lighting
would not affect nearby residential areas.
AES-3(a) Monitoring Program: Compliance with lighting standards shall be shown on all tract and
residential construction drawings, to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Community Development
Directors.
AIR QUALITY MITIGATION
Operational Phase Mitigation
AQ-1(a) Energy Efficiency. The building energy efficiency rating shall be 10% above what is
required by Title 24 requirements for all buildings within the Specific Plan Area. The
following energy-conserving techniques shall be incorporated unless the applicant
demonstrates their infeasibility to the satisfaction of City Planning and Building Department
staff: increase walls and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements; orient buildings to
maximize natural heating and cooling; plant shade trees along southern exposures of buildings
to reduce summer cooling needs; use roof material with a solar reflectance value meeting the
Environmental Protection Agency/Department of Energy Star rating; build in energy efficient
appliances; use low energy street lighting and traffic signals; use energy efficient interior
lighting; use solar water heaters; and use double-paned windows. Final building
construction plans will include needed solar conduits required for each residential unit for
installing a roof-mounted solar system, at the option of each owner.
AQ-1(d) Telecommuting. All new homes within the Specific Plan area shall be constructed with
internal wiring/cabling that allows telecommuting, teleconferencing, and tele-learning to
occur simultaneously in at least three locations in each home.
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-118
38
AQ-1(e) Pathways. Where feasible, all cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets shall be links by pathways to
encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel.
AQ-1(a, d, e) Monitoring Program: Compliance will be reviewed with the subdivision plans and
accompanying architectural review plans and ultimately shown on improvement plans and construction
drawings, and confirmed by the Public Works and Community Development Directors.
Construction Phase Mitigation
AQ-3(a) Application of CBACT (Best Available Control Technology for construction related
equipment). The following measures shall be implemented to reduce combustion emissions
from construction equipment where a project will have an area of disturbance greater than 1
acre, or for all projects, regardless of the size of ground disturbance, when that disturbance
would be conducted adjacent to sensitive receptors.
Specific Plan applicants shall submit for review by the Community Development
Department and Air Pollution Control District (APCD) staff a grading plan showing the
area to be disturbed and a description of construction equipment that will be used and
pollution reduction measures that will be implemented. Upon confirmation by the
Community Development Department and APCD, appropriate CBACT features shall be
applied. The application of these features shall occur prior to Specific Plan construction.
Specific Plan applicants shall be required to ensure that all construction equipment and
portable engines are properly maintained and tuned according to manufacturer's
specifications.
Specific Plan applicants shall be required to ensure that off-road and portable diesel
powered equipment, including but not limited to bulldozers, graders, cranes, loaders,
scrapers, backhoes, generator sets, compressors, auxiliary power units, shall be fueled
exclusively with CARB motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed off-road diesel is
acceptable).
Specific Plan applicants shall be required to install a diesel oxidation catalyst on each of
the two pieces of equipment projected to generate the greatest emissions. Installations
must be prepared according to manufacturer's specifications.
Maximize, to the extent feasible, the use of diesel construction equipment meeting ARB's
1996 and newer certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines.
Maximize, to the extent feasible, the use of on-road heavy-duty equipment and trucks that
meet the ARB's 1998 or newer certification standard for on-road heavy-duty diesel
engines.
All on and off-road diesel equipment shall not be allowed to idle for more than 5 minutes.
Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and on job sites to remind drivers
and operators of the 5 minute idling limit.
AQ-3(b) Dust Control. The following measures shall be implemented to reduce PM10 emissions
during all Specific Plan construction:
Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible.
Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust
from leaving the site. Water shall be applied as soon as possible whenever wind
speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed (nonpotable) water should be used
whenever possible.
All dirt-stock-pile areas shall be sprayed daily as needed.
Permanent dust control measures shall be identified in the approved Specific Plan
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-119
39
revegetation and landscape plans and implemented as soon as possible following
completion of any soil disturbing activities.
Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month
after initial grading shall be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered
until vegetation is established.
All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved
chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD.
All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc., to be paved shall be completed as soon as
possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless
seeding or soil binders are used.
Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved
surface at the construction site.
All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials shall be covered or shall
maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load
and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114.
Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash
off trucks and equipment leaving the site.
Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved
roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water shall be used where feasible.
AQ-3(c) Cover Stockpiled Soils. If importation, exportation, or stockpiling of fill material is
involved, soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with
soil binders to prevent dust generation. Trucks transporting material shall be tarped from
the point of origin.
AQ-3(d) Dust Control Monitor. On all projects with an area of disturbance greater than 1 acre, the
contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program
and to order increased watering as necessary to prevent transport of dust off-site. Their duties
shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress.
AIR-1 Naturally Occurring Asbestos. Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) has been identified as a
toxic air contaminant by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). Under the ARB Air
Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining
Operations, prior to any grading activities a geologic evaluation should be conducted to
determine if NOA is present within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not present, an
exemption request must be filed with the District. If NOA is found at the site, the applicant
must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include
development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and an Asbestos Health and Safety
Program for approval by the APCD. Technical Appendix 4.4 of this Handbook includes a
map of zones throughout SLO County where NOA has been found and geological evaluation
is required prior to any grading. More information on NOA can be found at
http://www.slocleanair.org/business/asbestos.asp.
AIR-2 Asbestos Material in Demolition. Demolition activities can have potential negative air
quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper handling, demolition, and disposal of
asbestos containing material (ACM). Asbestos containing materials could be encountered
during demolition or remodeling of existing buildings. Asbestos can also be found in utility
pipes/pipelines (transite pipes or insulation on pipes). If utility pipelines are scheduled for
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-120
40
removal or relocation or a building(s) is proposed to be removed or renovated, various
regulatory requirements may apply, including the requirements stipulated in the National
Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40CFR61, Subpart M - asbestos
NESHAP). These requirements include but are not limited to: 1) notification to the APCD, 2)
an asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Inspector, and, 3) applicable removal
and disposal requirements of identified ACM. More information on Asbestos can be found at
http://www.slocleanair.org/business/asbestos.php.
AQ-3(a-d), AIR-1, and AIR-2 Monitoring Program: These conditions shall be noted on all project
grading and building plans. The applicant will also be required to comply with existing regulations and
secure necessary permits from the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) before the onset of grading or
demolition activities including, but not limited to additional dust control measures, evaluation for
Naturally Occurring Asbestos. The applicant shall present evidence of a plan for complying with these
requirements prior to issuance of a grading or building permit from the City. The applicant shall provide
the City with the name and telephone number of the person responsible for ensuring compliance with
these requirements. The Building Inspector and Public Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MITIGATION
B-2(b) Special-Status Plant Buffer. Where special-status plants are found, site development plans
shall be modified to avoid such occurrences with a minimum buffer of 50 feet. The applicant
seeking entitlement shall establish conservation easements for such preserved areas, prior to
issuance of the first building permit for subsequent tracts. The Specific Plan shall be
amended at that time to place these areas formally into open space, possibly as an overlay
area. If total avoidance is economically or technologically infeasible then plants shall be
salvaged and relocated under direction of an approved botanist, in accordance with
Mitigation Measures B-2(c) through B-2(f). If total avoidance can be achieved, Mitigation
Measures B-2(c) through B-2(f) would not be required. (It should be noted that avoidance is
likely to be more cost effective in the long run compared to mitigation in the form of salvage
and relocation). If total avoidance of special-status plant species can be achieved through
Mitigation Measure B-2(b), Mitigation Measures B-2(c) through B-2(f) would not be
required.
B-2(c) Incidental Take Permit. In the event that state listed species are discovered, the applicant
seeking entitlements shall submit to the City signed copies of an incidental take permit and
enacting agreements from the CDFG regarding those species as necessary under Section
2081 of the California Fish and Game Code prior to the initiation of grading. If a plant
species that is listed under the federal Endangered Species Act is discovered, the applicant
seeking entitlements shall provide proof of compliance with the federal Endangered Species
Act, inclusive as necessary of signed copies of incidental take permit and associated enacting
agreements, to the City prior to the initiation of grading.
B-2(b, c) Monitoring Program: Compliance with mitigation measures will be reviewed with plans as
part of the architectural review submittal and ultimately shown on improvement plans and construction
drawings. As applicable, the Natural Resources Manager will confirm receipt of required resource
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-121
41
agency permits and approvals. Compliance will be verified by the Natural Resources Manager in
consultation with the Community Development Director.
B-2(d) Special-Status Species CDFG-Approved Mitigation Plan. If total avoidance of the species
occurrences is economically or technologically infeasible, a mitigation program shall be
developed by the City in consultation with CDFG as appropriate. A research study to
determine the best mitigation approach for each particular species to be salvaged shall be
conducted. The special-status plant species mitigation program may include the following:
The overall goal and measurable objectives of the mitigation and monitoring plan;
Specific areas proposed for revegetation and their size.
Potential sites for mitigation would be any suitable site within proposed open space
depending on the species that is appropriately buffered from development. For a list
of suitable habitats for the mitigation of each species refer to the list in Mitigation
Measure B-2(a).
Specific habitat management and protection concepts to be used to ensure long-term
maintenance and protection of the special-status plant species to be included,
including 4:1 in-kind replacement of removed native (i.e. oak and sycamore) trees,
(i.e.: annual population census surveys and habitat assessments; establishment of
monitoring reference sites; fencing of special-status plant species preserves and
signage to identify the environmentally sensitive areas; a seasonally timed weed
abatement program; and seasonally-timed seed and/or topsoil collection, propagation,
and reintroduction of special-status plant species into specified receiver sites);
Success criteria based on the goals and measurable objectives to ensure a viable
population(s) on the project site in perpetuity;
An education program to inform residents of the presence of special-status plant
species and sensitive biological resources on-site, and to provide methods that
residents can employ to reduce impacts to these species/resources in protected open
space areas;
Reporting requirements to ensure consistent data collection and reporting methods
used by monitoring personnel; and
Funding mechanism.
B-2(e) Special-Status Plant Monitoring Frequency. Monitoring shall occur annually and shall last
at least five years to ensure successful establishment of all re-introduced or salvaged plants
and no-net-loss of the species or its habitat. In the case of annual plants it is difficult to
determine if there has been a net loss or gain in a five year period. Therefore an important
component of the mitigation and monitoring plan shall be adaptive management. The
adaptive management program shall address both foreseen and unforeseen circumstances
relating to the preservation and mitigation programs. The plan shall include follow up
surveys every five years in perpetuity or until a qualified biologist can demonstrate that the
target special-status species has not experienced a net loss. It shall also include remedial
measures to address negative impacts to the special-status plant species and their habitats
(i.e.: removal of weeds, addition of seeding/planting efforts) if the species is suffering a net
loss at the time of the follow up surveys.
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-122
42
B-2(f) Special-Status Species Habitat Replacement. The primary goal of the mitigation and
monitoring plan is to ensure a viable population and no-net-loss of special-status species
habitat within the project site. To ensure the no-net-loss of a species, the applicant shall
create two acres of occupied special-status species habitat for every one acre of habitat
impacted by project development. If resource agencies require a higher replacement ratio
than 2:1, their requirements would prevail. The creation of habitat can occur in conjunction
with the mitigation/relocation of wildflower field habitat if the research study indicates that
the wildflower field and specific special-status plant species can be relocated and cohabitate.
B-2(g) Bunchgrass Survey. If occurrences of native perennial bunchgrass habitat of 0.5 acre or
greater containing at least 10% or greater coverage of native perennial bunchgrass are found
that area shall be placed in open space and a deed restriction placed over the area to protect it
in perpetuity. If the area cannot be avoided for economical or technological reasons, then
native grasses including perennial bunchgrasses shall be incorporated into the landscaping
plant palette and the erosion control plan to replace the lost habitat. The most effective areas
to receive native grass seed are graded areas that will be revegetated adjacent to open space.
The acreage ratio of lost native perennial bunchgrass habitat to habitat replaced shall be no
less than 1:1. Native perennial bunchgrass material shall come from locally collected seed
stock to avoid contamination of the local gene pool. Because perennial bunchgrasses grow
slowly at first, a “nurse” crop consisting of Nuttall’s fescue (Vulpia microstachys), California
brome (Bromus carinatus), and pinpoint clover (Trifolium gracilentum) shall be added to the
mix to stabilize any graded areas while the bunchgrasses become established. No non-native
invasive plant species shall be used in landscaping. California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-
IPC) maintains a list of the most important invasive plants to avoid. This list shall be used
when creating a plant palette for landscaping. Planting equipment (i.e.: hydroseeding tank
and dispensing mechanism) shall be cleaned of remaining seed from previous applications
prior to use on-site. The hydroseed applicator shall be responsible for ensuring tanks have
been properly cleaned of any seed that is not a part of the specified mix.
Additional clarifying mitigation as recommended by applicant’s biologist (Rincon August
2014): Pertinent and logistic details regarding the creation of valley needlegrass grassland
habitat shall be outlined in a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for this sensitive
resource. This Plan will be approved by the City prior to its implementation and shall
include the following:
Overall goals and measurable plan objectives,
Identification of specific areas for mitigation,
Specific habitat management and protection concepts that will be used to ensure the
long term maintenance and continued protection of valley needlegrass grassland
habitat,
Success criteria to be met,
An education program for residents,
Reporting requirements, and
Identification of funding mechanisms.
The valley needlegrass grassland habitat mitigation areas shall be monitored annually for at
least five years to ensure successful establishment and that no-net-loss of this sensitive
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-123
43
habitat has been achieved. To ensure no-net-loss of valley needlegrass grassland habitat, the
applicant shall create one acre of mitigation habitat for every one acre of valley needlegrass
grassland habitat impacted by implementation of the project. A copy of all permits, or other
correspondence stating that no permit is necessary, shall be filed with the City prior to
project implementation. The City shall ensure that all the required documentation is received
prior to initiation of construction activities and shall oversee implementation of the Valley
Needlegrass Grassland Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Likewise, the City shall
ensure that all the avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures prescribed are fully
implemented.
B-2(d-g) Monitoring Program: The Special-Status Species Mitigation Plan shall be submitted and
approved by the Natural Resources Manager and Community Development Director prior to issuance of
any grading and construction permits. As applicable, the Natural Resources Manager will confirm
receipt of required resource agency permits and approvals. Compliance with the Mitigation Plan and
submittal of required Monitoring Reports will be verified by the Natural Resources Manager in
consultation with the Community Development Director.
Trees (OASP)
B-3(a) Construction Requirements. Development under the Specific Plan shall abide by the
requirements of the City Arborist for construction. Requirements shall include but not be
limited to: the protection of trees with construction setbacks from trees; construction fencing
around trees; grading limits around the base of trees as required; and a replacement plan for
trees removed including replacement at a minimum 2:1 ratio. Removal of native trees,
including sycamore and oak trees, shall require a minimum 4:1 replacement ratio, to be
incorporated into the Special-Status Species Mitigation Plan and Five-Year Monitoring
Plan.
B-3(a) Monitoring Program: The Special-Status Species Mitigation Plan shall be submitted and
approved by the Natural Resources Manager and Community Development Director prior to issuance of
any grading and construction permits. As applicable, the Natural Resources Manager will confirm
receipt of required resource agency permits and approvals. Compliance with the Mitigation Plan and
submittal of required Monitoring Reports will be verified by the Natural Resources Manager in
consultation with the Community Development Director.
Riparian Woodland and Wetland Habitat (OASP)
B-4(a) Trail Setbacks. Trails shall be setback out of riparian habitat and out of the buffer area. The
trail shall be a minimum distance of 20 feet from top of bank or from the edge of riparian
canopy, whichever is farther. Trails shall be setback from wetland habitat at a minimum
distance of 30 feet and shall not be within the buffer. Native plant species that will deter
human disturbance shall be planted in the area between the trail and the wetland/riparian
habitat including plants such as California rose (Rosa californica) and California blackberry
(Rubus ursinus). No passive recreational use shall be allowed in the riparian or wetland
habitats or drainage corridors.
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-124
44
B-4(b) Development Setbacks. Development that abuts riparian and wetland mitigation areas shall
also be setback at least 20 feet, and be buffered by an appropriately-sized fence and/or plants
that deter human entry listed in BIO-4(a).
B-4(c) Riparian/ Wetland Mitigation. If riparian and/or wetland habitat are proposed for removal
pursuant to development under the Specific Plan, such development shall apply for all
applicable permits and submit a Mitigation Plan for areas of disturbance to wetlands and/or
riparian habitat. The plan shall be prepared by a biologist familiar with restoration and
mitigation techniques. Compensatory mitigation shall occur on-site using regionally collected
native plant material at a minimum ratio of 2:1 (habitat created to habitat impacted) in areas
shown on FEIR Figure 4.4-2 as directed by a biologist.
The resource agencies may require a higher mitigation ratio. If the Orcutt Regional Basin is
necessary as a mitigation site for waters of the U.S. and State it shall be designed as directed
by a biologist taking into consideration hydrology, soils, and erosion control and using the
final mitigation guidelines and monitoring requirements (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
2004). As noted above, the trail shall be setback out of the buffer area for riparian and
wetland habitat.
The plan shall include, but not be limited to the following components:
1) Description of the project/impact site (i.e.: location, responsible parties, jurisdictional
areas to be filled/impacted by habitat type);
2) goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation project (type(s) and area(s) of habitat to be
established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved, specific functions and values of habitat
type(s) to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved);
3) description of the proposed compensatory mitigation-site (location and size, ownership
status, existing functions and values of the compensatory mitigation-site);
4) implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation-site (rationale for expecting
implementation success, responsible parties, schedule, site preparation, planting plan);
5) maintenance activities during the monitoring period (activities, responsible parties,
schedule);
6) monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation-site (performance standards, target
functions and values, target hydrological regime, target jurisdictional and nonjurisdictional
acreages to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved, annual monitoring reports);
7) completion of compensatory mitigation (notification of completion, agency confirmation);
and
8) contingency measures (initiating procedures, alternative locations for contingency
compensatory mitigation, funding mechanism).
In addition, erosion control and landscaping specifications included in the mitigation plan
shall allow only natural-fiber, biodegradable meshes and coir rolls, to prevent impacts to the
environment and to fish and terrestrial wildlife.
B-4(a-c) Monitoring Program: Compliance with mitigation measures will be reviewed with plans as
part of the architectural review submittal and ultimately shown on improvement plans and construction
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-125
45
drawings. As applicable, the Natural Resources Manager will confirm receipt of required resource
agency permits and approvals. The Mitigation Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Natural
Resources Manager and Community Development Director prior to issuance of any grading and
construction permits. As applicable, the Natural Resources Manager will confirm receipt of required
resource agency permits and approvals. Compliance with the Mitigation Plan and submittal of required
Monitoring Reports will be verified by the Natural Resources Manager in consultation with the
Community Development Director.
Impacts to Wildlife (OASP)
B-5(a) Bird Pre-Construction Survey. To avoid impacts to nesting special-status bird species and
raptors including the groundnesting burrowing owl, all initial ground-disturbing activities
and tree removal shall be limited to the time period between September 15 and February 1. If
initial site disturbance, grading, and tree removal cannot be conducted during this time
period, a pre-construction survey for active nests within the limits of grading shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist at the site no more than 30 days prior to the start of any
construction activities (for ground-nesting burrowing owl survey [OASP FEIR]). If active
nests are located, all construction work must be conducted outside a buffer zone of 250 feet
to 500 feet from the nests as determined in consultation with the CDFG. No direct
disturbance to nests shall occur until the adults and young are no longer reliant on the nest
site. A qualified biologist shall confirm that breeding/nesting is completed and young have
fledged the nest prior to the start of construction.
B-5(c) Monarch Pre-Construction Survey. If initial ground-breaking is to occur between the
months of October and March a preconstruction survey for active monarch roost sites within
the limits of grading shall be conducted by a qualified biologist at the site two weeks prior to
any construction activities. If active roost sites are located no ground-disturbing activities
shall occur within 50 feet of the perimeter of the habitat. Construction shall not resume
within the setback until a qualified biologist has determined that the monarch butterfly has
vacated the site.
B-5(a, c) Monitoring Program: Mitigation measures shall be shown on improvement plans and
construction drawings. The Natural Resources Manager will confirm receipt of required pre-construction
survey reports. Compliance will be verified by the Natural Resources Manager in consultation with the
Community Development Director.
B-6(a) Minimized Roadway Widths. Roadway widths adjacent to riparian and wetland habitats
may be reduced to the minimum width possible, while maintaining Fire Department
Requirements for emergency access, with slower speed limits introduced. Posted speed
limits should be 25 mph.
B-6(b) Culvert Design. Although closed culverts are to be the drainage conveyance method of last
resort per the City Waterways Management Plan, where they are required, culverts
connecting the Plan Area drainage corridors with upstream and downstream drainage
corridors shall be evaluated during the suitability analysis pursuant to Mitigation Measure B-
5(e) to determine their importance to wildlife who could use them to travel to and from the
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-126
46
site. If culverts are found to be of importance to wildlife, the culverts shall be evaluated for
their potential for improvement (i.e. retrofitting, maintenance, or specific improvements
depending on the types of species using them). The development pursuant to the Specific
Plan and the City shall develop a plan for the improvement of the culverts. Preservation of
the wildlife corridors that are present on the project site can be achieved with sufficient
setbacks from riparian and wetland habitats. Refer to B-4 for mitigation regarding riparian
and wetland habitat setbacks.
B-6(c) Educational Pet Brochure. Any development pursuant to the Specific Plan shall prepare a
brochure that informs prospective homebuyers and Home Owners Association (HOA)
members about the impacts associated with non- native animals, especially cats and dogs, to
the project site; similarly, the brochure must inform potential homebuyers and all HOA
members of the potential for coyotes to prey on domestic animals.
B-6(a-c) Monitoring Program: Mitigation measures shall be shown on improvement plans and
construction drawings. Compliance will be verified by the Natural Resources Manager in consultation
with the Community Development Director.
B-6(d) Landscaping Plan Review. To ensure that project landscaping does not introduce invasive
non-native plant and tree species to the region of the site, the final landscaping plan shall be
reviewed and approved by a qualified biologist. The California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-
IPC) maintains several lists of the most important invasive plants to avoid. The lists shall be
used when creating a plant palette for landscaping to ensure that plants on the lists are not
used. The following plants shall not be allowed as part of potential landscaping plans
pursuant to development under the Specific Plan:
• African sumac (Rhus lancea)
• Australian saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata)
• Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia)
• California pepper (Schinus molle) and Brazilian pepper (S. terebinthifolius)
• Cape weed (Arctotheca calendula)
• Cotoneaster (Cotoneaster pannosus), (C. lacteus)
• Edible fig (Ficus carica)
• Fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum)
• French broom (Genista monspessulana)
• Ice plant, sea fig (Carpobrotus edulis)
• Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula)
• Myoporum (Myoporum spp.)
• Olive (Olea europaea)
• Pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana), and Andean pampas grass (C. jubata)
• Russian olive (Elaeagnus angusticifolia)
• Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) and striated broom (C. striatus)
• Spanish broom (Spartium junceum)
• Tamarix, salt cedar (Tamarix chinensis), (T. gallica), (T. parviflora), (T. ramosissima)
• Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus)
• Athel tamarisk (Tamarix aphylla)
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-127
47
With the exception of poison oak, only those species listed in the Specific Plan’s Suggested
Plant List [Orcutt Area Specific Plan Appendix E] shall not be planted anywhere on-site
because they are invasive non-native plant species. Poison oak is a native plant species and
could be used to deter human entrance to an area such as a mitigation/enhancement area.
B-6(d) Monitoring Program: Compliance with mitigation measures will be reviewed with landscaping
plans as part of the architectural review submittal and ultimately shown on improvement plans and
construction drawings. Compliance will be verified by the Natural Resources Manager in consultation
with the Community Development Director.
CULTURAL RESOURCES MITIGATION
CR-1(d) Archaeological Resource Construction Monitoring. At the commencement of project
construction, an orientation meeting shall be conducted by an archaeologist for construction
workers associated with earth disturbing procedures. The orientation meeting shall describe
the possibility of exposing unexpected archaeological resources and directions as to what
steps are to be taken if such a find is encountered. In the event that prehistoric or historic
archaeological resources are exposed during project construction, constructional earth
disturbing work within 50 meters (164 feet) of the find must be temporarily suspended or
redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find. After
the find has been appropriately mitigated (e.g., curation, preservation in place, etc), work in
the area may resume. The City should consider retaining a Chumash representative to
monitor any field work associated with Native American cultural material.
If human remains are exposed, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no
further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to
origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
CR-3(a) Prohibition of Archaeological Site Tampering. Off-road vehicle use, unauthorized
collecting of artifacts, and other activities that could destroy or damage archaeological or
cultural sites shall be prohibited. Signs shall be posted on the property to discourage these
types of activities and warn of trespassing violations and imposed fines.
CR-1(d), CR-3(a) Monitoring Program: Requirements for cultural resource mitigation, in the event
of unforeseen encounter of materials, shall be clearly noted on all plans for project grading and
construction. Compliance will be verified by the Community Development Director.
DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY MITIGATION
D-1(a) Erosion Control Plan. Prior to issuance of the first Grading Permit or approval of
improvement plans, the applicant shall submit to the Directors of Community Development
and Public Works for review and approval a detailed erosion control plan (ECP) to mitigate
erosion and sedimentation impacts during the construction period. The detailed ECP shall be
accompanied by a written narrative and be approved by the City Engineer. At a minimum,
the ECP and written narrative should be prepared according to the guidelines outlined in the
DDM and should include the following:
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-128
48
A proposed schedule of grading activities, monitoring, and infrastructure milestones in
chronological format;
Identification of critical areas of high erodibility potential and/or unstable slopes;
Soil stabilization techniques such as short-term biodegradable erosion control blankets
and hydroseeding should be utilized. Silt fences should be installed downslope of all
graded slopes. Straw bales should be installed in the flow path of graded areas receiving
concentrated flows, as well as around storm drain inlets;
Description of erosion control measures on slopes, lots, and streets;
Contour and spot elevations indicating runoff patterns before and after grading;
Filter systems at catch basins (drop inlets) in public streets as a means of sediment
control; and
The post-construction inspection of all drainage facilities for accumulated sediment, and
the clearing of these drainage structures of debris and sediment.
D-1(b) Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. The applicant shall comply with NPDES General
Construction Activities Storm Water Permit Requirements established by the CWA. Pursuant
to the NPDES Storm Water Program, an application for coverage under the statewide
General Construction Activities Storm Water Permit (General Permit) must be obtained for
project development. It is the responsibility of the project applicant to obtain coverage prior
to site construction. The applicant can obtain coverage under the General Permit by filing a
Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resource Control Board’s (SWRCB) Division of
Water Quality. The filing shall describe erosion control and storm water treatment measures
to be implemented during and following construction and provide a schedule for monitoring
performance. These BMPs will serve to control point and non-point source (NPS) pollutants
in storm water and constitute the project’s SWPPP for construction activities. While the
SWPPP will include several of the same components as the ECP, the SWPPP will also
include BMPs for preventing the discharge of other NPS pollutants besides sediment (such as
paint, concrete, etc.) to downstream waters.
Notice of Intent. Prior to beginning construction, the applicant shall file a Notice of Intent
(NOI) for discharge from the proposed development site.
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. The applicant shall require the building
contractor to prepare and submit a SWPPP to the City forty-five (45) days prior to the
start of work for approval. The contractor is responsible for understanding the State
General Permit and instituting the SWPPP during construction. A SWPPP for site
construction shall be developed prior to the initiation of grading and implemented for all
construction activity on the project site in excess of one acre. The SWPPP shall include
specific BMPs to control the discharge of material from the site. BMP methods may
include, but would not be limited to, the use of temporary detention basins, straw bales,
sand bagging, mulching, erosion control blankets, silt fencing, and soil stabilizers.
Additional BMPs should be implemented for any fuel storage or fuel handling that could
occur on-site during construction. The SWPPP must be prepared in accordance with the
guidelines adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The SWPPP
shall be also submitted to the City along with grading/development plans for review and
approval.
Notice of Completion of Construction. The applicant shall file a notice of completion of
construction of the development, identifying that pollution sources were controlled
during the construction of the project and implementing a closure SWPPP for the site.
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-129
49
D-2(a) Vegetative and Biotechnical Approaches to Bank Stabilization. Vegetative or
biotechnical (also referred to as soil bioengineering) approaches to bank stabilization are
preferred over structural approaches. Bank stabilization design must be consistent with the
SLO Creek Stream Management and Maintenance Program Section 6. Streambank
stabilization usually involves one or a combination of the following activities:
Regrading and revegetating the streambanks to eliminate overhanging banks and create
a more stable slope;
Deflecting erosional water flow away from vulnerable sites;
Reducing the steepness of the channel bed through installation of grade
stabilization structures;
Altering the geometry of the channel to influence flow velocities and sediment
deposition;
Diverting a portion of the higher flow into a secondary or by-pass channel;
Armoring or protecting the bank to control erosion, particularly at the toe of
slopes.
The bank stabilization design will:
Be stable over the long term;
Be the least environmentally damaging and the “softest” approach possible;
Not create upstream or downstream flooding or induce other local stream
instabilities;
Minimize impacts to aquatic and riparian habitat.
Specify that only natural-fiber, biodegradable meshes and coir rolls be used, to prevent
impacts to the environment and to fish and terrestrial wildlife.
D-2(c) Riparian Zone Planting. The OASP proposes riparian enhancement of creek corridors.
Section 11 guidelines of the SLO Creek Drainage Design Manual shall be followed for
riparian areas that are modified, created and/or managed for flood damage reduction, stream
enhancement, and bank repair. Linear park terrace vegetation, streambank repair and channel
maintenance projects may require stream channel modifications that include shaping,
widening, deepening, straightening, and armoring. Many channel management projects also
require building access roads for maintenance vehicles and other equipment. These
construction activities can cause a variety of impacts to existing sensitive riparian and aquatic
habitat that, depending on the selected design alternative, range from slight disturbances to
complete removal of desirable woody vegetation and faunal communities. In urban areas
within the SLO creek watershed, riparian vegetation often provides the only remaining
natural habitat available for wildlife populations.
D-4(a) Compliance with City’s Drainage Design Manual. All drainage improvements must be
constructed in accordance with Section 9 of the City’s Drainage Design Manual. Either
subregional facilities shall be constructed with the first phase of development or interim (on-
site) drainage control shall be constructed. Interim facilities can be abandoned once regional
facilities are available. The applicant shall submit a detention system plan to the Director of
Public Works for review and approval. The detention basins shall be designed to comply
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-130
50
with applicable City drainage design standards and at a minimum have the following
features:
Each basin should include an outlet structure to allow the basin to drain completely
within 48 hours. The amount of outflow can be regulated with a fixed outfall structure.
Such a structure must include an outfall pipe of a size and length that will give positive
control on the outfall head. The principal outlet regulates the design discharge from the
watershed above at a water level in the basin that does not exceed a certain maximum
elevation.
Regional, or larger on-site facilities can pose significant hazards to public safety in the
event of failure. In addition to the outlet control structure, an emergency overflow
spillway (secondary overflow) must be provided. This spillway must satisfy the following
requirements:
− The spillway must be designed to pass the 100-year design storm event if the outlet
works fail or if a runoff event exceeds the design event. The spillway design will be
based on peak runoff rates for developed site conditions, assuming that the basins fill
to the crest of the spillway prior to the beginning of the design event.
− The spillway must be located so overflow is conveyed safely to the downstream
channel.
Each basin shall be designed with an emergency spillway that can pass the 100-year
storm event with 2-foot freeboard between the design water surface elevation and the top
of the embankment. At a minimum the basin must contain the 10-year flow without
release to emergency spillway. If flows over the emergency spillway do occur, provisions
must be made or be in place that will convey such flows safely.
The design volume of the basin must be sized to include the capacity for a five (5) year
accumulation of sediment. Generally, the basin should be cleared out when it is half-full,
as determined on a marked staff in the bottom of the basin, or a mark on a riser pipe. The
amount of potential sedimentation in the basin shall be determined by a soils engineer or
hydrologist, using the procedures such as those outlined in the Association of Bay Area
Government’s (ABAG) Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control (May
1995) or as approved by the City Engineer or County Public Works Director.
The basin and its outfall must be sized so that approximately 85% of the total stormwater
storage, excluding sediment storage in the basin, can be recovered within twenty-four
hours of the peak inflow. A basin overflow system must provide controlled discharge
(emergency spillway) for the 100-year design event without overtopping the basin
embankment and maintain adequate freeboard. The design must provide controlled
discharge directly into the downstream conveyance system or safe drainage way. The
principal outlet must be able to drain the detention facility within 48 hours of the end of
the 100-year storm by gravity flow through the principal outlet.
Any detention basin design must be accompanied by a soils report. This report should
address allowable safe basin slopes with respect to liquefaction, rapid draw down, wave
action and so forth. Additionally, the report should also address sedimentation transport
from areas above the basin and allowable bearing pressures where structures are to be
placed. The soils report must address the level of the water table and the effects of the
basin excavation on the water table.
D-4(b) Final Drainage Detention System Verification. Final detention basin system designs for
project-specific EIRs within the Orcutt Plan Area shall be submitted to the Public Works
Department. Per the Wastewater Management Plan, the project shall not cause more than a
5% increase of peak run off rates for the 2-, 50-, and 100-year 24 hour storm event. Final
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-131
51
basin designs shall provide stage-storage-outflow curves and outfall structure details for all
detention basins. The San Luis Obispo SLO/Zone 9 HEC-HMS hydrology model may be
used to model final detention basin system cumulative downstream impacts should specific
projects propose substantial changes to conceptual design, at the discretion of the City
Engineer.
D-5(a) Biofilters. The applicant shall submit to the Director of Community Development for
review and approval a plan that incorporates grassed swales (biofilters) into the project
drainage system where feasible for runoff conveyance and filtering of pollutants. A
preferred alternative to concrete drainage swales to transport the runoff to roadside ditches,
these swales shall be lined with grass or appropriate vegetation to encourage the biofiltration
of sediment, phosphorus, trace metals, and petroleum from runoff prior to discharge into the
formal drainage network. General design guidelines relevant to optimizing the pollutant
removal mechanisms of grassed swales are: 1) a dense, uniform growth of fine-stemmed
herbaceous plants for optimal filtering of pollutants; 2) vegetation that is tolerant to the
water, climatological, and soil conditions of the project site is preferred; 3) grassed swales
that maximize water contact with the vegetation and soil surface have the potential to
substantially improve removal rates, particularly of soluble pollutants; and 4) pollutant
removal efficiency is increased as the flow path length is increased. General maintenance
guidelines for biofilters are discussed in Mitigation Measure D-5(b). A Best Management
Practice (BMP) filter device shall be installed to intercept water flowing off of proposed
parking lot and roadway surfaces. Water quality BMPs shall be those identified in the
California Stormwater Quality association’s BMP handbook. Whenever feasible, the
preferred approach to treating surface runoff will be the use of drainage swales rather than
mechanical devices. The chosen method for treating runoff shall be a proven and
documented pollution prevention technology device that removes oil and sediment from
stormwater runoff, and retains the contaminants for safe and easy removal. The chosen
device shall possess design features to prevent resuspension of previously collected
contaminants and materials, and contain a built-in diversion structure to divert intense runoff
events and prevent scouring of the previously collected sediments. The filter devices shall be
designed and sized to treat the run off from the first 25 mm (1 inch) of rainfall. The storm
water quality system must be reviewed and approved by the City Director of Public Works.
D-5(b) SWPPP Maintenance Guidelines. Prior to issuance of the first grading permit or approval
of improvement plans, the applicant shall submit to the Director of Community Development
and Director of Public Works for review and approval a long-term storm water pollution
prevention plan (SWPPP) to protect storm water quality after the construction period. The
SWPPP shall include the following additional BMPs to protect storm water quality:
Proper maintenance of parking lots and other paved areas can eliminate the majority of
litter and debris washing into storm drains and thus entering local waterways. Regular
sweeping is a simple and effective BMP aimed at reducing the amount of litter in storm
drain inlets (to prevent clogging) and public waterways (for water quality). The project
applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of San Luis Obispo to ensure this
maintenance is completed prior to approval of improvement plans or final maps.
Proper maintenance of biofilters is essential to maintain functionality. The maintenance
of biofilters on the project site will be the responsibility of a homeowner’s association for
the proposed project. Biofilter maintenance would include: 1) Regular mowing to
promote growth and increase density and pollutant uptake (vegetative height should be no
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-132
52
more than 8 inches, cuttings must be promptly removed and properly disposed of); 2)
Removal of sediments during summer months when they build up to 6 inches at any spot,
cover biofilter vegetation, or otherwise interfere with biofilter operation; and 3)
Reseeding of biofilters as necessary, whenever maintenance or natural processes create
bare spots.
Proper maintenance of detention basins is necessary to ensure their effectiveness at
preventing downstream drainage problems and promoting water quality. Necessary
detention basin maintenance includes: 1) regular inspection during the wet season for
sediment buildup and clogging of inlets and outlets; 2) regular (approximately every 2-3
years) removal of basin sediment; and 3) if an open detention basin is used, mowing and
maintenance of basin vegetation (replant or reseed) as necessary to control erosion. A
maintenance plan must be developed and provided along with the design documents.
Long-term detention basin maintenance plans must clearly delineate and assign
maintenance and monitoring responsibilities for local and regional detention basins.
Maintenance reports shall be submitted annually to City’s Public Works Department.
For basins greater than 5,000 m3 (4 ac-ft) storage (i.e. the Upper Fork regional detention
basin), vehicular access for maintenance of the basin and outlet works, removal of
sediment, and removal of floating objects during all weather conditions must be provided.
An access road must be provided to the basin floor of all detention facilities. This road
must have a minimum width of 3.7 m (12 ft) and a maximum grade of 20%. Turnarounds
at the control structure and the bottom of the basin must have a 12-m (40-ft) minimum
outside turning radius.
The applicant shall prepare informational literature and guidance on residential BMPs to
minimize pollutant contributions from the proposed development. This information shall
be distributed to all residences at the project site. At a minimum the information should
cover: 1) general information on biofilters and detention basins for residents concerning
their purpose and importance of keeping them free of yard cuttings and leaf litter; 2)
proper disposal of household and commercial chemicals; 3) proper use of landscaping
chemicals; 4) clean-up and appropriate disposal of yard cuttings and leaf litter; and 5)
prohibition of any washing and dumping of materials and chemicals into storm drains.
The stormwater BMP devices shall be inspected, cleaned and maintained in accordance
with the manufacturer’s maintenance specifications. The devices shall be cleaned prior to
the onset of the rainy season (i.e. November 1st) and immediately after the end of the
rainy season (i.e. May 1st). All devices will be checked after major storm events. The
results of the inspection and maintenance report shall be submitted to the City of San
Luis Obispo Public Works Department.
D-5(c) Pervious Paving Material. Consistent with Land Use Element Policy 6.4.7, the applicant
shall be encouraged to use pervious paving material to facilitate rainwater percolation.
Parking lots and paved outdoor storage areas shall, where feasible, use pervious paving to
reduce surface water runoff and aid in groundwater recharge.
D-5(d) Low Impact Development Practices. In addition to the low impact development (LID)
practices described in the above measures, the Specific Plan shall incorporate the following
as requirements of future development within the area, to the extent appropriate for type and
location of development:
Reduced and disconnected impervious surfaces
Preservation of native vegetation where feasible
Use of tree boxes to capture and infiltrate street runoff
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-133
53
Roof leader flows shall be directed to planter boxes and other vegetated areas
Soil amendments shall be utilized in landscaped areas to improve infiltration rates of clay
soils.
Incorporate rain gardens into landscape design These LID practices shall be utilized
wherever feasible and appropriate to ensure that the pre-development stormwater runoff
volume and pre-development peak runoff discharge rate are maintained, and that the flow
frequency and duration of post development conditions are identical (to the extent
feasible) to those of pre-development conditions. LID practices are subject to the review
and approval of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, as part of the City’s National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit compliance.
D-1(a, b), D-2(a, c), D-4(a-b), D-5(a-d) Monitoring Program: Mitigation measures shall be shown on
grading and construction plans. Monitoring will include Natural Resources Department staff
consultation and implementation at time of landscaping construction plan review and Engineering-
Public Works staff at the time of tract construction. Compliance will be verified by the City Public
Works Department in consultation with the Natural Resources Manager.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS MITIGATION
G-2(a) Geotechnical Study Parameters. As stated in Program 3.4.1.a. of the proposed Specific
Plan, a geotechnical study shall be prepared by a State-registered engineering geologist for
the project site prior to site development. This report shall include an analysis of the
liquefaction potential of the underlying materials according to the most current liquefaction
analysis procedures. This study shall also:
evaluate the potential for soil settlement beneath the project site;
evaluate the potential for expansive soils beneath the project site; and
assess the stability of all slopes in the areas where construction is to occur. This
evaluation shall determine the potential for adverse soil stability and discuss appropriate
mitigation techniques. Appropriate setbacks from unstable slopes and areas below
potential rockfall zones shall be implemented. No development of residential structures is
to occur in areas where rockfall hazards could damage buildings.
The following suitable measures to reduce liquefaction impacts could include but need not be
limited to:
specialized design of foundations by a structural engineer;
removal or treatment of liquefiable soils to reduce the potential for liquefaction;
drainage to lower the groundwater table to below the level of liquefiable soil;
in-situ densification of soils or other alterations to the ground characteristics; or
other alterations to the ground characteristics.
G-3(a) Soil Settlement Engineering. If the project site is identified to be in a high potential for
settlement zone (through the Geotechnical Study required in Mitigation Measure G-2(a)) the
building foundations, transportation infrastructure and subgrades shall be designed by a
structural engineer to withstand the existing conditions, or the site shall be graded in such a
manner as to address the condition. Suitable measures to reduce settlement impacts could
include but need not be limited to:
excavation and recompaction of on-site or imported soils;
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-134
54
treatment of existing soils by mixing a chemical grout into the soils prior to
recompaction; or
foundation design that can accommodate certain amounts of differential settlement such
as posttensional slab and/or ribbed foundations designed in accordance with Chapter 18,
Division III of the Uniform Building Code(UBC).
G-4(a) Expansive Soils Grading. If the project site is identified as having expansive soils (through
the Geotechnical Study required in Mitigation Measure G-2(a)), the foundations and
transportation infrastructure shall be designed by a structural engineer to withstand the
existing conditions, or the site shall be graded in such a manner as to address the condition.
Suitable measures to reduce impacts from expansive soils could include but need not be
limited to:
excavation of existing soils and importation of non-expansive soils; and
foundation design to accommodate certain amounts of differential expansion such as
posttensional slab and/or ribbed foundations designed in accordance with Chapter 18,
Division III of the UBC.
G-2(a), G-3(a), G-4(a) Monitoring Program: Monitoring will include review and approval by City
Engineering staff and building inspectors. Compliance will be verified by the Community Development
Director.
NOISE MITIGATION
N-1(a) Compliance with City Noise Ordinance. Construction hours and noise levels shall be
compliant with the City Noise Ordinance [Municipal Code Chapter 9.12, Section
9.12.050(6)]. Methods to reduce construction noise can include, but are not limited to, the
following:
Equipment Shielding. Stationary construction equipment that generates noise can be
shielded with a barrier.
Diesel Equipment. All diesel equipment can be operated with closed engine doors and
equipped with factory-recommended mufflers.
Electrical Power. Whenever feasible, electrical power can be used to run air compressors
and similar power tools.
Sound Blankets. The use of sound blankets on noise generating equipment.
N-1(a) Monitoring Program: Requirements for construction noise mitigation shall be clearly noted on
all plans for project grading and construction. Compliance will be verified by the Community
Development Director.
PUBLIC SAFETY MITIGATION
S-2(b) Disclosure. Prior to recordation of final map, the applicant shall develop Covenants, Codes,
and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that disclose to potential buyers or leasers that aircraft over-flights
occur, and that such flights may result in safety hazard impacts should an aircraft accident
occur. In addition, prior to recordation of final map, avigation easements shall be recorded
over the entire project site for the benefit of the SLO County Regional Airport.
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-135
55
S-2b Monitoring Program: Monitoring will include Community Development, City Attorney and
Engineering staff approvals of the Disclosure(s) prior to recordation of a final tract map.
PUBLIC SERVICES MITIGATION
PS-2(a) Road Widths, Fire Hydrants. Road widths and internal circulation, as well as the placement
of fire hydrants, shall be designed with the guidance of the Fire Department. A road system
that allows unhindered Fire Department access and maneuvering during emergencies shall be
provided. The San Luis Obispo Fire Department shall review all improvement plans for
proposed development in the Orcutt Area to ensure compliance with City standards and the
Uniform Fire Code.
PS-2(b) Non-combustible exteriors. Buildings that are in areas of moderate fire hazard and which are
close to areas of high or extreme fire hazard shall have non-combustible exteriors.
PS-2(c) Defensible Space. Accessible space free of highly combustible vegetation and materials shall
be provided in the area 30 feet around all structures located within the moderate wildland fire
hazard areas.
PS-3(a) Buildout Date Notification. The applicant shall notify the San Luis Coastal Unified School
District of the expected buildout date of each phase of the project to allow the District time to
plan in advance for new students.
PS-3(b) Statutory School Fees. The applicant shall pay the statutory school fees in effect at the time
of issuance of building permits to the appropriate school districts.
PS-2(a-c) and PS-3(a-b) Monitoring Program: Requirements shall be clearly noted on all plans for
project grading and construction, to be verified by the City Fire Marshal and Community Development
Department.
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION MITIGATION
TR-1 Prior to issuance of grading and construction permits, the applicant shall submit plans
showing the construction of a “pork chop” island at the intersection of “I” Street and “B”
Street”, which would restrict this intersection to right-turn-in and right-turn-out movements.
The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Public Works Department.
TR-1 Monitoring Program: Requirements shall be clearly noted on all plans for project grading and
construction, to be verified by the City Public Works Department.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS MITIGATION
USS-1 Off-site Water Main Line Extensions to the OASP To Meet Fire Flow and Storage
Standards. Concurrent with applications for Final Map(s), the applicant shall submit a water
supply plan to meet adequate fire flow standards for all lots within each Final Map.
Implementation of such a water line extension plan shall be included as a part of public
improvement plans for the subdivision, and approved by Utilities, Public Works and the City
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-136
56
Engineer. This implementation plan may include a financing plan, including reimbursement
provisions, approved by the City Council at the time of considering any Final Map. Required
water main line extension(s) to the subdivision shall be completed and operational to the
satisfaction of the Utilities Director, prior to issuance of any building permits for any of the
residential and/or commercial uses.
USS-1 Monitoring Program: Compliance will be reviewed and implemented by the City Engineer’ s
office with the subdivision plans and shall be completed prior to issuance of any building permits for
Tract 3095.
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1-137
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Public meeting to discuss the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for
the San Luis Ranch project.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1035 Madonna Road BY: John Rickenbach, Contract Planner
Phone Number: 805-610-1109
Email: JFRickenbach@aol.com
FILE NUMBER: ANNX-1502-2015 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION: Take public testimony and provide input to City staff and EIR
consultants on any additional analysis or data needed to adequately evaluate environmental issue
areas within the Draft EIR. No action will be taken at this time.
SITE DATA
Applicant
Representative
General Plan
and Zoning
Site Area
Environmental
Status
Coastal Community Builders
Brian Schwartz and Marshall
Ochylski
Specific Plan Area (various land
use designations including—
residential, commercial, office,
open space and agriculture
consistent with the Land Use
Element)
131.3 acres
A Draft EIR is now under public
review. The public review period
has been extended to January 30,
2017.
SUMMARY
Coastal Community Builders has proposed a project that includes several entitlements for the
development of approximately 70 acres of the 131.3-acre property. The project would include a
mixture of residential and non-residential uses, as well as the preservation of approximately 53
acres to remain in agricultural use and open space. The project site is currently outside the City, but
within its Sphere of Influence, and would require annexation for development. The project as
proposed is envisioned to implement the policies for development of the site as articulated in the
Meeting Date: January 11, 2017
Item Number: 3
ANNX-1502-2015
1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project)
Page 2
2014 Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) update, and be consistent with the broad
development parameters set forth in the LUCE for this designated specific plan location
1.0 PLANNING COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The purpose of this workshop is for the Commission to review and provide input on the contents
of the Draft EIR prepared for the project. The Commission will take public testimony at this
workshop. Staff will be available to clarify information contained in the Draft EIR, or to respond
to straightforward questions, but comments related to technical analysis are more appropriately
responded to in the Final EIR, once staff and the EIR consultant are able to accurately perform any
needed technical review or evaluation. Response in the Final EIR also provides full disclosure for
all interested parties instead of the information only being provided to members of the public in
attendance at the meeting. All comments received at this workshop will be responded to and
included in the Final EIR. The intent of the workshop is not to discuss the merits of the project,
but to focus testimony on potential environmental concerns, or issues raised in the Draft EIR. The
Planning Commission will be able to consider the responses to comments in the Final EIR, during
public hearings when it considers potential project approval. It is anticipated that this will occur
in Spring 2017.
The Planning Commission is not asked to make a recommendation or take action on the project at
this time.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
The site is comprised of approximately 131 contiguous acres in unincorporated San Luis Obispo
County, surrounded by areas within the City of San Luis Obispo, and within the City’s Sphere of
Influence, generally bounded by Madonna Road, Dalidio Drive and U.S. Highway 101. Dominant
features at the site are the predominantly flat landform seasonally planted with row crops, an
existing stand of eucalyptus trees in the southwest portion of the site, and the Dalidio farm home
in the northwest portion of the site.
Table 1: Site Information
Site Size ~131 acres
Present Use & Development Agriculture
Topography Flat
Access Madonna Road, Dalidio Drive and Froom Ranch Road
Surrounding Use/Zoning West: R-1 (low density residential)
North: PF, C/OS-40, R-1, C-R-PD (Laguna Lake Park and
surrounding open space, low density residential, and the U.S.
post office)
East: PF, O-PD (U.S. Highway 101, the City’s wastewater
treatment plant and a drive-in theater)
South: C/OS-20, C-S, C-S-PD, C-T-SF, C-R (SLO City Farm, Target,
variety of commercial service uses, and auto dealerships)
ANNX-1502-2015
1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project)
Page 3
3.0 GENERAL PLAN GUIDANCE
The San Luis Ranch (Dalidio) Specific Plan Area was one of three Specific Plan areas designated
for development when the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements update which was
adopted by the City Council in December, 2014. The project is intended to be consistent with
policy direction for the area included in the General Plan, specifically Land Use Element Policy
8.1.4, which identifies the San Luis Ranch area as a Special Focus Area (SP-2), subject to policies
for the development of a specific plan and certain broad development parameters and principles.
For clarity, the entire policy is included below. The Planning Commission is not asked to provide
testimony on this policy at this time, but to consider it in the context of the analysis included in
the Draft EIR. The project’s consistency with this and other General Plan policies will be more
appropriately addressed by the Planning Commission during the public hearings for potential
project consideration, expected to occur in Spring 2017.
Policy 8.1.4: SP-2, San Luis Ranch (Dalidio) Specific Plan Area. The project site should
be developed as a mixed use project that maintains the agricultural heritage of the site,
provides a commercial/ office transition to the existing commercial center to the north,
and provides a diverse housing experience. Protection of the adjacent creek and a well-
planned integration into the existing circulation system will be required.
The specific plan for this area should consider and address the following land use and
design issues:
a. Provide land and appropriate financial support for development of a Prado Road
connection. Appropriate land to support road infrastructure identified in the
Final Project EIR (overpass or interchange) at this location shall be dedicated as
part of any proposal and any area in excess of the project’s fair share of this
facility shall not be included as part of the project site area used to calculate the
required 50% open space.
b. Circulation connections to integrate property with surrounding circulation
network for all modes of travel.
c. Connection to Froom Ranch and Calle Joaquin, if proposed, shall not bifurcate
on- site or neighboring agricultural lands. Any connection to Calle Joaquin shall
be principally a secondary / emergency access by design.
d. Development shall include a transit hub. Developer shall work with transit
officials to provide express connections to Downtown area.
e. Maintain agricultural views along Highway 101 by maintaining active
agricultural uses on the site, and maintain viewshed of Bishop Peak and Cerro
San Luis.
f. Maintain significant agricultural and open space resources on site (see Policy
1.13.8.B). Land dedicated to Agriculture shall be of size, location and
configuration appropriate to maintain a viable, working agricultural operation.
g. Where buffering or transitions to agricultural uses are needed to support viability
of the agricultural use, these shall be provided on lands not counted towards the
minimum size for the agriculture / open space component. Provide appropriate
ANNX-1502-2015
1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project)
Page 4
transition to agricultural uses on-site.
h. Integrate agricultural open space with adjacent SLO City Farm and development
on property.
i. Site should include walkable retail and pedestrian and bicycle connections to
surrounding commercial and residential areas.
j. Commercial and office uses shall have parking placed behind and to side of
buildings so as to not be a prominent feature.
k. Neighborhood Commercial uses for proposed residential development shall be
provided.
l. Potential flooding issues along Prefumo Creek need to be studied and addressed
without impacting off-site uses.
m. All land uses proposed shall be in keeping with safety parameters described in
this General Plan or other applicable regulations relative to the San Luis Obispo
Regional Airport.
n. Historic evaluation of the existing farm house and associated structures shall be
included.
Proposed land use designations and development potential
Type Designations
Allowed
% of Site Minimum 1 Maximum
Residential LDR
MDR
MHDR
HDR
350 units 500 units
Commercial NC
CC
50,000 SF 200,000 SF
Office/High Tech O 50,000 SF 150,000 SF
Hotel/Visitor-Serving 200 rooms
Parks PARK 5.8 ac
Open Space/ Agriculture OS
AG
Minimum 50% 2 No maximum
Public n/a
Infrastructure n/a
1. There can be a reduction in the minimum requirement based on specific physical and/or environmental constraints.
2. The City Council may consider allowing a portion of required open space to be met through off -site dedication
provided:
a. A substantial multiplier for the amount of open space is provided for the off -site property exchanged to meet
the on-site requirement; and
b. Off-site land is of similar agricultural and visual value to the community; and
c. Off-site land is protected through an easement, dedication or fee title in perpetuity for agriculture/open space.
The project is also intended to be consistent with all other General Plan policies, including those
in the Circulation, Safety, Conservation and Open Space, and Water and Wastewater elements.
An evaluation of the project’s consistency with General Plan policies is discussed at length in
Section 4.9 of the Draft EIR.
ANNX-1502-2015
1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project)
Page 5
4.0 PROJECT DETAILS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Project Description Summary
The project is a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and related actions that would allow
for the development of the San Luis Ranch (formerly referred to as Dalidio) area as identified
in the City’s General Plan. The project includes a mix of residential, commercial, and office
uses while preserving nearly half of the site as open space and agriculture on a 131.3-acre
property. The intent is for the project to be consistent with the development parameters
described in the City’s recently updated Land Use Element, which envisions up to 500
residential units, 200,000 square feet of commercial uses, 150,000 square feet of office, 200
hotel rooms, at least 5.8 acres of parks, with a goal of preserving 50% of the site in agriculture
and open space.
Section 2.0 of the Draft EIR fully describes the project details, the key highlights of which are
included below.
The project would require annexation to the City of San Luis Obispo. The project is within the
City’s Sphere of Influence and Urban Reserve Line, and is designed to be consistent with both
City and Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) policies, including the requirement
that the annexation be compatible with the City’s General Plan and supportable by the City’s
infrastructure.
4.2 Land Use Concept
As shown in Figure 1, the Specific Plan area is organized into six zones. These include
Neighborhood General 1 (NG-10), Neighborhood General 2 (NG-23), Neighborhood General
3 (NG-30), Neighborhood Commercial (NC), Parks and Open Space (P-OS), and Agriculture
(A). The applicable densities and development standards associated with each of these zones
are described in detail below. Table 2 lists the proposed San Luis Ranch Specific Plan zones,
acreages, and maximum buildout potential within each zone of the Specific Plan Area.
Table 2. Planned San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Area Development
Type Specific Plan Zone % of Site Units Acreage
Planned Development 1
Low-Medium Density Residential NG-10 16.7% 200 units 21.6 acres
Medium Density Residential NG-23 8.1% 100 units 10.5 acres
High Density Residential NG-30 8.7% 200 units 11.2 acres
Affordable Housing Density Bonus 2 80 units n/a
Commercial NC 7.3% 150,000 SF 9.5 acres
Office NC 2.9% 100,000 SF 3.8 acres
Hotel and Conference Center NC 2.7% 200 rooms 3.5 acres
Public Parks 2.6% 3.4 acres
Roads 4.4% 5.7 acres
Agricultural and Open Space
Agriculture A 40.7% 52.7 acres
ANNX-1502-2015
1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project)
Page 6
Internal Open Spaces P-OS 5.9% 7.6 acres
1. Planned Development area is based on net site area of approximately 129.3 acres. The gross site area is approximately 131.3 acres, less
approximately 1.8 acres of right-of-way associated with potential future Prado Road overpass or interchange improvements.
2. The project includes up to 34 deed-restricted affordable units on site. Per Section 17.090.040(d) of the City’s Affordable Housing
Incentives, the included affordable housing allows for a 20% density bonus.
Each major project component is summarized below (refer to Figure 2 for the proposed site
plan and circulation).
Residential
The project includes a mix of 580 low-
medium, medium, and high density
residences that would be located
primarily on the northwestern and
central portion of the project site.
Housing would range from detached
single-family units to attached multi-
family dwellings, and are described in
detail Chapter 3 of the Specific Plan.
The low-medium density residential
zone (NG-10) would allow for
residential units at a density of up to
10 units per acre with a height limit of
35 feet. Residential products
envisioned for this zone include
traditional single-family and small-lot
residential. The medium-density
residential zone (NG-23) would allow
for residential units at a density of up
to 23 units per acre with a height limit
of 35 feet. Residential products
envisioned for this zone include
detached townhomes, attached
townhomes, and multi-family
structures such as apartments or condos. The high-density multi-family residential zone (NG-
30) would allow for residential units at a density of up to 30 units per acre with a height limit
of 35 feet. Residential products envisioned for this zone include detached townhomes, attached
townhomes, and multi-family structures such as apartments or condos. The neighborhoods
would be connected with a local street and trail system, and would contain recreational areas.
Internal circulation would include an emphasis on pedestrian and bicycle circulation, with
night lighting designed to meet ‘dark sky’ standards.
In addition, the project includes an affordable housing component in accordance with City
requirements. The San Luis Ranch Specific Plan proposes 34 deed-restricted affordable units
on site for very low, low, and moderate income households, including 26 very low-income
Figure 1. Proposed Zoning
ANNX-1502-2015
1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project)
Page 7
units. Consistent with Section 17.90.040(d) of the City’s Affordable Housing Incentives, the
proposed affordable housing would allow for an 80-unit density bonus, bringing the total
allowable residential units in the Specific Plan Area from 500 to 580.
Commercial
The project includes 150,000 square feet of commercial development, 100,000 square feet of
office development, and a 200-room hotel with allowable building heights up to a 50-foot
maximum. The commercial and hotel components are proposed on the area of land fronting
the extended Prado Road/Dalidio Drive and Froom Ranch Way. Commercial uses proposed
for the project may include retail anchors, neighborhood retail, restaurants, offices, and a hotel.
Agriculture
The project would preserve approximately 52.7 acres of the site in agriculture adjacent the San
Luis Obispo City Farm. The project would also preserve approximately 7.6 acres of the site in
open space. Collectively, this would comprise 46.6 percent of the net site acreage (when
acreage set aside for the future Prado Road interchange or overpass is discounted). The project
also includes a commitment to procure an off-site agricultural conservation easement/deed
restriction to comply with the City’s General Plan Land Use Element Policy 1.13.8 and Land
Use Element Policy 8.1.4, which require that future development on the San Luis Ranch
property dedicate one half of the total land or easements for open space use.
As part of the proposed agricultural uses, the project also includes an Agricultural Heritage
Facilities & Learning Center, which would be located along the southeast side of Froom Ranch
Way, southwest of the proposed commercial land use. The Agricultural Heritage Facilities &
Learning Center would be intended as an educational center for local residents and an
agricultural tourism destination.
Open Space
The proposed open space would be located on the northwestern portion of the project site along
Prefumo Creek, as well as along Cerro San Luis Channel, which is a permanent surface
drainage that traverses the property from east to west. The open space areas would also include
a link in the Bob Jones Regional Trail.
Roadways and Circulation
The project proposes to provide or pay fair share fees for such public improvements as a
widening of Madonna Road along project frontage, additions to Dalidio Drive/Prado Road, an
extension of Froom Ranch Way across Prefumo Creek in the southwest corner of the site, and
to contribute in fair share towards an overpass or interchange connection for Prado Road.
The existing street network in the project site vicinity includes U.S. 101 and the Madonna Road
and Los Osos Valley Road arterials. The proposed street network within the Specific Plan area
consists primarily of collector and residential streets. Access to the residential areas would be
provided on the south from the proposed Froom Ranch Way extension and on the north from
Madonna Road (refer to Figure 2).
ANNX-1502-2015
1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project)
Page 8
In addition, the Specific Plan includes a transit center that would provide direct transit access
between the project site and downtown San Luis Obispo. The location of the proposed transit
center would be coordinated with SLO Transit and the Regional Transit Authority upon
submittal of individual project plans. If transit ridership meets specified demand thresholds,
direct Regional Transit Authority access will be considered at this future transit center.
Figure 2: Proposed Site Plan and Circulation
ANNX-1502-2015
1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project)
Page 9
Multi-Modality: Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation
The project would establish links in the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan (see Figure 3). As
discussed above, the project would construct a segment of the Bob Jones Bike Trail and provide
a connection from Laguna Lake area neighborhoods and businesses along Madonna Road to
the southern portion of the City Limits at Froom Ranch Way. The project would create interior
bicycle trails and lanes, including a Class I Bike Trail and Class II Bike lanes. These facilities
are consistent with the goals established by San Luis Obispo’s 2013 Bicycle Transportation
Plan.
Project Phasing
The project would be constructed in six phases. Phases 1, 2, and 3 would consist of residential
build out and construction is planned to begin in 2017 and would be completed in 2020. Phases
4, 5, and 6 would consist of non-residential buildout and construction is expected to begin in
2017 and would be completed in 2023.
5.0 CEQA PROCESS
5.1 EIR Determination/Consultant Selection
Early on, the City determined that the project would require the preparation of a Project EIR.
In 2014, the City Council approved a preliminary workscope for preparation of an EIR to
Figure 3. Proposed Multimodal Circulation Plan
ANNX-1502-2015
1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project)
Page 10
evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project and authorized staff to proceed with
sending out a Request for Proposals (RFP) for qualified consultants. RFP packages were
available online via the City’s website to any qualified consultant, with eight consulting firms
submitting proposals. The top three firms were interviewed, and Rincon Consultants was
selected to prepare the EIR.
City staff prepared an Initial Study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), which documents and analyzes potential environmental issue areas and highlights
workscope issues that needed to be further analyzed in an EIR. A Notice of Preparation (NOP)
to prepare an EIR was sent to and posted by the State Clearinghouse on October 26, 2015. The
Initial Study, NOP and responses to the NOP are included as Appendix A of the Draft EIR.
5.2 EIR Scope/Type
The Draft EIR incorporated the Initial Study and expanded on the discussion of issues included
in that document. CEQA compliance for the San Luis Ranch project is in the form on a Project
EIR that tiers from the Final Program EIR prepared for the 2014 Land Use and Circulation
Element (LUCE) Update. While the LUCE EIR did not include site-specific analyses for the
San Luis Ranch site for every issue (and where it did it was not an in-depth analysis), it many
cases did identify a series of programmatic (i.e., cumulative) impacts and provide mitigation
measures to adequately address those impacts. Some of these mitigation measures now apply
Citywide, and some are now applicable specifically to the San Luis Ranch site. The EIR
summarizes those applicable mitigation measures from the LUCE EIR as well as additional
mitigation needed to address project specific impacts.
5.3 EIR Processing Requirements
Under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a 45-day public
review period of the Draft EIR is required. The required public review period for the San Luis
Ranch Draft EIR began December 9, 2016, and was originally set to end on January 23, 2017.
The comment period was subsequently extended to January 30, 2017. CEQA does not require
that a public meeting be held during the public review period, but does encourage it. The
practice of holding a public meeting on the Draft EIR s eparate from consideration of the other
project entitlements allows for direct communication between the reviewers and the lead
agency and provides an opportunity for members of the public to learn of the concerns of other
people testifying about the project.
Both Commission and public testimony at this public meeting should be focused on the content
of the Draft EIR, rather than the particular merits of the project itself. The public meeting
represents an opportunity to:
obtain additional information needed to properly evaluate identified issue areas;
identify issue areas that may not be covered in the document; and
provide an opportunity for the public to express environmental concerns.
The Final EIR is a compilation of the Draft EIR and responses to comments. Responses to
comments are a written evaluation of comments on the environmental issues received from
persons who reviewed the Draft EIR. The responses to comments will be prepared by the
ANNX-1502-2015
1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project)
Page 11
consultant and reviewed by City staff. Tentative dates for consideration of the Final EIR and
other project entitlements are in late March 2017 before the Planning Commission and April
2017 before the City Council. The Final EIR must be certified before an action to approve the
project can be made.
5.4 Environmental Issue Areas
This meeting provides a forum for the Commission to identify additional information needed
to evaluate environmental issues, to point out inaccuracies in the information presented, and to
suggest changes to, or alternatives for, recommended mitigation measures. The Draft EIR
concludes that the project will result in significant and unavoidable impacts to:
Air Quality – short and long-term construction emissions of ROG and NOx, and
operational air pollutant emissions associated with vehicle trips from the project;
consistency with the Clean Air Plan.
Cultural Resources – impacts to the existing historic onsite agricultural structures,
known as the San Luis Ranch Complex.
Land Use – policies to protect historic resources and provisions related to parkland.
Noise – short-term construction noise.
Transportation – project and cumulative impacts to intersection capacities at
Madonna Road/Dalidio Drive and Los Osos Valley Road/Froom Ranch Way; impacts
to the Higuera Street segment between Prado and Madonna Road; cumulative impacts
to the U.S. 101 segment between Los Osos Valley Road and Madonna Road.
The EIR also finds that there will be significant impacts that can be mitigated to less than
significant in the categories of agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural
resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise,
recreation, and transportation. Impacts related to aesthetics, greenhouse gas emissions, water
resources, as well as certain issues related to agricultural resources, air quality, hazards,
hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, population and housing were found to be less
than significant. Tables ES-1 through ES-3 at the beginning of the Draft EIR summarize the
project’s impacts and mitigation measures.
6.0 RECOMMENDATION
Take public testimony and provide input to City staff and EIR consultants on any additional
analysis or data needed to adequately evaluate environmental issue areas. It is not recommended
that staff or the consultants respond to testimony during the workshop, but instead provide
detailed responses in the Final EIR.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. The San Luis Ranch Draft EIR is available for review online at the following location:
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-
development/documents-online/environmental-review-documents. Hardcopies are also
available for review at the Community Development Department (919 Palm Street), City
Hall (990 Palm Street) and the City-County Library (995 Palm Street).