HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4 - SBDV-0136-2019 (309 Sandercock)Meeting Date: December 11, 2019
Item Number: 42
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of a tentative parcel map to create four parcels, with a requested exception to the
minimum lot size and width requirements for a corner parcel (SLO 18-0154), including a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental review (CEQA).
PROJECT ADDRESS: 309 Sandercock Street BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7524
E-mail: kbell@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: SBDV-0136-2019 & EID-0137-2019 FROM: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which grants final approval to the project, based on findings,
and subject to conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant John Diodati
Zoning R-2, Medium Density Residential
General Plan Medium Density Residential
Site Area ~22,500 square feet
Environmental
Status
An Initial Study of environmental
impact has been prepared with a
recommendation for a Mitigated
Negative Declaration (IS/MND)
SUMMARY
The applicant has applied for a subdivision to create four parcels from one existing lot. The existing
property contains one single-family residence which is proposed to remain, with only the garage
proposed for demolition. The project site is located on the south side of Sandercock Street on the corner
of Sandercock and Cypress Streets within the Medium-Density Residential (R-2) zone. The proposed
minor subdivision includes exceptions to the Subdivision Regulations for minimum lot area and
minimum lot width for corner lots.
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
In most cases, a minor subdivision is reviewed by the Subdivision Hearing Officer. However, when
exceptions are requested, the City’s Subdivision Regulations require the Planning Commission to act on
the project (§16.04 Table 1). The Planning Commission’s role is to review the project in terms of
consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and Subdivision Regulations, and take final
action on the subdivision application and environmental document.
Item 4
Packet Page 189
SBDV-136-2019 & EID-0137-2019
309 Sandercock Street
Page 2
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
Site Information/Setting
Site Size ~22,500 square feet
Present Use & Development Single-Family Residence
Topography Relatively Flat
Access Sandercock Street and Cypress Street
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: R-2 (Single-Family Residences)
South: R-2 (Multi-Family Residence (duplex))
East: R-2 (Single-Family Residences)
West: R-2 (Multi-Family Residence (duplex))
Project Description
The project is a corner lot subdivision creating four parcels (approximately 0.12, 0.11, 0.11, and 0.18
acres each) from one existing lot totaling approximately 0.52 acre (Attachment 2, Project Plans). The
existing parcel contains one single-family residence and garage; the single-family residence is proposed
to remain in place and the garage is proposed for demolition. Further development of the project site
would consist of one single-family residence on each of the proposed parcels (resulting in a total of
three new residences), and associated site improvements including grading and access improvements.
The applicant proposes to remove one pine tree thirteen inches in diameter at chest height. No other tree
removals are proposed at this time, nine oak trees located onsite are proposed to remain.
Proposed Parcels 1-3 will be accessed from Sandercock Street, and Parcel 4 will be accessed from
Cypress Street. An exception is requested for Parcel 1 to establish a smaller parcel size for the corner lot
of approximately 5,315 square feet, where 5,750 square feet is normally required, with a maximum width
of 53 feet where 60 feet is normally required for a corner lot; as detailed in the table below.
Project Statistics
Min. Lot Area
(sq. ft.)
Min. Width
(feet)
Min. Depth
(feet)
Min. Street Frontage
(feet)
Requirement (R-2 zone)
Corner lot (+15%)
5,000
5,750
50
60
80 20
Parcel 1 – Corner lot 5,315 53 100 154
Parcel 2 5,001 50 100 50
Parcel 3 5,000 50 100 50
Parcel 4 7,688 50 154 50
3.0 PROJECT EVALUATION
The project complies with all provisions of the General Plan Land Use Element. The proposed corner
lot (Parcel 1) has a parcel area of 5,315 square feet where 5,750 square feet is normally required, and a
maximum width of 53 feet where 60 feet is normally required for a corner lot1. The applicant is
requesting these exceptions to provide for logical lot placement consistent with the neighborhood pattern.
1 Subdivision Regulations. Table 3 Minimum Lot Area and Dimensions. Exceptions #2. In residential subdivisions, corner
lots shall have a minimum area fifteen percent (15%) greater than otherwise required, and shall be ten feet wider than
otherwise required.
Item 4
Packet Page 190
SBDV-136-2019 & EID-0137-2019
309 Sandercock Street
Page 3
The project site has enough area to divide the property into four parcels in compliance with the strict
application of the Subdivision Regulations; however, strict compliance with the lot area and dimension
requirements would result in an illogical lot pattern that places unnecessary and undesirable constraints
on future development of the site. The project site is within an already developed residential subdivision
representing an infill development opportunity.
The proposed exceptions are minor in nature where the parcel area is only 435 sq. ft. under the parcel
area requirement and seven feet shy of the minimum lot width as required for corner lots. The resulting
parcels will be consistent with the size, density, and development pattern of the neighborhood and can
accommodate the existing and proposed site improvements without exceptions to the City’s property
development standards.
Staff has evaluated the proposed parcel map for conformity with the intent of the required findings for
exceptions for minimum lot dimensions as identified in the City’s Subdivision Regulations
(16.23.020.A). No development is proposed at this time, and the resultant parcels and proposed
easements would leave the four parcels with adequate on-site access for the anticipated future
development of single-family residences.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Minor subdivisions are normally categorically exempt from environmental review. However, when
exceptions to the Subdivision Regulations are requested an Initial Study of environmental impacts must
be prepared (Subdivision Regulations, Table 1, level of review by subdivision project). An Initial Study
(IS) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate
the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is
recommended for adoption. Mitigation measures in the areas of Air Quality, Biological Resources, and
Cultural Resources, are recommended to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels.
The Draft IS/MND was released for the required 20-day public review period on November 7, 2019 and
the public review period concluded on November 27, 2019, and no comments were received during the
public review comment period. On November 13, 2019 the Air Pollution Control District responded to
the initial study and indicated that no additional mitigations or conditions are necessary. The IS/MND
shall constitute the complete environmental determination for the project (Attachment 3, Mitigated
Negative Declaration – Initial Study).
5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY CONCURRENCE
The project has been reviewed by various City departments and divisions including; Planning,
Engineering, Utilities, Fire, Building, and the City Arborist. The Utilities Department has identified this
area as a capacity constrained area and has provided Condition #26 to address concerns. The Air
Pollution Control District (APCD) responded to the initial study and indicated that no additional
mitigations or conditions are necessary. Comments have been incorporated into draft resolution as
conditions of approval.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6.1 Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional
information or analysis required.
6.2 Deny the project. An action denying the application should include findings that cite the basis
Item 4
Packet Page 191
SBDV-136-2019 & EID-0137-2019
309 Sandercock Street
Page 4
for denial and should reference inconsistency with the General Plan, Subdivision Regulations,
Zoning Regulations or other policy documents.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Project Plans
3. Mitigated Negative Declaration – Initial Study
Item 4
Packet Page 192
RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-2019
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO CREATE FOUR
PARCELS, WITH REQUESTED EXCEPTIONS TO THE MINIMUM LOT
SIZE AND WIDTH REQUIREMENTS (SLO 18-0154), INCLUDING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND
ATTACHMENTS DATED DECEMBER 11, 2019 (309 SANDERCOCK,
SBDV-0136-2019 AND EID-0137-2019)
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 December 11, 2019, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under SBDV-0136-2019 and EID-
0137-2019, John Diodati, 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; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered an Initial Study-Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS-MND) analyzing the proposed tentative parcel map; and
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 (SBDV-0136-2019), based on the following findings:
1. The design of the tentative parcel map is consistent with the General Plan because the
proposed subdivision is consistent with the development pattern established in the
neighborhood and the resulting parcels allow for residences with sufficient usable outdoor
space.
2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-2
zone, since the resulting parcels require minimal exceptions to the Subdivision Regulations
and resulting development will be subject to consistency with the development standards
of the Zoning Regulations.
3. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use
of property within) the proposed subdivision since all parcels will have adequate access
from Sandercock and Cypress Streets.
Item 4
Packet Page 193
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19
309 Sandercock Street, SBDV-0136-2019 & EID-0137-2019
Page 2
4. The design of the tentative parcel map is not likely to cause serious health problems,
substantial environmental damage, or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife
or their habitat because the site does not have any creeks or other potentially significant
habitat areas for fish and wildlife, is surrounded by urban development, and has already
been developed with an existing dwelling and associated site improvements.
5. The property to be divided is of such size that it is impractical/undesirable, in this particular
case, to conform to the strict application of the standards codified in the Subdivision
Regulations because the design will result in a more efficient use of the land. An exception
is required due to a portion of the property subject to greater requirements for area and
width along corner lots, and without these additional corner lot requirements the property
could be subdivided to conform to current standards.
6. The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not the sole
reason for granting the modification, because other findings are made to support approval
and the exceptions relate to existing physical conditions of the project site.
7. The modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, or be
injurious to other properties in the vicinity since the minor exception is for a property that
is already developed with a single-family residence, and there are numerous examples of
similar subdivisions and development in the immediate vicinity.
8. Granting the modification is in accord with the intent and purposes of the Subdivision
Regulations and is consistent with the General Plan because the exceptions are consistent
with other properties in the vicinity and the project does not grant special privileges or
modify allowable land uses within the existing R-2 zoning district.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. Based upon all evidence, the Planning Commission
finds that the project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) adequately evaluates and
identifies all of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and hereby adopts the
following California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings in support of the project;
1. The Diodati Subdivision IS-MND was prepared in accordance with CEQA and the State
CEQA Guidelines, adequately addressing impacts associated with the proposed project;
and
2. All potentially significant effects were analyzed adequately in the referenced IS-MND,
subject to the following mitigation measures being incorporated into the project and the
mitigation monitoring program:
AIR QUALITY MITIGATION
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Prior to grading plan approval, the project proponent shall ensure that
a geologic evaluation be conducted to determine if naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) is present
within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not present, an exemption request must be filed
Item 4
Packet Page 194
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19
309 Sandercock Street, SBDV-0136-2019 & EID-0137-2019
Page 3
with the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD). If NOA is found at the
site, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the California Air Resources
Board Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface
Mining Operations (93105). 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
online at slocleanair.org/business/asbestos.php.
➢ Monitoring Plan, AQ-1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans.
In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with
APCD requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the
APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of
construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD
requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Prior to grading plan and demolition plan approval, any scheduled
demolition activities or disturbance, removal, or relocation of utility pipelines shall be coordinated
with the APCD Enforcement Division at (805) 781-5912 to ensure compliance with National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), which include, but are not limited
to: 1) written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the APCD,
2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and
disposal requirements of identified ACM. More information on NOA can be found at
http://www.slocleanair.org/rules-regulations/asbestos.php.
➢ Monitoring Plan, AQ 2: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans.
In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with
APCD requirements. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may
not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the
APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of
construction.
Mitigation Measure AQ-3: During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall
implement the following particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on
grading and building plans prior to issuance of grading, demolition, and construction permits. In
addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program
and to order increased watering, modify practices as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site.
Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The
name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Community Development
and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction.
a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from
leaving the site and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes
Item 4
Packet Page 195
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19
309 Sandercock Street, SBDV-0136-2019 & EID-0137-2019
Page 4
in any 60-minute period. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind
speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever possible.
Please note that since water use is a concern due to drought conditions, the contractor or builder
shall consider the use of an APCD-approved dust suppressant where feasible to reduce the
amount of water used for dust control. Please refer to the following link for potential dust
suppressants to select from to mitigate dust emissions:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/PM10/Products%20Available%20for%20Controlling
%20PM10%20Emissions.htm.
c. All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or oth er dust
barriers as needed.
d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape
plans shall be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing
activities.
e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial
grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until
vegetation is established.
f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical
soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD.
g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved 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.
h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved surface
at the construction site.
i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to 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 California Vehicle Code Section 23114.
j. “Track-Out” is defined as sand or soil that adheres to and/or agglomerates on the exterior
surfaces of motor vehicles and/or equipment (including tires) that may then fall onto any
highway or street as described in California Vehicle Code Section 23113 and California Water
Code 13304. To prevent “track out”, designate access points and requ ire all employees,
subcontractors, and others to use them. Install and operate a ‘track-out prevention device’ where
vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved streets. The ‘track-out prevention device’ can
be any device or combination of devices that are effective at preventing track out, located at the
point of intersection of an unpaved area and a paved road. Rumble strips or steel plate devices
need periodic cleaning to be effective. If paved roadways accumulate tracked out soils, the
track-out prevention device may need to be modified;
Item 4
Packet Page 196
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19
309 Sandercock Street, SBDV-0136-2019 & EID-0137-2019
Page 5
k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads.
Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted
prior to sweeping when feasible.
l. All PM10 mitigation measures required should be shown on grading and building plans and;
The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons whose responsibility is to ensure
any fugitive dust emissions do not result in a nuisance and to enhance the implementation of
the mitigation measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints and reduce visible emissions
below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period.
Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress (for
example, wind-blown dust could be generated on an open dirt lot). The name and telephone
number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start
of any grading, earthwork or demolition (Contact Tim Fuhs at 805-781-5912).
➢ Monitoring Plan, AQ 3: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans.
In addition, the contractor 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.
The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community
Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction.
Mitigation Measure AQ-4: The following Standard Mitigation Measures for Construction
Equipment shall be shown on plans prior to issuance of grading, demolition, and construction
permits. The standard mitigation measures for reducing nitrogen oxides (NOx), reactive organic
gases (ROG), and diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from construction equipment are
listed below:
a. Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer’s specifications;
b. Fuel all off-road and portable diesel-powered equipment with CARB certified motor vehicle
diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for use off-road);
c. Use diesel construction equipment meeting CARB's Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner off-road
heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State Off-Road Regulation;
d. Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the CARB’s 2007 or cleaner certification standard for
on-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State On-Road Regulation;
e. Construction or trucking companies with fleets that that do not have engines in their fleet that
meet the engine standards identified in the above two measures (e.g. captive or NOx exempt
area fleets) may be eligible by proving alternative compliance;
f. Electrify equipment when feasible;
g. Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where feasible; and,
Item 4
Packet Page 197
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19
309 Sandercock Street, SBDV-0136-2019 & EID-0137-2019
Page 6
h. Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible, such as compressed
natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane or biodiesel.
Mitigation Measure AQ-5: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent
shall ensure that all equipment and operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board
and APCD permitting requirements Portable equipment, 50 horsepower (hp) or greater, used
during construction activities may require California statewide portable equipment registration
(issued by the California Air Resources Board) or an APCD permit. The following list is provided
as a guide to equipment and operations that may have permitting requirements but should not be
viewed as exclusive:
a. Power screens, conveyors, diesel engines, and/or crushers;
b. Portable generators and equipment with engines that are 50 hp or greater;
c. Electrical generation plants or the use of standby generator;
d. Internal combustion engines;
e. Rock and pavement crushing;
f. Unconfined abrasive blasting operations;
g. Tub grinders;
h. Trommel screens; and,
i. Portable plants (e.g. aggregate plant, asphalt batch plant, concrete batch plant, etc.).
For a more detailed listing, refer to the Technical Appendices, page 4-4, in the APCD's 2012
CEQA Handbook.
To minimize potential delays, prior to the start of the project, please contact the APCD Engineering
& Compliance Division at (805) 781-5912 for specific information regarding permitting
requirements.
Mitigation Measure AQ-6: Prior to issuance of grading, demolition, and construction permits,
the following measures shall be shown on proposed plans. To reduce the sensitive receptor
emissions impact of diesel vehicles and equipment used to construct the project and export soil
from the site, the applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques:
1. California Diesel Idling Regulations
a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code
of regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles
with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation
on highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general, the
regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles:
1. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any
location, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and,
2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air
conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a
sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any location when within 100 feet of
restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation.
Item 4
Packet Page 198
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19
309 Sandercock Street, SBDV-0136-2019 & EID-0137-2019
Page 7
b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5-minute idling restriction identified in
Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use Off-road Diesel
regulation.
c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and
operators of the state’s 5-minute idling limit.
2. Diesel Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In addition to the State
required diesel idling requirements, the project applicant shall comply with these more
restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive receptors:
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors.
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted.
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended.
d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posted and enforced at the site.
3. Soil and Material Transport. The final volume of soil and material that will be hauled off-site,
together with the fleet mix, hauling route, and number of trips per day will need to be identified
for the APCD. Specific standards and conditions will apply.
➢ Monitoring Plan, AQ-4, AQ-5, AQ-6: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and
building plans. In addition, the contractor 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. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD,
Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of
construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD
requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MITIGATION
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Prior to commencement of construction, to avoid conflicts with
nesting birds, potential tree removals and construction activities shall not be allowed during the
nesting bird season (March to September), unless a City-approved and applicant funded qualified
biologist has surveyed the impact zone and determined that no nesting bird activities would be
adversely impacted. A qualified biologist shall conduct weekly inspections during the construction
period and submit weekly monitoring reports to the City Planning staff and the Natural Resources
Manager.
Prior to construction activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct training for all construction
personnel on best practices concerning nesting birds. All construction personnel shall receive the
training by the qualified biologist prior to initiating construction activities for the duration of the
nest bird season. The qualified biologist shall submit documentation verifying completion of the
training to City Planning staff and the Natural Resources Manager. If any evidence of nesting
Item 4
Packet Page 199
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19
309 Sandercock Street, SBDV-0136-2019 & EID-0137-2019
Page 8
activities is found, the biologist will determine if any construction activities can occur during the
nesting period and to what extent. The results of the surveys will be passed immediately to the
City with possible recommendations for variable buffer zones, as needed, around individual nests.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Prior to construction permit issuance for both initial improvements
and future development, construction plans shall clearly delineate all trees within the project site
and shall show which trees are to be removed or impacted, and which trees are to remain unharmed.
Construction plans shall also: show proposed tree protection measures to protect those trees
identified to remain and new trees to be planted, including the placement of protective fencing to
be inspected and approved by the City Arborist; identify the location, species, and size of trees to
be planted; identify proposed irrigation plans; and show the use of structural soils to enhance the
success of new plantings. Tree protection measures shall be implemented prior to any ground
disturbing activities per the approved grading and construction plans, and as approved by the City
Arborist. Tree protection measures shall remain in place until final inspection by the City Arborist.
➢ Monitoring Plan, BIO-1, BIO-2: Compliance with mitigation measures will be reviewed with
plans as part of the 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, who shall confirm the conclusion and recommendations
of the preconstruction nesting bird surveys and provide site inspections as necessary to ensure
implementation.
CULTURAL RESOURCES MITIGATION
Mitigation Measure CR-1: In the event historic, paleontological, or archeological resources
and/or human remains are unearthed or discovered during any construction activities, the following
standards apply:
a. Construction activities shall cease, and the City Community Development Department shall
be notified so that the extent and location of discovered materials may be recorded by a
qualified specialist (paleontologist, historian, archaeologist) and disposition of artifacts may
be accomplished in accordance with state and federal law.
b. If human remains are unearthed, the applicant shall notify the City Community Development
Department and shall comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which
requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County of San Luis Obispo Coroner
has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the human remains
are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner will notify the Native American
Heritage Commission within 24 hours, which will determine and notify a Most Likely
Descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of
notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human
remains and items associated with Native American burials.
Item 4
Packet Page 200
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19
309 Sandercock Street, SBDV-0136-2019 & EID-0137-2019
Page 9
➢ Monitoring Program, CR-1: 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.
SECTION 3. Action. The project conditions of approval do not include mandatory code
requirements. Code compliance will be verified during the plan check process, which may include
additional requirements applicable to the project. The Planning Commission does hereby approve
tentative parcel map and associated environmental review application SBDV-0136-2019 and EID-
0137-2019, allowing a minor subdivision of one lot into four parcels at 309 Sandercock Street
subject to the following conditions:
Engineering Division – Public Works/Community Development Department
1. The subdivision shall be recorded with a parcel map. The parcel map preparation and
documentation shall be in accordance with the City’s Subdivision Regulations,
Engineering Standards, and the Subdivision Map Act. The parcel map shall use U.S.
Customary Units in accordance with the current City Engineering Standards.
2. The parcel map and legal descriptions shall be prepared by a California Licensed Land
Surveyor or Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying.
3. Park in-lieu fees shall be paid prior to map recordation.
4. A preliminary soils report shall be provided for this subdivision. The report shall be
provided in conjunction with the parcel map submittal. The report shall be referenced on
the map in accordance with the City’s subdivision regulations.
5. A separate subdivision improvement plan submittal is not required. The building plan
submittal may be used to show all required public and private subdivision improvements.
Improvements located within the public right-of-way will require a separate encroachment
permit and associated inspection fees based on the fee schedule in effect at the time of
permit issuance. A separate subdivision improvement plan review fee and subdivision map
check fee may be required for the review of the subdivision improvements and map in
accordance with the most current fee resolution.
6. A separate building permit is required for any parking, access, utility, site, and/or drainage
improvements. The building plan submittal shall show all existing public and/or private
utilities and improvements shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director and Public Works Director prior to recordation of the parcel map.
Unless otherwise waived or deferred, the site/utility plan shall include drainage and
circulation improvements, water, sewer, storm drains, gas, electricity, telephone, cable TV,
and any utility company meters for each parcel if applicable. Any utility relocations,
demolitions, and/or other on-site work shall be completed with proper permits and receive
final inspection approvals prior to recordation of the tentative parcel map. Otherwise,
Item 4
Packet Page 201
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19
309 Sandercock Street, SBDV-0136-2019 & EID-0137-2019
Page 10
easements shall be prepared and recorded to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director, Public Works Director, and the serving utility companies.
7. The existing driveway approaches shall be upgraded, relocated, or replaced to comply with
current ADA and City Engineering Standards. The current standards require a 4’ ADA
sidewalk extension behind the ramp. This item may be deferred with the recordation of a
covenant agreement.
8. Standard subdivision improvements including individual utility services and access to each
of the undeveloped parcels may be deferred. If deferred, a Notice of Requirements and a
separate covenant agreement to install said improvements upon development or as required
by the City. Some wire and/or gravity utilities to any undeveloped parcels may be
considered necessary for orderly development and may be required prior to parcel
development.
9. Utility installations, relocations, and/or upgrades shall be completed to the existing
developed Parcel 2 as a condition of the map. The proposed shared access driveway and
approach upgrade may be deferred to development of Parcel 3. Any required upgrades
shall be completed with proper permits or shall be covered by a subdivision surety prior to
map recordation.
10. Wire utilities to new residences/structures shall be underground. Unless otherwise
approved for deferral, the infrastructure improvements needed to provide underground wire
services for electric, phone, and cable services shall be completed as a subdivisi on
improvement in conjunction with the recordation of the parcel map. Any request for
deferral shall be accompanied by an approved or preliminary PGE memo or handout
package clarifying how underground service will be provided to each parcel in the future.
11. The parcel map submittal shall include a preliminary site utility plan to clarify how services
will be provided to each parcel. An exhibit or preliminary analysis shall clarify that a
gravity sewer will be available to each parcel. Otherwise, sewer easements may be required
to provide gravity sewer to each parcel.
12. Any easements including but not limited to provisions for all public and private utilities,
access, grading, drainage, slope banks, construction, 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. Said easements may be provided for in part or in total as blanket
easements.
13. The subdivider shall dedicate a 10’ wide street tree easement and public utility easement
(P.U.E.) across the frontage of each lot. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous
with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot.
14. Building setbacks, eave overhangs, exterior wall protection, utility locations, and utility
relocations or easements, if applicable, shall be shown to comply with all codes and
Item 4
Packet Page 202
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19
309 Sandercock Street, SBDV-0136-2019 & EID-0137-2019
Page 11
ordinances for the property line location related to the existing improvements located on
Parcel 2 to the satisfaction of the Building Official.
15. A separate encroachment agreement will be required for the existing rail fence located
within the public right-of-way. The agreement shall be recorded prior to or in conjunction
with the map recordation.
16. A line of sight analysis shall be completed for the existing fencing and plantings located
adjacent to driveway approaches and at the property corner. Fence modifications and/or
pruning of vegetation may be required prior to map recordation and/or in conjunction with
development.
17. The building plan submittal shall show and note any sections of damaged or displaced curb,
gutter & sidewalk or driveway approach to be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the
Public Works Department. A separate site inspection shall be completed prior to map
recordation to clarify the extent of any repairs needed prior to development or
redevelopment of any parcels.
18. The future driveway approach to serve Parcel 1 shall be setback from the intersection per
City Engineering Standards unless a design exception is otherwise approved. The final site
and development designs might consider a common driveway approach and driveway to
serve parcel 1 and 4.
19. Future development plans should consider limiting the extent of impervious driveway
surfaces to reduce runoff and to support any existing trees to remain. Driveway surfaces
could be constructed with a Hollywood style driveway or permeable pavers per city
standards. Alternate paving material shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning
Division and the Engineering Development Review Division.
20. These lots may be considered a common plan of development in relation to the Post
Construction Stormwater Requirements (PCR’s) as promulgated by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board if held in common ownership or developed in common ownership.
A separate development exhibit shall be provided with the parcel map submittal to show
compliance with the Post Construction Stormwater Requirements. A preliminary
development plan and PCR checklist shall be provided along with a preliminary drainage
report to clarify the strategy for stormwater management. A separate Notice of
Requirement may be required to clarify the minimum PCR Performance requirement for
each parcel.
21. An operations and maintenance manual may be required for the post construction
stormwater improvements. The manual shall be provided at the time of building permit
application and shall be accepted by the City prior to building permit issuance. A private
stormwater conveyance agreement may be required and if required, shall be recorded in
conjunction with any building permit approvals.
Item 4
Packet Page 203
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19
309 Sandercock Street, SBDV-0136-2019 & EID-0137-2019
Page 12
22. Street trees are generally required as a condition of development. The plan submittal for
each new building permit shall show one new 15-gallon or existing street tree per each 35
lineal feet of parcel frontage. The City Arborist shall review existing trees for qualification
as street trees. Tree species and planting requirements shall be in accordance with City
Engineering Standards.
23. Except as noted on the tentative map and as otherwise provided for in the Tree Regulations,
all existing trees within the subdivision shall be retained until development plans are
submitted for review and approval. Tree removals proposed with development shall be
reviewed by the City Arborist. The City Arborist shall provide recommendations on the
proposed tree removals, compensatory plantings, and tree preservation requirements to the
Community Development Department. Tree removals related to development shall be
approved by the
24. The City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to
commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall
approve any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within the dripline
of trees. A city-approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree
protection measures shall be shown or noted on the building plans.
Utilities Department
25. The proposed utility infrastructure shall comply with the engineering design standards in
effect during the time a building permit is obtained, and shall have reasonable alignments
and clearances needed for maintenance.
26. Plans submitted for building permits shall include revisions to the existing sewer and water
infrastructure along the street frontage, that may result from the proposed land use
modifications, shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Utilities Director to minimize
impacts to operations and maintenance of existing or future services.
27. Trash collection services shall comply with the access requirements and conditions of the
San Luis Garbage Company.
28. Plans submitted for building permits shall include a separate water meter shall be provided
for each new parcel in an area accessible by the city, and a utility easement shall be
provided along the private road.
29. Provide on map licensed surveyor stamp, and blanket easement statement for utility
services per MC 16.10.020.
Indemnification
30. 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,
Item 4
Packet Page 204
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19
309 Sandercock Street, SBDV-0136-2019 & EID-0137-2019
Page 13
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.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
RECUSED:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 11th day of December 2019.
____________________________________
Shawna Scott, Secretary
Planning Commission
Item 4
Packet Page 205
Item 4
Packet Page 206
Item 4Packet Page 207
Item 4Packet Page 208
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
1
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For EID-0137-2019
1. Project Title:
Diodati Subdivision
SBDV-0136-2019
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
kbell@slocity.org
(805) 781-7524
4. Project Location:
309 Sandercock, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
APN: 004-581-007
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
John Diodati
3675 Lawnwood Court
San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401
6. General Plan Designation:
Medium-Density Residential
7. Zoning:
Medium-Density Residential (R-2) zone
Item 4
Packet Page 209
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
2
8. Description of the Project:
The project is a corner lot subdivision creating four parcels (approximately 0.12, 0.11, 0.11, and
0.18 acres each) from three existing parcels totaling approximately 0.52 acres (Attachment 1,
Project Plans). The existing parcels contain one single-family residence, which is proposed to
remain in place. Further development of the project site would consist of a single-family
residence on each of the proposed parcels (one per parcel), and associated site improvements
including grading and access improvements. The applicant proposes to remove one pine tree
thirteen inches in diameter at chest height. Nine oak trees located onsite are proposed to remain.
Proposed Parcels 1-3 will be accessed from Sandercock Street, and Parcel 4 will be accessed
from Cypress Street. An exception is requested for Parcel 1 to establish a smaller parcel size for
the corner lot for approximately 5,315 square feet, where 5,750 square feet is normally required,
with a maximum width of 53-feet where 60-feet is normally required; as detailed in the table
below.
Min. Lot Area
(sq. ft.)
Min. Width
(feet)
Min. Depth
(feet)
Min. Street Frontage
(feet)
Requirement (R-2 zone)
Corner lot (+15%)
5,000
5,750
50
60
80 20
Parcel 1 – Corner lot 5,315 53 100 154
Parcel 2 5,001 50 100 50
Parcel 3 5,000 50 100 50
Parcel 4 7,688 50 154 50
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
The project site encompasses three parcels approximately 7,500 square feet each. The project
site is located at 309 Sandercock Street on the corner of Cypress and Sandercock Streets. The
project site is relatively flat (approximately 2% average cross slope) and is developed with one
single-family residence. The parcel is located in the Medium-Density Residential (R-2) zone and
is surrounded by R-2 zoning. Surrounding uses consist of single and multi-family residences.
Adjacent land uses and zoning are provided in the table below:
Zoning Land Use
North R-2 Single-Family Residence
West R-2 Multi-Family Residence (duplex)
South R-2 Multi-Family Residence (duplex)
East R-2 Single-Family Residence
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
The proposed project requires Tentative Parcel Map approval from the Planning Commission
due to the requested exceptions from the Subdivision Regulations to allow the creation of a
5,315-square foot corner lot where 5,750 square feet is normally required, with a maximum
width of 53-feet where 60-feet is normally required for a corner lot.
Item 4
Packet Page 210
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
3
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
Air Pollution Control District.
12. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the
project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources code section 21080.3.1? If
so, has consultation begun?
On May 20, 2019, the City of San Luis Obispo mailed letters informing California Native
American Tribes that the project application was deemed complete, and notified these tribes of
the consultation opportunity, pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1. Conducting
consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project
proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse
impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the
environmental review process, however no tribes requested formal consultation for the proposed
project.
Item 4
Packet Page 211
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
4
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 and Housing
Agricultural Resources Hazards & Hazardous
Materials Public Services
X Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Recreation
X Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Transportation & Traffic
X Cultural Resources Energy & Mineral Resources Utilities and Service
Systems
Geology/Soils Noise Tribal Cultural Resources
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FISH AND GAME FEES
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the pro ject qualifies for a
de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
X
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the Califor nia Fish and Game Code. This initial study has
been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or mo re
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall no t be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
Item 4
Packet Page 212
Item 4
Packet Page 213
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
6
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 I mpact” 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 eff ect may be significant. If
there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when t he 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 effect s from the above checklist were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier documen t 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. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should
normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever
format is selected.
9. 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
Item 4
Packet Page 214
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2017
7
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,2,5 X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
1,11
X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
1,11,
28 X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely effect day or nighttime views in the area?
1,12,
30 X
Environmental Setting
The project site consists of an approximately half-acre property located within an urbanized residential neighborhood. There
are no scenic highways or roadways located adjacent or proximate to the project site. Based on the City’s Conservation and
Open Space Element, there are no scenic vistas visible from the adjacent or proximate roadways.
Evaluation
a), b) The project site is not located in the area of a scenic vista or a local or state scenic highway; therefore, the proposed
subdivision and future development of the site would not result in a significant impact to a scenic vista or scenic highway. No
impact.
c), d) The proposed land division would occur within an urbanized residential area and represents an infill development
project. Implementation of the project includes the removal of one pine tree from the project site; while removal of this tree
would result in a visual change, the effect would not be significant because the applicant proposes to retain 65 trees onsite,
which would be consistent with the surrounding urban forest canopy present within the neighborhood. Any subsequent
development project on the site would need to comply with the City’s Tree Ordinance which establishes requirements for
compensatory planting and preservations requirements for retaining sensitive trees.
While no specific development proposal has been identified for the site, based on the underlying zoning and proposed parcel
sizes, this analysis assumes that future development would consist of residential development. Such development would be
subject to development standards identified in Chapter 17.18 Medium-Density Residential (R-2) Development Standards, and
the City’s Community Design Guidelines, which are intended to provide for infill projects of high architectural quality that
are compatible with existing development. In addition, while the subdivision by itself would not result in the creation of
additional light or glare, future development is subject to Section 17.70.100 Night Sky Preservation, which minimize glare
and obtrusive light by limiting outdoor lighting that is misdirected, excessive, or unnecessary. Therefore, based on
compliance with existing regulations and guidelines, potential impacts associated with future development of the project site
related to visual character, quality of the site and its surroundings, light, and glare would be less than significant and no
mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Less than Significant based on compliance with existing regulations and guidelines.
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?
14
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
10 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 or conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
14 X
Environmental Setting
Item 4
Packet Page 215
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
8
The project site consists of an approximately half-acre property located within an urbanized residential neighborhood. No
agricultural zoning, agricultural uses, Farmland as designated by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, nor lands under Williamson Act contract onsite or proximate to the project site.
Evaluation
a), b), c) The project site is surrounded by developed properties and public streets. The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency designates this property as Urban Land. Redevelopment of the site will not
contribute to conversion of farmland. No impacts to existing on site or off-site agricultural resources are anticipated with
development of the project site. No impact
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, no impact would occur.
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?
15,16,
31 X
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
15,16,
31 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 qualitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
15,16,
31 X
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? 30 X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people? 12, 30 X
Environmental Setting
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), alth ough 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 ma tter (PM10). The County
is designated attainment for national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
The project site is located within a residential neighborhood; the existing residence that is occupied, and surrounding
residential uses are considered sensitive receptors.
Evaluation
a), The San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (APCD) adopted the 2001 Clean Air Plan (CAP) in 2002. The 20 01
CAP is a comprehensive planning document intended to provide guidance to the SLOAPCD and other local agen cies,
including the City, on how to attain and maintain the state standards for ozone and PM10. 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 project is
consistent with the CAP’s land use and circulation management strategies, because it consists of an in-fill project within an
urbanized area and would accommodate future residential uses within an urbanized area proximate to transit opportunities
and bicycle routes. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, the prop osed project is consistent with the APCD’s CAP, and potential impacts
would be less than significant.
b), c), d) Both the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have
Item 4
Packet Page 216
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
9
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” pol lutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are
described in criteria documents. Areas that m eet 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 1-hour and 8-hour State standards for ozone and the 24-hour State standard 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. Assessment of potential air quality impacts that may
result from the proposed project was conducted using the April 2012 CEQA Air Quality Handbook and 2017 Clarification
Memo, which is provided by the APCD for the purpose of assisting lead agencies in assessing the potential air quality
impacts from residential, commercial and industrial development. Under CEQA, the APCD is a responsible a gency for
reviewing and commenting on projects that have the potential to cause adverse impacts to air quality.
Construction Significance Criteria:
Construction activities associated with subdivision improvements and future development of the site, potentially including
demolition, grading, construction, and paving would generate fugitive dust particles (PM10), ozone precursors (ROG+NOx),
and diesel exhaust (DPM) that could result in a temporary increase in criteria pollutants and could also contribute to the
existing non-attainment status for ozone and PM10. Reactive organic gasses (ROG) would be released during dry ing of
architectural coatings. Truck trips associated with imported and exported site material (i.e., soils and materials) may also be a
source of emissions subject to APCD permitting requirements. The specific requirements and exceptions in the regulations
can be reviewed at the following web sites: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/factsheet.pdf and
https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/ordiesl07/frooal.pdf. Impacts related to vehicle and heavy equipment emissions are
considered potentially significant but mitigable (refer to Mitigation Measures AQ-3, AQ-4, AQ-5, and AQ-6). In addition,
construction equipment itself can be the source of air quality emission impacts and may be subject to California Air
Resources Board or APCD permitting requiremen ts. This includes portable equipment, 50 horsepower (hp) or gr eater or other
equipment listed in the APCD’s 2012 CEQA Handbook, Technical Appendices, page 4-4 (refer to Mitigation Measure AQ-
5).
Construction activities can generate fugitive dust, which co uld be a nuisance to local residents proximate to the proposed
project site. Based on implementation of mitigation measures that would suppress dust onsite, potentially significant impacts
related to fugitive dust emissions during proposed construction act ivities would be mitigated to less than significant (refer to
Mitigation Measure AQ-3). Sensitive receptors (residents of a surrounding home) would potentially be affected by fugitive
dust, diesel particulates, and construction equipment emissions. Based on the proximity of these sensitive receptors,
additional diesel idling restrictions would apply to the project during construction (refer to Mitigation Measures AQ-4 and
AQ-6).
Naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) has been identified by the state Air Reso urces Board as a toxic air contaminant.
Serpentine and ultramafic rocks are very common throughout Californ ia and may contain naturally occurring asbestos. The
SLO County APCD has identified that NOA may be present throughout the City of San Luis Obispo (A PCD 2012 CEQA
Handbook, Technical Appendix 4.4), and under the ARB Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Co nstruction, Grading,
Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (93105) are therefore required to provide geologic evaluation prior to any
construction activities (refer to Mitigation Measure AQ-1). As such, impacts are considered potentially significant but
mitigable. The project may include demolition activities, which has the potential to disturb asbestos that is often found in
underground utility pipes and pipelines (i.e. transit 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) (refer to Mitigation
Measure AQ-2). Impacts related to the proposed demolition of a portion of the existing structure (existing attached garage)
on the subject site is considered to be potentially significant but mitigable.
Operational Screening Criteria for Project Impacts:
Table 1-1 of the SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (as amended by the Clarification Memorandum for the San Luis
Obispo County Air Pollution Control District’s 2012 CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November 2017) shows that the
Item 4
Packet Page 217
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
10
operation of up to 128 single-family residences or 203 multi-family residential units would not exceed the APCD ozone
precursor significance threshold (25 lbs/day, ROG + NO x); as the project site would not support more than sixteen residential
units under the allowed density for the R-2 zone, operational impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is
required. Impact less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Prior to grading plan approval, the project proponent shall ensure that a geologic evaluation
be conducted to determine if naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) is present within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA
is not present, an exemption request must be filed with the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
(APCD). If NOA is found at the site, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the California Air
Resources Board Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining
Operations (93105). 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 online at slocleanair.org/business/asbestos.php.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Prior to grading plan and demolition plan approval, any scheduled demolition activities or
disturbance, removal, or relocation of utility pipelines shall be coordinated with the APCD Enforcement Division at
(805) 781-5912 to ensure compliance with NESHAP, which include, but are not limited t o: 1) written notification, within
at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos
Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM. More information on NOA can be
found at http://www.slocleanair.org/rules-regulations/asbestos.php.
Mitigation Measure AQ-3: During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall imple ment the
following particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on grading and building plans prior to
issuance of grading, demolition, and construction permit s. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons
to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, modify practices as necessary, to prevent transport
of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend p eriods when work may not be in progress. The name
and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Community Development and Public Works Departments
prior to commencement of construction.
a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to p revent airborne dust from leaving the site and
from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Increased
watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should
be used whenever possible. Please note that since water use is a concern due to drought conditions, the cont ractor or
builder shall consider the use of an APCD-approved dust suppressant where feasible to reduce the amount of water
used for dust control. Please refer to the following link for potential dust suppressants to select from to mitigate dust
emissions:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/PM10/Products%20Available%20for%20Controlling%20PM10%20Emissio
ns.htm.
c. All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed.
d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be
implemented as soon as possible, following completion o f any soil disturbing activities.
e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month a fter initial grading shall be sown
with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.
f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute
netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD.
g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved 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 ar e used.
h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved surface at the construction site.
i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to 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 California Vehicle
Code Section 23114.
Item 4
Packet Page 218
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
11
j. “Track-Out” is defined as sand or soil that adheres to and/or agglomerates on the exterior surfaces of motor vehicles
and/or equipment (including tires) that may then fall onto any h ighway or street as described in California Vehicle
Code Section 23113 and California Water Code 13304. To prevent “track out”, designate access points and require all
employees, subcontractors, and others to use them. Install and operate a ‘track-out prevention device’ where vehicles
enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved stree ts. The ‘track-out prevention device’ can be any device or combination
of devices that are effective at preventing track out, located at the point of intersection of an unpaved area and a
paved road. Rumble strips or steel plate devices need periodic clea ning to be effective. If paved roadways
accumulate tracked out soils, the track-out prevention device may need to be modified;
k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall
be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible.
l. All PM10 mitigation measures required should be shown on grading and building p lans and; The contractor or
builder shall designate a person or persons who se responsibility is to ensure any fugitive dust emissions do not result
in a nuisance and to enhance the implementation of the mitigation measures as necessary to minimize dust com plaints
and reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60 -minute
period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress (for example,
wind-blown dust could be generated on an open dirt lot). The name and telephone number of such pers ons shall be
provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition (Contact Tim
Fuhs at 805-781-5912).
Mitigation Measure AQ-4: The following Standard Mitigation Measures for Construction Equipment shall be shown
on plans prior to issuance of grading, demolition, and construction permits. The standard mitigation measures for
reducing nitrogen oxides (NOx), reactive organic gases (ROG), and diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from
construction equipment are listed below:
a. Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer’s specifications;
b. Fuel all off-road and portable diesel-powered equipment with CARB certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed
version suitable for use off-road);
c. Use diesel construction equipment meeting CARB's Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner off-road heavy-duty diesel
engines, and comply with the State Off-Road Regulation;
d. Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the CARB’s 2007 or cleaner certification standard for on-road heavy-duty
diesel engines, and comply with the State On-Road Regulation;
e. Construction or trucking companies with fleets that that do not have engines in their fleet that meet the engine
standards identified in the above two measures (e.g. captive or NOx exempt area fleets) may be eligible by proving
alternative compliance;
f. Electrify equipment when feasible;
g. Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where feasible; and,
h. Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible, such as compressed natural gas (CNG),
liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane or biodiesel.
Mitigation Measure AQ-5: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that all
equipment and operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board and APCD permitting requirements
Portable equipment, 50 horsepower (hp) or greater, used during construction activities may require California statewide
portable equipment registration (issued by the California Air Resources Board) or an APCD permit. The following list is
provided as a guide to equipment and operations that may have permitting requirements but should not be viewe d as
exclusive. For a more detailed listing, refer to the Technical Append ices, page 4-4, in the APCD's 2012 CEQA
Handbook.
a. Power screens, conveyors, diesel engines, and/or crushers;
b. Portable generators and equipment with engines that are 50 hp or greater;
c. Electrical generation plants or the use of standby generator;
d. Internal combustion engines;
e. Rock and pavement crushing;
f. Unconfined abrasive blasting operations;
g. Tub grinders;
h. Trommel screens; and,
i. Portable plants (e.g. aggregate plant, asphalt batch plan t, concrete batch plant, etc.).
Item 4
Packet Page 219
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
12
To minimize potential delays, prior to the start of the project, please contact the APCD Engineering & Compliance
Division at (805) 781-5912 for specific information regarding permitting requirements.
Mitigation Measure AQ-6: Prior to issuance of grading, demolition, and construction permits, the f ollowing measures
shall be shown on proposed plans. To reduce the sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and equipment
used to construct the project and export soil from the site, the applicant shall implement the following idling control
techniques:
1. California Diesel Idling Regulations
a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of regulations. This
regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more
than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California based
vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies th at drivers of said vehicles:
1. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location, except as noted
in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and,
2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any
ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes
at any location when within 100 feet of restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulatio n.
b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5-minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of the
California Air Resources Board’s In-Use Off-road Diesel regulation.
c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the state’s 5-
minute idling limit.
2. Diesel Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In addition to the State required diesel idling
requirements, the project applicant shall comply with these more restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to
nearby sensitive receptors:
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors.
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted.
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended.
d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posted and enforced at the site.
3. Soil and Material Transport. The final volume of soil and material that will be hauled off-site, together with the fleet
mix, hauling route, and number of trips per day will need to be iden tified for the APCD. Specific standards and
conditions will apply.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, the project would result in potentially significant, short-term, construction-
related impacts, which can be reduced to less than significant with identified mitigation. Potential operational impacts would
be less than significant, and no operational air quality mitigation measures are required.
e) The proposed project site is not located proximate to any sources of substantial objectionable odors, and future residential
development of the project site would not generate substantial objectionable odors; therefore, potential impacts would be less
than significant. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, potential impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are
required.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
10 X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
10, 11 X
Item 4
Packet Page 220
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
13
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, marshes, vernal pools, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
10 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
wildlife nursery sites?
10,11 X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
9 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?
5 X
Environmental Setting
The project site consists of an approximately half-acre property located within an urbanized residential neighborhood. There
is no riparian or wetland habitat present onsite or proximate to the project site. The site is developed wit h one single-family
residence to remain. Existing vegetation consists of 65 trees of various species and sizes.
Evaluation
a) According to the Natural Diversity Database of the California Department of Fish and Game, there are no 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 on or near the project site. Based on the
location and size of the project site, there is no suitable habitat for special-status habitats, plants, or wildlife. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to special-status habitats, plants, and
wildlife, and no mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, the impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
b), c) The site is not near any natural waterway, and no riparian or wetland habitat is present or proximate to the projects site;
therefore implementation of the project will have no adverse effect on riparian habitat or Federally protected wetlands. No
impact.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, no impact would occur.
d) The property is completely surrounded by urban development and the proposed residenti al project will not interfere with
any migratory wildlife corridors. The project includes the removal of up to one pine tree from the project site (65 trees of
various species would remain). While in an urban environment, mature trees have the potential to support nesting habitat for
birds. The removal of trees and construction activity proximate to nests may result in abandonment of eggs and potential
avian harm or mortality, resulting in a potentially significant im pact. This impact would be mitigated to less than significant
by implementation of mitigation identified below, which requires either avoidance of tree removal and construction within
the nesting bird season, or pre-construction surveys and avoidance measures to ensure nests, eggs, and nesting birds are not
harmed (refer to Mitigation Measure BIO-1). Less than significant impact with mitigation.
Mitigation Measure:
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Prior to commencement of construction, to avoid conflicts with n esting birds, potential tree
removals and construction activities shall not be allowed during the nesting bird season (March to September), unless a
City-approved and applicant funded qualified biologist has surveyed the impact zone and determined that no nesting bird
activities would be adversely impacted. A qualified biologist shall conduct weekly inspections during the construction
period and submit weekly monitoring reports to the City Planning staff and the Natural Resources Manager.
Item 4
Packet Page 221
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
14
Prior to construction activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct training for all construction personnel on best practic es
concerning nesting birds. All construction personnel shall receive the training by the qualified biologist prior to initiating
construction activities for the duration of the nest bird season. The qualified biologist shall submit documentation
verifying completion of the training to City Planning staff and the Natural Resources Manager. If any evidence of
nesting activities is found, the biologist will determine if any construction activities can occur during the nesting p eriod
and to what extent. The results of the surveys will be passed immediately to the City with possible recommendations for
variable buffer zones, as needed, around individu al nests.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above and implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1, potentially significant impacts
would be mitigated to less than significant.
e) No heritage trees or significant native vegetation exist onsite. The City Arborist has reviewed the proposed tree removal
(one 13-inch Pine) specifically associated with the subdivision and supports the removal of the tree, no tree removal permit is
required, in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code Section 12.24.090F.
Future grading and development of the site may require additional tree removals subject to the review of the City Arborist,
and may impact the health of trees to remain, resulting in a potentially significant impact. Mitigation is identified below,
which would require implementation of tree protection measures to prevent inadvertent harm to the root zones, canopy, and
overlying soils of these trees. Based on implementation of this mit igation, potential impacts would be mitigated to less than
significant (refer to Mitigation Measure BIO-2). Less than significant impact with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Prior to construction permit issuance for both initial improvements and future
development, construction plans shall clearly delineate all trees within the project site and shall show which trees are to
be removed or impacted, and which trees are to remain unharmed. Construction plans shall also: show proposed tree
protection measures to protect those trees identified to remain and new trees to be planted, including the placement of
protective fencing to be inspected and approved by the City Arborist; identify the location, species, and size of trees to be
planted; identify proposed irrigation plans; and show the use of structural soils to enhance the success of new plantings.
Tree protection measures shall be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities per the approved grading and
construction plans, and as approved by the City Arborist. Tree protection measures shall remain in place until final
inspection by the City Arborist.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above and implementation of mitigation measure BIO-2, potentially significant impacts
would be mitigated to less than significant.
f) The proposed project will not conflict with any local policy protecting biological resources nor any adopted habitat
conservation plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan. No impact.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, no impact would occur.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
10,21,
22 X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
21,22 X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
11,21 X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
23 X
Evaluation
a) The project site does not contain a listed historic resource and is not located within or near a historic resource Historic
Item 4
Packet Page 222
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
15
District. No impact.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, no impact would occur.
b), c), d) The project site is not located within or near areas designated as burial sensitivity areas and the project is not
considered an archaeologically sensitive site as described in the City’s Archaeological Resource Preservation Program
Guidelines. There are no known paleontological resources on the project site and there are no unique geologic features on the
property. No significant grading or excavation is propose d or required to complete the land division or subsequent
development on the parcel. Therefore, it is unlikely that unknown significant archaeological resources or burials are present.
In the unlikely event of resource discovery during grading and construc tion, mitigation measure CR-1 is identified to further
ensure protection of unknown resources. Compliance with this measure would mitigate any potential impacts to unknown
resources to a level of insignificance. Less than significant impact with mitigation.
Mitigation Measure:
Mitigation Measure CR-1: In the event historic, paleontological, or archeological resources and/or human remains are
unearthed or discovered during any constructio n activities, the following standards apply:
a. Construction activities shall cease, and the City Community Development Department shall be notified so that the
extent and location of discovered materials may be recorded by a qualified specialist (paleontolog ist, historian,
archaeologist) and disposition of artifacts may be accomplished in accordance with state and federal law.
b. If human remains are unearthed, the applicant shall notify the City Community Development Department and shall
comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which requires that no further disturbance shall occur
until the County of San Luis Obispo Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner mu st be notified of the find immediately. If the human
remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage
Commission within 24 hours, which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The M LD shall
complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and
nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.
Conclusion: Based on the location and condition of the project site, and implementation of mitigation measure CR-1
identified below, potential impacts would be less than significant.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including risk of loss, injury or death involving:
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated in 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.
25 X
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? 25 X
III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction ? 13 X
IV. Landslides or mudflows? 10 X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 8,13,
30 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 landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
13 X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life
or property?
13 X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic 7 X
Item 4
Packet Page 223
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
16
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
Evaluation
a), c) San Luis Obispo County, including the City of San Luis Obispo, is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic
Province, which extends along the coastline from central California into Oregon. This region i s characterized by extensive
folding, faulting, and fracturing of variable intensity. In general, the folds and fa ults of this province comprise the
pronounced northwest trending ridge-valley system of the central and northern coast of California.
Under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate appropriately wide special
studies zones to encompass all potentially and recently -active fault traces deemed sufficiently active and well-defined as to
constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. In San Luis Obispo County, the special Studies
Zone includes the San Andreas and Los Osos faults. The edge of this study area extends to the westerly city limit line, near
Los Osos Valley Road. According to a recently conducted geology study (source 16), the closest mapped active fault is the
Los Osos Fault, which runs in a northwest direction and is about one mile from the City’s westerly boundary. Because
portions of this fault have displaced sediments within a geologically recent time (the last 10,000 years), portions of the Los
Osos fault are considered “active”. Other active faults in the region include: The San Andreas, located about 30 miles to the
northeast, the Nacimiento, located approximately 12 miles to the northeast, and the San Simeon-Hosgri fault zone, located
approximately 12 miles to the west.
Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity, the site is located in an area of “High Seismic
Hazards,” specifically Seismic Zone D, which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be
subjected to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. New structures must be designed in compliance with
seismic design criteria established in the California Building Code for Seismic Zone D. To minimize this potential impact,
the Uniform Building Code and City Codes require new structures to be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in
an earthquake. The project site is not in an area designated as having high landslide potential and is not located on steep
slopes.
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. A soils report prepared by a qualified engineer is required upon review of the building permit to address the
nature of the subsurface soils in response to liquefaction potential, in accordance with the California Building Code Chapter
18, any issues identified in the report will be addressed through standard site construction techniques, as required by the
Code.
Based on the location of the project site, existing topography, and compliance with existing regulations, potential impacts
would be less than significant. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on the location of the project site and und erlying geologic and soil properties, and compliance with
existing regulations, potential impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measure s are required.
b) The erosion hazard of the underlying soils is Concepcion Loam (LUCE EIR Table 6.6-1 City of San Luis Obispo Soil
Properties). The most significant source of potential erosion of on-site soils would be during initial site ground
disturbance/construction and from stormwater runoff. Implementation of erosion control measures and best management
practices to avoid discharge of sediment and other pollutants from the project site is regulated through compliance with the
Municipal Code (Chapter 12.08 Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control). Erosion control measures
that would be required for future development pursuant to existing regulations may include, but not be limited to: scheduling
ground disturbance to avoid the rain events (if feasible), use of hydroseeding, planting, and mulch to stabilize soils, dust
control to stabilize stockpiles, unpaved roads, and graded areas, protection of storm drain inlets, use of sediment traps,
construction of a stabilized page of aggregate and filter fabric at the construction access entrance, street sweeping, and use of
silt fencing, sand/gravel bags, and fiber rolls. All construction projects in the city require the in stallation, maintenance,
routine inspection (i.e. weekly, before predicted rain events, after rain events and during prolonged rain events) and the repair
or replacement, as needed, of best management practices (BMPs) throughout the course of the construct ion project in order to
protect local water quality. Most BMPs (i.e. concrete / tool washouts and street sweeping) are required year long and others
are specifically required during the rainy season (i.e. October 15th through April 15th) or prior to a pred icted rain event, even
Item 4
Packet Page 224
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
17
if that rain event is predicted during the summer months. Enforcement of stormwater regulations occurs all year long. Failure
to develop a plan and/or failure to implement the plan in accordance with Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) erosion and sediment control requirements would result in the issuance of a “Notice to Comply.” For sites
with exposed soil, a Project Stop Work Notice may be issued at this time unless erosion and siltation control measures are
actively being installed. After October 15th, a Project Stop Work Notice would be issued for all work except the installation
of erosion control measures, and the RWQCB would be no tified. Therefore, based on compliance with existing state and
local regulations, potential impacts as a result of erosion and down-gradient sedimentation would be less than significant, and
no additional mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on the location of the project site and und erlying geologic and soil properties, and compliance with
existing regulations, potential impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
d) The site contains highly expansive soils as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (2001). A soils report
prepared by a qualified engineer is required upon review of the building permit to address the nature of the subsurface soils in
response to potential soil expansion, in accordance with the California Building Code Chapter 18, any issues identified in the
report will be addressed through site construction techniques. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on the location of the project site and und erlying geologic and soil properties, and compliance with
existing regulations, potential impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
e) The project site has access to the use of City sewers. No impact.
Conclusion: Based on the location of the project site, and existing and proposed connections to the City’s sewer system, no
impact would occur, and no mitigation is necessary.
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? 1,8,9 X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. 1,8,9 X
Existing Setting
As outlined in the LUCE Update EIR, prominent 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 sour ces, 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 em issions 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 aver age 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), Climate Pollution Reduction Beyond 2020 Healthier
Communities and a Stronger Economy (Senate Bill [SB] 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
Item 4
Packet Page 225
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
18
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 San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) adopted a CEQA Air Quality
Handbook (2012) and associated clarification memorandum (2017), as well as guidance on GHG emission thresholds and
supporting evidence (2012), that may be applied by lead agencies within San Luis O bispo County. 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 and help the city build
resiliency and adapt to the effects of climate change.
Evaluation
a), b) The proposed project will result in infill development, located near to transit, services and employment centers. City
policies recognize that compact, infill development allow for more efficient use of existing infrastructure and Citywide
efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The City’s CAP also recognizes that energy efficient design will result in
significant energy savings, which result in emissions reductions. Construction activities would generate GHG emissions
through the use of on‐ and off‐road construction equipment in new development. Long-term emissions associated with the
project relate to indirect source emissions, such as electricity usage ; however, the emissions from project-related vehicle
exhaust comprise the vast majority of the total project CO2 emissions. State Title 24 regulations for building energy
efficiency are enforced with new construction.
Table 1-1 of the SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (as amended by the Clarification Memorandum for the San Luis
Obispo County Air Pollution Control District’s 2012 CEQA Air Quality Handbook , November 2017) shows that the
construction and operation of up to 76 single-family residences or 125 multi-family residential units would not exceed the
APCD GHG bright-line threshold of 1,150 CO2e (metric tons/year). Therefore, potential impacts would be less than
significant. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, potential impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are
required.
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?
29 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?
29 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?
29 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, it would create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
4 X
e) For a project located within an airpor t 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?
27 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?
27 X
g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, the
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation 4 X
Item 4
Packet Page 226
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
19
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death, involving wildland fires, including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are
intermixed with wildlands?
4 X
Evaluation
a) The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Future construction following the proposed subdivision 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 hazardou s 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.
With respect to operation of the future project, residential units would not generate significant amounts of hazardous
materials. Therefore, based on compliance with existing regulations, potential impacts would be less than significant. Less
than significant.
Conclusion: Based on compliance with existing regulations, potential impacts would be less than significant, and no
mitigation measures are required.
b), c) The proposed project site is located 1,264 feet from the nearest school. As discussed above (refer to response to a), the
proposed project would not result in the routine transport, use, disposal, handling, or emission of any hazardous materials that
would create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment. Implementation of Title 49, Parts 171–180, of the Code
of Federal Regulations and stipulations in the General Plan Safety Element would reduce any impacts associated with the
potential for accidental release during construction or occupancy of future residential development.
Construction of the future residential project would require the use of fuels and materials, if spilled, could result in a hazard
to the public. The applicant is required to comply with state and local water quality regulations (refer to Sections 6 and 9 of
this Initial Study), which would address this potential impact. Therefore, based on compliance with existing regulations,
potential impacts related to the accidental release of hazardous materials would be less than sign ificant.
Conclusion: Based on compliance with existing regulations, potential impacts would be less than significant, and no
mitigation measures are required.
d) Based on a review of the State of California Geotracker and Envirostor datab ases, the proposed subdivision is not located
on a site with any known hazardous materials and improvements necessary for the proposed land division would not result in
the emission of any hazardous materials or substances. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on compliance with existing regulations, potential impacts would be less than significant, and no
mitigation measures are required.
e), f) The project site is located approximately 2.1 miles north of the San Luis Obispo County Airport. According to the
Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), the consideration of airport safety factors has led to the delineation of “safety areas” with
respect to aviation safety risks. Please refer to the City LUCE Update EIR, Figure 4.8‐3, for a depiction of the airport safety
zones as delineated through the ALUP. As shown, the project site is located outside of all Airport Safety Zones. The subject
location is not located within a specific plan area and is not subject to any density limitations established by the ALUP; and
would therefore not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. No impact.
Conclusion: Based on the location of the project, no impact would occur.
Item 4
Packet Page 227
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
20
g), h) The project site is not within an area of fire hazard severity and is not adjacent to wildlands and would not interfere
with any emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plans. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on the location of the project site and existing and proposed access points, potential impacts would be less
than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements? 30 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 for which permits have been granted)?
19 X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation onsite or offsite?
30 X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding
onsite or offsite?
30 X
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
19 X
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 30 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?
26 X
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows? 26 X
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
26 X
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 26 X
Evaluation
a), f) Implementation of the project would include grading and development within a near level to gently sloping area.
Disturbance of soils and use of equipment may result in the discharge of sediment, hydrocarbons, and other pollutants into
the City storm system. The proposed project, including residential development of the site, is subject to several existing
regulations and programs, including the City’s Storm Water Management Program, the 2014 LUCE, and Drainage Design
Manual (DDM) of the Waterway Management Plan and Post Construction Requirements for storm water control . Best
Management Practices (BMPs) and Pollution Prevention Methods (PPMs) are required to be incorporated into grading and
construction plans for the short and long-term management and protection of water quality. Based on the limited size of the
project and compliance with existing regulations, potential impacts would be less than significant. Less than significant
impact.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, potential impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are
required.
b) The project site is within an area of an already developed residential subdivision and is served with water by the City’s
Utilities Department and will not use or otherwise deplete groundwater resources, interfere with groundwater recharge or
alter ground and surface water qu ality. Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued and the Water Impact Fee is
Item 4
Packet Page 228
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
21
paid. Water will need to be provided by the City’s Utilities Department and it must be shown that supplying the project will
not use or otherwise deplete groundwater resources or interfere with groundwater recharge. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, potential impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are
required.
c), d), e) The project will need to comply with the Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual, engineering
standards, water pollution control plan requirements, Post Construction Stormwater Requirements, and adopted building and
grading codes for water quantity/quality analysis. These plans and regulations were adopted for the purpose of ensuring water
quality and proper drainage within the City’s watershed. The Waterways Management Plan and Low Impact Development
(LID) stormwater treatment requires that site development be designed so that post-development site drainage does not
significantly exceed pre-development run-off. Therefore, based on compliance with existing regu lations, potential impacts
would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above and compliance with existing regulations, potential impacts would be less than
significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
g), h), i), j) The project site is not located within the 100 -year flood hazard area, is not located near a lev ee or dam, is not
downstream from a levee or dam, and is not located in an area where there is risk of inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow. No impact.
Conclusion: Based on the location of the project site and compliance with existing regulations, no impact would occur, and
no mitigation measures are required.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 1, 8 X
b) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
1, 10 X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plans? 5 X
Evaluation
a) The project complies with all provisions of the General Plan Land Use Element. The project proposes an exception to the
City’s Subdivision Regulations minimum lot area and width requirements. The proposed subdivision would create four lots
from three existing parcels, which requires an exception to the Subdivision Regulations for the minimum parcel area and
minimum width. The proposed corner lot (parcel 1) has a lot area of 5,315 square feet (5,750 square feet minimum required
for a corner lot) with a maximum width of 53-feet (60-feet minimum required for a corner lot). The project site is within an
already developed residential subdivision representing an infill development opportunity. The exception is requested to
provide for reasonable development of the property to meet the minimum requirements of lot depth, where the average lot
size of all four parcels is equivalent to 5,751 square feet. The proposed subdivision minimally conflicts with the parcel area
requirements of the Subdivision Regulations and the resulting parcels will be consistent with the size, density, and
development pattern of the neighborhood. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on the location of the project site, and the discussion above, no impact would occur.
b), c) The proposed subdivision is an infill project in an already developed urban area resulting in a development pattern
consistent with both the Zoning Regulations and General Plan and would not physically divide an established community,
nor conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans. No impact
Conclusion: Based on the location of the project site no impact would occur, and no mitigation is necessary.
11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Item 4
Packet Page 229
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
22
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?
10
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?
10
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. No impact.
Conclusion: Based on the location of the project site no impact would occur, and no mitigation is necessary.
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?
3, 18 X
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? 3, 18 X
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 30 X
d) A substantial temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
30 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?
9, 27 X
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?
9, 27 X
Existing Setting
The project site consists of an approximately half-acre property located within an urbanized residential neighborhood. The
project site is not located near any transportation-related or stationary noise sourced. The site is developed with one single-
family residence to remain.
Evaluation
a) The project site is not located near any transportation-related or stationary noise sources which would exceed noise
thresholds of the Noise Element. Therefore, based on the location of the project site within an existing residential
neighborhood, potential impacts would be less than significant. Less than significant impact.
b) The project will not expose people to the generation of excessive groun d-borne noise levels or vibrations. No Impact
c), d) Long-term operation of the project would be consistent with existing and future residential uses in the project vicinity.
Noise sensitive land uses in the area consist of existing residences, and operation of the project would not result in a long -
term significant noise impact. The proposed project would therefore have a less than significant impact related to producing a
substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
Construction activities also generate noise, and may temporarily raise the ambient noise levels above acceptable levels for the
duration of construction, including groundborne vibration and noise. Construction noise is regulated by the City’s Noise
Ordinance, which regulates time of construction and maximum noise levels that may be generated. The project would be
Item 4
Packet Page 230
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
23
required to meet the noise standards contained in the Ordinance, which includes thresholds for noise generation from
construction equipment and limitations on the days and hours of construction. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, potential impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
e), f) The project site is located outside of the 50-dB contour identified in Figure 1 of the San Luis Obispo County Airport
ALUP. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on the location of the project site, potential impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is
required.
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
6 X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
6 X
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 6 X
Evaluation
a) The project site is designated for residential development, and the proposed project includes subdivision of the property
and future residential development consistent with the anticipated land use based on the proposed project parcel size and
maximum allowed density identified in the City’s Zoning Regulations. The proposed project would not involve any other
components that would induce further growth not already anticipated under the General Plan. Impacts are considered less
than significant. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, potential impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are
necessary.
b), c) The project does not include the displacement of housing or people; therefore, no impact would occ ur. No impact.
Conclusion: Based on the location of the project, no impact would occur.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision, or need, of new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, o r other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? 12 X
b) Police protection? 12 X
c) Schools? 12 X
d) Parks? 12 X
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? 12 X
f) Other public facilities? 12 X
Evaluation
a), b), d), e), f) As an infill site, adequ ate public services (fire, police, roads and other transportation infrastructure, and other
public facilities) are available to serve the project. Future development must comply with applicable City codes and State
regulations and building permits will be issued to insure consistency with these requirements. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, potential impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are
Item 4
Packet Page 231
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
24
necessary.
c) The school districts in the state have the authority to collect fees at the time of issuance of building permits to offset the
costs to finance school site acquisition and school construction, and are deemed by State law to be adequate mitigation for all
school facility requirements. Any increases in demand on school facilities caused by the project are considered to be
mitigated by the district’s collection of adopted fees at the time of building permit issuance. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, potential impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are
necessary.
15. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
30 X
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
30 X
Evaluation
a), b) The project is not expected to produce such a volume of new users that any nearby parks or recreation areas will be
significantly impacted or deteriorated. No significant recreational impacts are expected to occur with subdivision of the site,
as the project provides the same residential development potential as the existing property before any subdivision. Park Land
In-Lieu fees will be required to be paid to the City to help finance additional park s pace, maintenance or equipment in the
vicinity, per existing City policy. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above and compliance with existing regulations, potential impacts would be less than
significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary.
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to
the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? 2 X
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads and highways?
2 X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.
farm equipment)?
30 X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 30 X
e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? 30 X
f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 2 X
g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land
Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,
noise, or a change in air traffic patterns?
27 X
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e), f) Based on the size and number of proposed parcels, future residential development of the site would not
generate significant levels of vehicular or non-vehicular traffic. The project site is served by existing transportation
infrastructure and the proposed project will result in improvements to the City’s circulation system. The project will dedicate
public right-of-way to provide for sidewalk improvements and vehicle access. The project has been evaluated by the Fire
Department for adequacy of emergency access and no impacts have been identified. The project does not conflict with any
plans or policies regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. The project is in conformance with City’s plans and
policies regarding public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Less than significant impact.
Item 4
Packet Page 232
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
25
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above and compliance with existing regulations, potential impacts would be less than
significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary.
g) The project will not result in any changes to air traffic patterns, nor does it conflict with any safety plans of the Airport
Land Use Plan because the project site is not located within any Airport Safety Zone. No impact.
Conclusion: Based on the location of the proposed project, n o impact would occur.
17. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources
as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
22
X
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
21, 23
X
Evaluation
On May 20, 2017, local Native American tribal groups were formally noticed that an Initial Study of Environmental Impact
was being completed for the proposed project at 309 Sandercock and invited to provide consultation on the proposed project.
No tribal representatives requested formal consultation, and the project is not located within an archaeologically sensitive
site, or near areas designated as burial sensitive areas.
a), b) The project site does not contain any structures that are: listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources or local register as defined in Public Resources Section 5020.1(k). The site does not contain any
resources considered significant by any California Native American tribe. Less than significant.
Conclusion: Based on discussion above and in Initial Study Section 5 (Cultural Resources), and compliance with AB52,
potential impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required
18. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? 12 X
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water
treatment, waste water treatment, water quality control, or storm
drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
12 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?
12 X
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and
expanded water resources needed?
12 X
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate 12 X
Item 4
Packet Page 233
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
26
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addit ion to
the provider’s existing commitment?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 24 X
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste? 24 X
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e), f), g) The project is an infill development project within an existing residential subdivision which is already
served by drainage, sewer, and water facilitie s and is already served with solid waste service. The incremental increase in
demand on these facilities and services is not considered to be significant. Future site development on the newly created
parcel is subject to impact fees to ensure new development pays its fair share of the cost. The City’s ex isting fee structure is
intended to offset any of the incremental impacts of each new residential unit. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, and compliance with existing regulations, potential impacts would be less than
significant, and no mitigation is required.
19. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
X
The project is an infill commercial development in an urbanized area of the city. Without mitigation, the project could have
the potential to have adverse impacts on all of the issue areas checked in the Table on Page 3. As discussed above, potenti al
impacts to air quality, biological and cultural resources will be less than significant with incorporation of recommended
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 propo sed project would be reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with
existing regulations and identified mitigation measures discussed in this Initial Study and/or implementation of the mitigation
measures recommended in this Initial Study for the following resource areas: air quality (AQ 1-6), biological resources (BIO
1-2), and cultural resources (CR 1).
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 .
Item 4
Packet Page 234
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Diodati Subdivision SBDV-0136-2019
EID-0137-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2017
27
20. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
N/A
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.
N/A
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.
N/A
21. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element, December 2014
2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element, December 2014
3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element, May 1996
4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element, July 2000
5. City of SLO General Plan Conservation Element, April 2006
6. City of SLO General Plan Housing Element, January 2015
7. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element, February 1987
8. City of SLO General Plan EIR 2014 for Update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements
9. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
10. City of San Luis Obispo, Land Use Inventory Database
11. Site Visit
12. Staff Knowledge
13. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County
14. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency:
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/
15. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County, Air Pollution Control District, 2001
16. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Air Pollution Control District, 2012
17. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition, on file in the Community
Development Department
18. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Guidebook, May 1996
19. City of SLO Waterways Management Plan
20. City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community Development
Department
21. City of San Luis Obispo, Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community
Development Department
22. City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Site Map
23. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Map
24. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element, on file in the Utilities Department
25. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance w ith the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990
26. Flood Insurance Rate Map (Community Panel 0603100005 C) dated March 5, 2007
27. San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan
28. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines
29. 2001 Uniform Building Code
30. Project Plans
Item 4
Packet Page 235
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
28
31. CAAQS San Luis Obispo Attainment Status
All documents listed above are available for review at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department,
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California (805) 781-7188.
Attachments:
1. Reduced scale project plans
REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
AIR QUALITY MITIGATION
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Prior to grading plan approval, the project proponent shall ensure that a geologic evaluation be
conducted to determine if naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) is present within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not
present, an exemption request must be filed with the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD). If NOA
is found at the site, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the California Air Resources Board Air
Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Op erations (93105). This may
include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and an Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval b y 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 online at
slocleanair.org/business/asbestos.php.
➢ Monitoring Plan, AQ-1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the
contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. The name and telephone
number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior
to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements
to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Prior to grading plan and demolition plan approval, any scheduled demolition activities or
disturbance, removal, or relocation of utility pipelines shall be coordinated with the APCD Enforcement Division at (805)
781-5912 to ensure compliance with NESHAP, which include, but are not limited to: 1) written notification, within at least
10 business days of activities commencing, to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant,
and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM. More information on NOA can be found at
http://www.slocleanair.org/rules-regulations/asbestos.php.
➢ Monitoring Plan, AQ 2: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the
contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. Their duties shall include
holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall
be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of
construction.
Mitigation Measure AQ-3: During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following
particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on grading and building plans prior to issuance of
grading, demolition, and construction permits. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to moni tor the
dust control program and to order increased watering, modify practices as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site.
Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number
of such persons shall be provided to the Community Development and Public Works Departmen ts prior to commencement of
construction.
a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to p revent airborne dust from leaving the site and from
exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60 -minute period. Increased watering
frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used
whenever possible. Please note that since water use is a concern due to drought conditions, the contractor or builder shall
consider the use of an APCD-approved dust suppressant where feasible to reduce the amount of water used for dust
control. Please refer to the following link for potential dust suppressants to select f rom to mitigate dust emissions:
Item 4
Packet Page 236
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
29
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/PM10/Products%20Available%20for%20Controlling%20PM10%20Emissions.ht
m.
c. All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed.
d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be
implemented as soon as possible, following completion o f any soil disturbing activities.
e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a
fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.
f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or
other methods approved in advance by the APCD.
g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved 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.
h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved surface at the construction site.
i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to 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 California Vehicle Code
Section 23114.
j. “Track-Out” is defined as sand or soil that adheres to and/or agglomerates on the exter ior surfaces of motor vehicles
and/or equipment (including tires) that may then fall onto any highway or street as described in California Vehicle Code
Section 23113 and California Water Code 13304. To prevent “track out”, designate access points and require all
employees, subcontractors, and others to use them. Install a nd operate a ‘track-out prevention device’ where vehicles
enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved streets. The ‘track-out prevention device’ can be any device or combination of
devices that are effective at preventing track out, located at the point of intersection of an unpaved area and a paved road.
Rumble strips or steel plate devices need periodic cleaning to be effective. If paved roadways accumulate tracked out
soils, the track-out prevention device may need to be modified;
k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall be
used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre -wetted prior to sweeping when feasible.
l. All PM10 mitigation measures required should be sho wn on grading and building plans and; The contractor or builder
shall designate a person or persons whose responsibility is to ensure any fugitive dust emissions do not result in a
nuisance and to enhance the implementation of the mitigation measures as ne cessary to minimize dust complaints and
reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period.
Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress (for exampl e, wind-blown
dust could be generated on an open dirt lot). The name and telephone number of such pers ons shall be provided to the
APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition (Contact Tim Fuhs at 805-781-
5912).
➢ Monitoring Plan, AQ 3: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the
contractor 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. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community
Development and Public Works Departments prior to commence ment of construction.
Mitigation Measure AQ-4: The following Standard Mitigation Measures for Construction Equipment shall be shown on
plans prior to issuance of grading, demolition, and construction permits. The standard mitigation measures for reducing
nitrogen oxides (NOx), reactive organic gases (ROG), and diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from construction
equipment are listed below:
i. Maintain all construction equipment in prop er tune according to manufacturer’s specifications;
j. Fuel all off-road and portable diesel-powered equipment with CARB certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed
version suitable for use off-road);
k. Use diesel construction equipment meeting CARB's Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner off-road heavy-duty diesel engines,
and comply with the State Off-Road Regulation;
l. Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the CARB’s 2007 or cleaner certification st andard for on-road heavy-duty diesel
engines, and comply with the State On-Road Regulation;
m. Construction or trucking companies with fleets that that do not have engines in their fleet that meet the engine standards
identified in the above two measures (e.g. captive or NOx exempt area fleets) may be eligible by proving alternative
compliance;
n. Electrify equipment when feasible;
o. Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where feasible; and,
Item 4
Packet Page 237
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
30
p. Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied
natural gas (LNG), propane or biodiesel.
Mitigation Measure AQ-5: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that all
equipment and operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board and APCD permitting requirements Portable
equipment, 50 horsepower (hp) or greater, used during construction activities may require California statewide portable
equipment registration (issued by the California Air Resources Board) or an APCD permit. The follow ing list is provided as a
guide to equipment and operations that may have permitting requirements but should not be viewed as exclusive. For a more
detailed listing, refer to the Technical Appendices, page 4-4, in the APCD's 2012 CEQA Handbook.
j. Power screens, conveyors, diesel engines, and/or crushers;
k. Portable generators and equipment with engines that are 50 hp or greater;
l. Electrical generation plants or the use of standby generator;
m. Internal combustion engines;
n. Rock and pavement crushing;
o. Unconfined abrasive blasting operations;
p. Tub grinders;
q. Trommel screens; and,
r. Portable plants (e.g. aggregate plant, asphalt batch plant, concrete batch plant, etc.).
To minimize potential delays, prior to the start of the project, please contact the APCD Engineering & Compliance Division
at (805) 781-5912 for specific information regarding permitting requirements.
Mitigation Measure AQ-6: Prior to issuance of grading, demolition, and construction permits, the f ollowing measures shall
be shown on proposed plans. To reduce the sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and equipment used to
construct the project and export soil from the site, the applicant shall implement the following idling control t echniques:
1. California Diesel Idling Regulations
a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of regulations. This
regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than
10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In
general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles:
1. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location, except as noted in
Subsection (d) of the regulation; and,
2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any
ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at
any location when within 100 feet of restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation.
b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5-minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of the
California Air Resources Board’s In-Use Off-road Diesel regulation.
c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the state’s 5-
minute idling limit.
2. Diesel Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In addition to the State required diesel idling
requirements, the project applicant shall comply with these more restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby
sensitive receptors:
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors.
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted.
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended.
d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posted and enforced at the site.
3. Soil and Material Transport. The final volume of soil and material that will be hauled off-site, together with the fleet mix,
hauling route, and number of trips per day will need to be iden tified for the APCD. Specific standards and conditions will
apply.
➢ Monitoring Plan, AQ-4, AQ-5, AQ-6: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition,
the contractor 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 inc lude holiday and weekend periods when work may
not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community
Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide
documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
Item 4
Packet Page 238
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
31
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MITIGATION
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Prior to commencement of construction, to avoid conflicts with nesting birds, potential tree
removals and construction activities shall not be allowed during the nesting bird season (March to September), unless a City-
approved and applicant funded qualified biologist has surveyed the impact zone and determined that no nesting bird activities
would be adversely impacted. A qualified biologist shall conduct weekly inspections during the construction period and
submit weekly monitoring reports to the City Planning staff and the Natural Resources Manager.
Prior to construction activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct training for all construction personnel on best practices
concerning nesting birds. All construction personnel shall receive the training by the qualified biologist prior to initiating
construction activities for the duration of the nest bird season. The qualified biologist shall submit documentation verifying
completion of the training to City Planning staff and the Natural Resources Manager. If any evidence of nesting activities is
found, the biologist will determine if any construction activities can occur during the nesting p eriod and to what extent. The
results of the surveys will be passed immediately to the City with possible recommendations for variable buffer zones, as
needed, around individual nests.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Prior to construction permit issuance for both initial improvements and future development,
construction plans shall clearly delineate all trees within the project site and shall show which trees are to be removed or
impacted, and which trees are to remain unharmed. Construction plans shall also: show proposed tree protection measures to
protect those trees identified to remain and new trees to be planted, including the placement of protective fencing to be
inspected and approved by the City Arborist; identify the location, species, and size of trees to be planted; identify proposed
irrigation plans; and show the use of structural soils to enhance the success of new plantings. Tree protection measures shall
be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities per the approved grading and construction plans, and as approved by
the City Arborist. Tree protection measures shall remain in place until final inspection by the City Arborist.
➢ Monitoring Plan, BIO-1, BIO-2: Compliance with mitigation measures will be reviewed with plans as part of the
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, who shall confirm the conclusion and recommendations of the
preconstruction nesting bird surveys and provide site inspections as n ecessary to ensure implementation.
CULTURAL RESOURCES MITIGATION
Mitigation Measure CR-1: In the event historic, paleontological, or archeological resources and/or human remains are
unearthed or discovered during any construction activities, the following standards apply:
a. Construction activities shall cease, and the City Community Development Department shall be notified so that the extent
and location of discovered materials may be recorded by a qualified specialist (paleontologist, historian , archaeologist)
and disposition of artifacts may be accomplished in accordance with state and federal law.
b. If human remains are unearthed, the applicant shall notify the City Community Development Department and shall
comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which requires that no further dis turbance shall occur until
the County of San Luis Obispo Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the human remains are
determined to be Native American, the County Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24
hours, which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD shall co mplete the inspection of the
site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human
remains and items associated with Native American burials.
➢ Monitoring Program, CR-1: 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.
Item 4
Packet Page 239