HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3 - ARCH-0568-2019 (1137 Peach)PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of five new two-bedroom, two-story single-family residences, each with an
attached two-car garage. The project site is within the Mill Street Historic District and includes the
retention of five, two-bedroom, single-story residences, which are on the City’s Contributing List of
Historic Properties. The project also includes a common-interest subdivision to create ten lots, each
will contain one of the ten residences. The applicant has requested exceptions from development
standards to allow interior side setbacks to be reduced (five feet where seven is the standard, six feet
where eight feet is the standard, seven feet where nine feet is the standard, and eight feet where eleven
feet is the standard) and to allow required parking for three of the five existing residences to be
provided in tandem. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1137 Peach Street BY: Kyle Van Leeuwen, Assistant Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7091
E-mail: kvanleeuwen@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0568-2019, FROM: Tyler Corey, Principal Planner
SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM)
No. 3140, the project design, and adopt the associated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(see Attachment 1, Draft Resolution).
SITE DATA
SUMMARY
The applicant proposes to construct five new two-bedroom, two-story single-family residences on a
0.86-acre site within the Mill Street Historic District. The project site is currently developed with five
existing single-family residences, which are Contributing Historic Resources and will be retained in
their existing locations. The project proposes one new residence on the corner of Peach and Toro
Streets, with the four other residences located interior to the site behind the existing structures. The
project also includes a subdivision of the property into ten lots; each lot would contain one single -
Applicant Levi Seligman
Representative Ten Over Studio
Zoning R-2-H (Medium-Density
Residential, Historic Preservation
Overlay)
General Plan Medium-Density Residential
Site Area ~37,500 square feet (0.86 acre)
Environmental
Status
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND)
Meeting Date: July 22, 2020
Item Number: 3
Item 3
Packet Page 87
ARCH-0568-2019, SBDV-0571 & EID-0800-2019
1137 Peach Street
Page 2
family residence. The applicant has requested exceptions from development standards to allow
interior side setbacks from proposed property lines to be reduced (five feet where seven feet is the
standard, six feet where eight feet is the standard, seven feet where eight or nine feet is the standard,
and eight feet where eleven feet is the standard), and to allow required parking for three of the five
existing residences to be provided in tandem (Attachment 2, Project Plans and Vesting Tentative Tract
Map).
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
Review the project for consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, Subdivision
Regulations and applicable City development standards and guidelines. Planning Commission (PC)
review is required for projects that include the subdivision of five or more lots (Subdivision
Regulations, Table 1). The PC’s role is to make a recommendation to the City Council on approval
of the proposed subdivision, environmental review, and project design, which includes the requested
setback exceptions and proposed tandem parking.
2.0 PROJECT STATISTICS
Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required*
Density (units/acre) 10 10.32
Front Setback (Peach) 20 feet 20 feet
Rear Setback (from existing PL) 11 feet 11 feet
Side Setback (from existing PL) 8 feet 8 feet
Maximum Height of Structures 31 feet 35 feet
Max Building Coverage 32% 50%
Total # Parking Spaces (New) 11 11
Environmental Status Draft IS/MND has been prepared, and released for the required
30-day public review period, ending July 11, 2020
*Zoning Regulations
SUBDIVISION: LOT SIZE AND SIDE SETBACKS FROM PROPOSED PROPERTY LINES
Lot Lot Size (sf) Structure Proposed Required**
East West East West
1 3,621 Existing 5 10 5 5
2 3,718 Existing 10 5 5 5
3 3,704 Existing 7* 6* 8 8
4 3,855 Existing 5* 8 7 7
5 3,739 New NA 7* NA 9
6 4,370 Existing NA 5 NA 5
7 3,617 New 7* 8 8 8
8 3,617 New 8* 8 11 8
9 3,622 New 9 9 8 8
10 3,624 New 11 NA 11 NA
*Exception Requested ** Zoning Regulations
Item 3
Packet Page 88
ARCH-0568-2019, SBDV-0571 & EID-0800-2019
1137 Peach Street
Page 3
3.0 PREVIOUS REVIEW
The project was reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) on June 22, 2020 for
consistency with the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines.
The CHC recommended the Planning Commission find the project consistent with the Historic
Preservation ordinance and guidelines. The applicant also agreed to work with a subcommittee of the
CHC to explore some options to provide additional architectural variety in architectural styling of the
interior structures, reflective of the neighborhood and the four residences fronting Peach Street
(Attachment 3, CHC Staff Report and Draft Meeting Minutes).
On June 30, 2020, City staff and members of the applicant’s architectural team met with two of the
subcommittee members, James Papp and Shannon Larrabee, to go over the modifications made to the
architectural styling of the interior structures. Some minor modifications to the corner structure (lot
5) were also discussed. The subcommittee members agreed that the modifications made by the
applicant’s architectural team successfully provided a variety in styling that better reflects the
neighborhood and variety of adjacent existing structures facing Peach Street (Attachment 4, Staff
Memo and Modified Project Renderings).
On July 6, 2020, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviewed the proposed project for
consistency with the Community Design Guidelines (CDG), including the modifications reviewed
and agreed upon by the CHC subcommittee. The ARC recommended the PC find the project
consistent with the CDG. During their review, the ARC provided one directional item to the applicant:
to add “street trees” adjacent to the shared driveway along the proposed fencing. (Attachment 5, ARC
Staff Report and Draft Meeting Minutes).
4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The project must conform to the standards and limitations of the Zoning Regulations and Subdivision
Regulations and be consistent with the General Plan and applicable CDG. Staff has evaluated the
project and the PC shall consider if the project is in substantial compliance with the applicable
standards, as discussed in this analysis.
4.1 Consistency with the General Plan
The General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) provides policies for the conservation and development
of residential neighborhoods. The project is consistent with these policies including the policy
promoting infill development and rehabilitation efforts that contribute positively to existing
neighborhoods1. The project is consistent with this policy because it proposes infill development of a
residential site within a residential neighborhood and includes the retention of the five units already
existing on site. The project is also consistent with LUE Policies 2.8 and 4.2.1 (A & B)2, pertaining
1 LUE Policy 2.2.7. The City shall promote infill development, redevelopment, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse efforts
that contribute positively to existing neighborhoods and surrounding areas.
2 LUE Policy 2.8. In Downtown residential areas, the City should encourage the rehabilitation and maintenance of
existing housing. Additional dwellings may be permitted, in keeping with density limits, provided that the existing
character of the area is not significantly changed. Demolition of structurally sound dwellings shall be strongly
discouraged.
LUE Policy 4.2.1 A. Existing residential uses within and around the commercial core should be protected, and new
ones should be developed. B. Dwellings should be provided for a variety of households.
Item 3
Packet Page 89
ARCH-0568-2019, SBDV-0571 & EID-0800-2019
1137 Peach Street
Page 4
to the Downtown residential areas because the project includes the protection of existing homes and
the creation of additional dwellings within established density limits, which does not significantly
change the existing character of the area. The project also has the potential to reduce automobile
dependence in the Downtown area consistent with LUE Policy 2.93, which also supports sustainability
goals. The General Plan Housing Element also provides policies and programs that speak specifically
to supporting infill and densification within City Limits4.
4.2 Consistency with Subdivision Regulations
The applicant is requesting a common interest subdivision that includes easements for shared
vehicular access, sewer, drainage, and utilities. The vesting tentative map also identifies at least 150
square feet per residential unit of open space. In this type of common interest subdivision, each lot
is subject to the property development standards of the R-2 zone. These include standards for lot
coverage, density, and setbacks. All proposed lots are appropriately sized to allow for a two-bedroom
unit on each lot and are consistent with lot coverage standards. Some setback reductions have been
requested and are further discussed below.
4.3 Consistency with the Zoning Regulations
The project design complies with density, lot coverage, building height, and front setback
development standards for the Medium-Density Residential (R-2) zone, and is compliant with side
and rear setback standards from all existing property lines. However, the project includes requested
exceptions to side setbacks standards in relation to the proposed property lines of the common interest
subdivision (see Section 2.0 Project Statistics). The project also includes a request to allow parking
to be provided in tandem for three of the five existing residences.
3 LUE Policy 2.9. The City shall encourage the development of Downtown housing that minimizes the need for
automobile use and minimizes the storage of vehicles in surrounding neighborhoods .
4 Housing Element Policy 6.10. To help meet the Quantified Objectives, the City will support residential infill
development and promote higher residential density where appropriate.
Housing Element Program 6.17 Encourage residential development through infill development and densification
within City Limits and in designated expansion areas over new annexation of land.
Item 3
Packet Page 90
ARCH-0568-2019, SBDV-0571 & EID-0800-2019
1137 Peach Street
Page 5
Side Setback Exceptions: The Zoning Regulations (§17.70.170 D.2.c.) provides that a reduction in
the side and rear setback standards may be approved within new residential subdivisions5. The
proposed setbacks are consistent with this section because a separation of 10 feet between buildings
will be maintained and an acceptable level of solar exposure will be provided consistent with General
Plan Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) Policy 4.5.16. Consistency with this policy is
illustrated by the solar study provided by the applicant in project plans (Attachment 2), showing that
most roof areas, nearly all second-story and most first-story south walls will be unshaded between 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. on the winter solstice. All setbacks provided along existing property lines on the
perimeter of the site are consistent with Zoning Regulations standards.
Tandem Parking: The project also includes a request to allow parking for three of the five existing
residences to be in provided in tandem. The requested tandem parking approval is not for the new
residences, which all include an attached two-car garage, but to formalize the parking scenario already
in use for much of the site. The four residences fronting Peach Street are currently provided onsite
parking on three driveways that are one car wide. This leaves one residence with no onsite parking.
Staff has worked with the applicant to develop a parking plan that will provide and formalize parking
locations for all existing residences facing Peach Street. This is accomplished though approval of
tandem parking and access to the proposed driveway isle. The existing residence facing Toro Street
has an existing driveway along the south property line, and the project proposes to provide parking
to this residence though the use of this existing driveway, also in tandem.
Based on staff’s review, the parking configuration shown below is the most optimal scenario to
provide the required number of parking spaces while minimizing the number of spaces in tandem and
the number of required parking spaces located with the front setback. This is slightly different than
the parking arrangement shown on project plans. Parking shown in red are spaces arranged in tandem,
which will take access only from public streets, and spaces shown in yellow are non-tandem spaces,
which will have access to or from the common driveway. Conditions seven through nine have been
included in the draft resolution requiring the final map to reflect this parking configuration through
recoded easements.
5 Zoning Regulations 17.70.170, D.2.c. In new residential subdivisions, the review authority may approve exceptions to
the side and rear setback standards, with the exceptions to be noted on the map, provided a separation of at least 10
feet between buildings on adjacent lots will be maintained and an acceptable level of solar exposure will be guaranteed
by alternative setback requirements or private easements to ensure the development will comply with solar access
standards of General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 4.5.1.
6 COSE Policy 4.5.1 To encourage use of solar energy, reasonable solar access shall be provided and protected. The
City will protect reasonable solar exposure for existing collectors and likely locations of future collectors, both active
and passive. Standards for the subdivision and development of property should assure desirable solar access, as
described in Table 2. Protection beyond that established by the City may be provided by recorded agreement among
private parties. Table 2. Desired Solar Access for: Residential uses between six and 12 dwellings per acre (…) on sites
less than one acre - Most roof areas, nearly all second-story and most first-story south walls should be unshaded
between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on the winter solstice.
Item 3
Packet Page 91
ARCH-0568-2019, SBDV-0571 & EID-0800-2019
1137 Peach Street
Page 6
3.4 Architectural Review Commission Directional Items
The ARC recommended the PC find the project consistent with the CDG and identified one
recommended condition for the final approval of the project. This condition is to provide “street”
trees along the north edge of the proposed drive isle, consistent with spacing required for street trees,
to soften its appearance. Condition #6 has been included in the resolution to require trees from the
approved street tree list along the north edge of the new drive isle.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project has been analyzed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). An Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and circulated
from June 11, 2020 through July 11, 2020 (refer to Attachment 6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration). Comments were received from the State Department of Toxic Substances Control
recommending certain broad-based evaluations be included in the MND Hazards and Hazardous
Materials section. In review of these recommendations, staff finds that the Initial Study sufficiently
identifies the potential impacts related to hazardous materials for this project and project site. Given
the project’s size, location, surroundings, type (residential), and the limited amount of grading
required for the project, potential impacts would be mitigated by Mitigation Measures AQ-3, AQ-4
and AQ-5. This was the only comment received during the 30-day public comment period. The
applicant has agreed to all mitigation measures proposed specific to this project. The IS/MND shall
constitute the complete environmental determination for the project.
Item 3
Packet Page 92
ARCH-0568-2019, SBDV-0571 & EID-0800-2019
1137 Peach Street
Page 7
5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
All City Departments have reviewed the project and have provided comments that are incorporated
into the staff report and recommended resolution as conditions of approval.
6.0 ACTION 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 Recommend the City Council deny Vesting Tentative Tract Map #3113 and the Architectural
Approval of the project. Staff does not recommend this alternative, because the project
complies with the City’s Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Regulations and would help
meet the City’s housing objectives. The Planning Commission would be required to
development findings to support this recommendation.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Project Plans and Vesting Tentative Tract Map
3. CHC Staff Report and Meeting Minutes 6.22.20
4. Staff Memo and Modified Project Renderings
5. ARC Staff Report and Draft Meeting Minutes 7.6.20
6. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Item 3
Packet Page 93
RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-20
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, A COMMON INTEREST VESTING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 3140 TO CREATE TEN (10)
RESIDENTIAL LOTS, AND APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
OF FIVE NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURES IN THE MEDIUM DENSITY, HISTORIC
PRESERVATION OVERLAY (R-2-H) ZONE (ARCH-0568-2019/SBDV-
0571-2019/EID-0800-2019)
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
a web based public hearing on June 22, 2020, recommending the Planning Commission find the
project consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0568-2019, SBDV-0571-2019, and
EID-0800-2019, Levi Seligman, applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a web based public hearing on June 6, 2020, recommending the Planning Commission
find the project consistent with the Community Design Guidelines, pursuant to a proceeding
instituted under ARCH-0568-2019, SBDV-0571-2019, and EID-0800-2019, Levi Seligman,
applicant and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a web
based public hearing on July 22, 2020, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0568-
2019, SBDV-0571-2019, and EID-0800-2019, Levi Seligman, applicant; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; 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.
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 recommends the City Council
approve the project (ARCH-0568-2019, SBDV 0571-2019, & EID-0800-2019), based on the
following findings:
1. As conditioned, the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons
living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project respects site constraints and
Item 3
Packet Page 94
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-20
1137 Peach Street, ARCH-0568-20219, SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
Page 2
will be compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood.
2. The project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy 2.2.7 because the project includes
infill development and rehabilitation efforts that contribute positively to the existing
neighborhood and surrounding area.
3. The project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy 2.8 because the project includes the
rehabilitation and maintenance of existing housing and provides additional dwellings that
keep with density limits and do not significantly change the existing character of the area in
a Downtown residential area.
4. The project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy 2.9 because the project provides
Downtown housing that minimizes the need for automobile use and storage of vehicles in
surrounding neighborhoods.
5. The project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy 4.2.1 because the project protects
existing and provides new residential uses around the Downtown core and contributes to the
variety of housing types in the area.
6. The project is consistent with Housing Element policies and programs (6.10 and 6.17)
because the project consists of residential infill development.
7. The project is consistent with the Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 4.4.3 because
the project promotes higher-density, compact housing to achieve more efficient use of public
facilities and services, and to improve the City’s jobs/housing balance.
8. As conditioned, the project is consistent with the Zoning Regulations, since the proposed
building design complies with property development standards for height, coverage, and
parking, for the Medium Density Residential (R-2) zone.
Architectural Review Findings
9. The project is consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation
Program Guidelines for construction in historic districts because the structures are designed
to be architecturally compatible with the districts prevailing character and nearby historic
resources. The project is consistent with the scale, massing, rhythm, signature architectural
elements, exterior materials, siting and street yard setbacks of the district's historic structures
and does not sharply contrast with, significantly block public views of, or visually detract
from, the historic architectural character of historically designated structures located on or
adjacent to the project site.
10. As conditioned, the project is consistent with the Community Design Guidelines for Infill
Development because the architectural style is complementary to the surrounding
neighborhood and is designed consistent with the prevailing setback pattern of the
Item 3
Packet Page 95
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-20
1137 Peach Street, ARCH-0568-20219, SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
Page 3
neighborhood (CDG, Chapter 5.3 & 5.4).
11. As conditioned, the project design is consistent with the Community Design Guidelines by
providing a variety of architectural treatments that add visual interest and articulation to the
building design that are compatible with the design and scale of the existing structures in the
surrounding neighborhood (CDG, Chapter 5.3).
Subdivision Findings
12. The site is physically suited for the type of development allowed in the medium-high density
(R-2) zone.
13. The tentative map, as conditioned, will comply with all environmental mitigation measures
prescribed herein, and therefore is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act
and the Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Deceleration (IS-MND).
14. The design of the vesting tentative map and proposed improvements are not likely to cause
serious health problems or substantial environmental damage since further development or
redevelopment of the proposed parcels will occur consistent with the City’s Development
Standards, Mitigation Measures, and Conditions of Approval.
15. The project insures safe, orderly development because the project complies with the City’s
housing goals and the City’s General Plan to maintain a compact urban form.
Variable Side and Rear Setback in New Subdivision Findings
16. The reduced side and rear setbacks proposed (a setback of five feet where seven is the
standard, six feet where eight feet is the standard, seven feet where nine feet is the standard,
and eight feet where eleven feet is the standard) are consistent with section 17.70.170. (D.2.c)
of the Zoning Regulations, because a separation of at least 10 feet between buildings on
adjacent lots will be maintained and an acceptable level of solar exposure will be guaranteed
by the proposed setbacks consistent with the solar access standards of General Plan
Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 4.5.1. The setbacks are consistent with this
policy because most roof areas, nearly all second-story south walls, and most first-story south
walls will be unshaded between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on the winter solstice.
17. All proposed side and rear building setback exceptions meet the five-foot minimum
requirement specified in the Zoning Regulations for the R-2 zone.
18. All setbacks between proposed structures and previously established property lines are
consistent with Zoning Regulations Standards for the R-2 Zone.
Tandem Parking Findings
Item 3
Packet Page 96
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-20
1137 Peach Street, ARCH-0568-20219, SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
Page 4
19. As conditioned, the proposed tandem parking for residential use is consistent with section
17.72.090 (C.1) because the spaces are identified for the exclusive use of occupants of a
designated dwelling.
20. The proposed tandem parking provides needed flexibly on a site constrained by the location
of existing historic structures and existing parking arrangements.
21. The proposed tandem parking is safe and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood
because both Peach and Toro Streets are classified as Residential Local streets and are
consistent with the current parking arrangement on site and in the neighborhood.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(IS/MND) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The Planning
Commission hereby recommends the City Council adopt the IS/MND, based on incorporation of
the following mitigation measures, which will reduce potential environmental impacts to less than
significant.
AIR QUALITY
AQ-1 During all construction activities and use of diesel vehicles, the applicant shall implement
the following idling control techniques:
1. Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors for Both On- and Off-Road
Equipment.
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive
receptors if feasible;
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted;
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment shall be used whenever possible; and,
d. Signs that specify the no idling requirements shall be posted and enforced
at the construction site.
2. California Diesel Idling Regulations. 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:
a. 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,
b. 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 1,000 feet of a restricted area, except as noted in
Subsection (d) of the regulation.
Item 3
Packet Page 97
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-20
1137 Peach Street, ARCH-0568-20219, SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
Page 5
Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers
of the 5-minute idling limit. The specific requirements and exceptions in the
regulation can be reviewed at the following website:
www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/2485.pdf.
AQ-2 During all construction and ground-disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the
following particulate matter control measures and detail each measure on the project
grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor or builder shall designate a person
or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the
measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the
APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. 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 City Community
Development Department prior to commencement of construction. 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.
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 SLOAPCD’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 miles per hour. Reclaimed
(non-potable) water should be used whenever possible.
c. All dirt stockpile 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 of
any soil-disturbing activities.
e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than 1 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 SLOAPCD.
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 miles per hour 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 2 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
Item 3
Packet Page 98
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-20
1137 Peach Street, ARCH-0568-20219, SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
Page 6
fall onto any highway or street as described in California Vehicle Code Section
23113 and California Water Code Section 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 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 shown on grading and building
plans.
m. 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 SLOAPCD’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 SLOAPCD Compliance
Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork, or demolition (Contact Tim
Fuhs at 805-781-5912).
AQ-3 Prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities, the applicant shall retain a registered
geologist to conduct a geologic evaluation of the property, including sampling and testing
for NOA in full compliance with SLOAPCD requirements and the CARB ATCM for
Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (17 CCR 93105). This
geologic evaluation shall be submitted to the City Community Development Department
upon completion. If the geologic evaluation determines that the project would not have the
potential to disturb NOA, the applicant must file an Asbestos ATCM exemption request
with the SLOAPCD.
AQ-4 If NOA are determined to be present on-site, proposed earthwork, demolition, and
construction activities shall be conducted in full compliance with the various regulatory
jurisdictions regarding NOA, including the CARB ATCM for Construction, Grading,
Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (17 CCR 93105) and requirements stipulated
in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP; 40 Code of
Federal Regulations [CFR] Section 61, Subpart M – Asbestos). These requirements
include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to
the SLOAPCD;
Item 3
Packet Page 99
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-20
1137 Peach Street, ARCH-0568-20219, SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
Page 7
b. Preparation of an asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant;
and
c. Implementation of applicable removal and disposal protocol and requirements for
identified NOA.
AQ-5 Prior to initiation of demolition activities, the applicant shall implement the following
measures to reduce the risk associated with disturbance of ACM and lead-coated materials
that may be present within the existing structures onsite:
a. Demolition of the on-site structures shall comply with the procedures required by
the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR 61, Subpart
M – Asbestos) for the control of asbestos emissions during demolition activities.
SLOAPCD is the delegated authority by the U.S. EPA to implement the Federal
Asbestos NESHAP. Prior to demolition of on-site structures, SLOAPCD shall be
notified, per NESHAP requirements. The project applicant shall submit proof that
SLOAPCD has been notified prior to demolition activities to the City Community
Development Department.
b. If during the demolition of the existing structures, paint is separated from the
construction materials (e.g., chemically or physically), the paint waste shall be
evaluated independently from the building material by a qualified hazardous
materials inspector to determine its proper management. All hazardous materials
shall be handled and disposed of in accordance with local, state, and federal
regulations. According to the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), if
the paint is not removed from the building material during demolition (and is not
chipping or peeling), the material can be disposed of as non-hazardous construction
debris. The landfill operator shall be contacted prior to disposal of lead-based paint
materials. If required, all lead work plans shall be submitted to SLOAPCD at least
10 days prior to the start of demolition. The applicant shall submit proof that paint
waste has been evaluated by a qualified hazardous waste materials inspector and
handled according to their recommendation to the City Community Development
Department.
Monitoring Program: Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 shall be incorporated into project grading and
building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development Department.
Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular inspections, in coordination with the
County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, as necessary. The applicant shall submit
the geologic evaluation detailed in measure AQ-3 and documentation showing compliance with
measures AQ-4 and AQ-5 to the City Community Development Department upon completion and
prior to issuance of grading permits.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Item 3
Packet Page 100
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-20
1137 Peach Street, ARCH-0568-20219, SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
Page 8
BIO-1 If feasible, tree removal associated with any future residential (or accessory) development
at the project site shall be scheduled to occur from September 16 to January 31, outside of
the typical nesting bird season, to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds. If tree removal
or other construction activities are proposed during the nesting season (February 1 through
September 15), prior to any ground disturbing activity, surveys for active nests shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist within one week prior to the start of activities. If nesting
birds are located on or near the proposed project site, they shall be avoided until they have
successfully fledged or the nest is no longer deemed active. A non -disturbance buffer of
50 feet will be placed around non-listed, passerine species, and a 250-foot buffer will be
implemented for raptor species. All activity will remain outside of that buffer until a
qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged or that proposed
construction activities would not cause adverse impacts to the nest, adults, eggs, or young.
If special-status avian species are identified, no work shall be conducted until an
appropriate buffer is determined in consultation with the City and the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Monitoring Program: These conditions and measures shall be noted on all grading and
construction plans. The City Community Development Department and Natural Resources
Manager shall verify compliance through regular inspections and review of monitoring reports, as
necessary.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
CR-1 Cultural Resource Awareness Training. Prior to construction activities, a qualified
archaeologist shall conduct a cultural resource awareness training for all construction
personnel including the following:
a. Review the types of archaeological artifacts that may be uncovered;
b. Provide examples of common archaeological artifacts to examine;
c. Review what makes an archaeological resource significant to archaeologists and
local native Americans;
d. Describe procedures for notifying involved or interested parties in case of a new
discovery;
e. Describe reporting requirements and responsibilities of construction personnel;
f. Review procedures that shall be used to record, evaluate, and mitigate new
discoveries; and
g. Describe procedures that would be followed in the case of discovery of disturbed
as well as intact human burials and burial-associated artifacts.
CR-2 If cultural resources are encountered during subsurface earthwork activities, all ground
disturbing activities within a 25-foot radius of the find shall cease and the City shall be
notified immediately. Work shall not continue until a City-qualified archaeologist assesses
Item 3
Packet Page 101
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-20
1137 Peach Street, ARCH-0568-20219, SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
Page 9
the find and determines the need for further study. If the find includes Native American
affiliated materials, a local Native American tribal representative will be contacted to work
in conjunction with the City-approved archaeologist to determine the need for further
study. A standard inadvertent discovery clause shall be included in every grading and
construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously
unidentified resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate
California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance
in terms of CEQA criteria by a qualified archaeologist.
If the resource is determined significant under CEQA, the qualified archaeologist shall
prepare and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan, in
conjunction with locally affiliated Native American representative(s) as necessary, that will
capture those categories of data for which the site is significant. The archaeologist shall
also perform appropriate technical analysis, prepare a comprehensive report, and file it with
the Central Coast Information Center (CCIC), located at the University of California, Santa
Barbara, and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered materials.
CR-3 In the event that human remains are exposed during earth disturbing activities associated
with the project, an immediate halt work order shall be issued and the Community
Development Director and locally affiliated Native American representative(s) (as
necessary) shall be notified. State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no
further disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent
human remains shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to
origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains
are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall notify the Native
American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. These requirements shall be printed on
all building and grading plans.
Monitoring Program: These conditions shall be noted on all grading and construction plans. The
City shall review and approve the City-qualified archaeologist consistent with the Archaeological
Resource Preservation Program Guidelines.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-3, AQ-4, and AQ-5.
Monitoring Program: Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 shall be incorporated into project grading and
building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development Department.
Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular inspections, in coordination with the
County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, as necessary. The applicant shall submit
the geologic evaluation detailed in measure AQ-3 and documentation showing compliance with
Item 3
Packet Page 102
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-20
1137 Peach Street, ARCH-0568-20219, SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
Page 10
measures AQ-4 and AQ-5 to the City Community Development Department upon completion and
prior to issuance of grading permits.
NOISE MITIGATION
N-1 For the entire duration of the construction phase of the project, the following Best
Management Practices (BMPs) shall be adhered to:
1. Stationary construction equipment that generates noise that exceeds 60 dBA at the
project boundaries shall be shielded with the most modern noise control devises
(i.e. mufflers, lagging, and/or motor enclosures).
2. Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, rock drills, etc.) used for
project construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever
possible to avoid noise associated with compressed-air exhaust from pneumatically
powered tools.
3. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the
compressed-air exhaust shall be used.
4. All construction equipment shall have the manufacturers’ recommended noise
abatement methods installed, such as mufflers, engine enclosures, and engine
vibration insulators, intact and operational.
5. All construction equipment shall undergo inspection at periodic intervals to ensure
proper maintenance and presence of noise control devices (e.g., mufflers,
shrouding, etc.).
N-2 Construction plans shall note construction hours, truck routes, and all construction noise
Best Management Practices (BMPs) on project plans, which shall be reviewed and approved
by the City Community Development Department prior to issuance of grading/building
permits. The City shall provide and post signs stating these restrictions at construction entry
sites prior to commencement of construction and maintained throughout the construction
phase of the project. All construction workers shall be briefed at a pre-construction meeting
on construction hour limitations and how, why, and where BMP measures are to be
implemented.
N-3 Construction activities shall be conducted so that the maximum noise levels at affected
properties will not exceed 75 dBA for single-family residences where feasible.
N-4 For all construction activity at the project site, additional noise attenuation techniques shall
be employed as needed to ensure that noise levels are maintained within levels allowed by
the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Title 9, Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control). Such
techniques shall include, but are not limited to:
• Sound blankets shall be used on noise-generating equipment.
• Stationary construction equipment that generates noise levels above 65 dBA at the
project boundaries shall be shielded with a barrier that meets a sound transmission
class (a rating of how well noise barriers attenuate sound) of 25.
Item 3
Packet Page 103
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-20
1137 Peach Street, ARCH-0568-20219, SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
Page 11
• All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be
equipped with factory-recommended mufflers.
• The movement of construction-related vehicles, with the exception of passenger
vehicles, along roadways adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be limited to the hours
between 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., Monday through Saturday. No movement of
heavy equipment shall occur on Sundays or official holidays (e.g., Thanksgiving,
Labor Day).
• Temporary sound barriers shall be constructed between construction sites and
affected uses.
N-5 The project contractor shall inform residents and business operators at properties within 300
feet of the project of proposed construction timelines and noise complaint procedures to
minimize potential annoyance related to construction noise. Signs shall be in place prior to
and throughout grading and construction activities informing the public that noise-related
complaints shall be directed to the construction manager prior to the City’s Community
Development Department.
Monitoring Program: These measures shall be incorporated into project grading and building
plans for review and approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall
be verified by the City during regular inspections.
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCE
Implement Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-3.
Monitoring Program: These conditions shall be noted on all grading and construction plans. The
City shall review and approve the City-qualified archaeologist consistent with the Archaeological
Resource Preservation Program Guidelines.
UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEM
Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5, BIO-1, CR-1 through CR-3, and N-1
through N-5.
Monitoring Program: Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 shall be incorporated into project grading and
building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development Department.
Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular inspections, in coordination with the
County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, as necessary. The applicant shall submit
the geologic evaluation detailed in measure AQ-3 and documentation showing compliance with
Item 3
Packet Page 104
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-20
1137 Peach Street, ARCH-0568-20219, SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
Page 12
measures AQ-4 and AQ-5 to the City Community Development Department upon completion and
prior to issuance of grading permits. BIO-1, CR-1 through CR-3, and N1 through N-5 shall be
noted on all grading and construction plans. The City Community Development Department shall
verify compliance through regular inspections and review of monitoring reports, as necessary.
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 (PC) hereby grants
final approval to the project with incorporation of the following conditions:
Planning Division - Architectural Conditions
1. Final project design and construction drawings submitted for a building permit shall be in
substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the PC (ARCH-0568-2019 &
SBDV-0571-2019). A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings
submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions and code requirements of project
approval listed as sheet number 2. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as
to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors,
materials, landscaping, or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or
Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate.
2. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all proposed
building surfaces and other improvements. Colors and materials shall be consistent with the
color and material board submitted with Architectural Review application or reviewed at the
Architectural Review Commission hearing on June 6, 2020 and Planning Commission
Hearing on July 22, 2020.
3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include recessed window details and all other
details including but not limited to awnings, and railings. Plans shall indicate the type of
materials for the window frames and mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Plans shall
include the materials and dimensions of all lintels, sills, surrounds, recesses and other related
window features. Plans shall demonstrate the use of high-quality materials for all design
features that reflect the architectural style of the project and are compatible with the
neighborhood character, to the approval of the Community Development Director.
4. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included
as part of working drawings. All wall-mounted lighting shall complement building
architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of
the proposed lighting fixtures and cut-sheets on the submitted building plans. The selected
fixture(s) shall be shielded to ensure that light is directed downward consistent with the
requirements of the City’s Night Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17.70.100
of the Zoning Regulations.
Item 3
Packet Page 105
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-20
1137 Peach Street, ARCH-0568-20219, SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
Page 13
5. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department along with working drawings. The legend for the
landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees with
corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on plans.
6. Plans submitted for a building permit shall show no less than five trees to be planted along
the north edge of the common drive isle, spaced approximately 35 feet apart, and of a species
on the City’s approved street tree list.
Planning Division – Subdivision Conditions
7. The subdivider shall include on the final map an access and parking easement for the benefit
of lot 2 that secures the use of no less than 56.8 feet of the existing driveway between the
residences at 1143 Peach Street and 1151 Peach Street, extending from the northwest property
line.
8. The subdivider shall include on the final map an access and parking easement for the benefit
of lot 4 that secures the use of no less than 56.8 feet of the existing driveway between the
residences at 1151 Peach Street and 1163 Peach Street, extending from the northwest property
line.
9. The subdivider shall include on the final map two access and parking easements for the benefit
of lot 3 that secures the use of no less than 18.4 feet of the existing driveway between the
residences at 1143 and 1151 Peach Street, and the existing driveway between the residences
at 1151 and 1163 Peach Street, adjacent to and extending from the new common drive isle.
Engineering Division – Public Works/Community Development - Architectural Conditions
10. Except for any proposed “model home(s)”, the subdivision map shall be recorded prior to
building permit issuance for new dwellings.
11. The building plan submittal shall show and label all property lines, dedications, public
easements, and private easements in accordance with the tract map. The building plans shall
show and label all existing and proposed survey monumentation for reference. The plan shall
note the required monument preservation or replacement for any disturbed monuments
12. The building plan submittal shall show and label all existing and proposed frontage
improvements and sidewalk furniture located within the public right-of-way to scale on the
site plan for reference. Improvements to be shown include but are not limited to curb, gutter
& sidewalk, driveway approaches, catch basins, curb ramps, fire hydrants, street lights, utility
poles, parking meters, curb and street painting, overhead and underground utility services,
utility vaults, water meter vaults, water and sewer services, utility abandonments, street signs,
sidewalk underdrains, fences, retaining walls, landscape improvements, and street trees. Plan
must differentiate between existing frontage improvements and new frontage improvements.
New improvements shall include reference to the applicable Engineering Standards.
Item 3
Packet Page 106
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-20
1137 Peach Street, ARCH-0568-20219, SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
Page 14
13. Prior to building permit issuance, any existing steps, concrete pads, walls, fences, etc. that are
located in the right-of-way shall be removed or relocated unless an encroachment agreement
is requested and approved by the city.
14. Projects involving the construction of new structures require that complete frontage
improvements be installed and that existing improvements be upgraded per City Engineering
Standards. Pursuant to Municipal Code 12.16.050, plans submitted for a building permit shall
show these improvements.
15. Any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter & sidewalk or driveway approach shall be
repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. All areas to be repaired
or replaced shall be shown on the building plan submittal for reference.
16. Sections of damaged curb, gutter, or sidewalk adjacent to the large ficus trees on Peach Street
shall be repaired or replaced due to root intrusion to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Director. New bulb-outs may be considered to retain existing trees. A site visit shall be
arranged with the Community Development and/or Public Works Department to coordinate a
site visit with the City Arborist to discuss areas to be repaired and/or replaced. Areas to be
repaired or replaced shall be shown on the building plans submittal for reference.
17. The building plan submittal shall show the existing curb ramp at the corner of Peach and Toro
and clarify if it complies with current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), City Standard
#4440, and Cal Trans Standards Plan RSP A88A.
18. The building plan submittal shall show the existing shared driveway curb drop off between
1137 & 1127 Peach Street. Provide details of this curb drop off transition and any treatment
features that will be included and installed to mitigate the interface. If a property line fence
is proposed, the fence height and line-of-sight analysis shall conform to City standards.
19. The subdivision improvement plans may be included within the building permit plan set.
Separate record drawings (as-built) plans may be required at the completion of the project. A
separate subdivision improvement plan review fee will be required based on the fee schedule
in effect at the time of plan submittal. A separate encroachment permit will be required to
cover the required Public Works Department inspections.
20. The building permit submittal shall show and note compliance with the Post Construction
Stormwater Regulations and the City’s Drainage Design Manual. This project is considered
to be a common plan and is not a single-family residential project for purposes of evaluating
the Performance Requirement triggers. The altered and/or replaced frontage improvements
shall be included in the area analysis. Unless the net impervious area is less than 5,000 square
feet, compliance with Performance Requirement 2 will be required
21. The building plan submittal shall include an operations and maintenance manual as required
for the Post Construction Stormwater improvements, if applicable. A private stormwater
Item 3
Packet Page 107
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-20
1137 Peach Street, ARCH-0568-20219, SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
Page 15
conveyance agreement will be required and shall be recorded prior to final inspection
approvals.
22. Documents submitted for a building permit shall show compliance with the grading ordinance
of the adopted building code, and a summary drainage report or note on building plans shall
be provided showing the pre vs. post drainage analysis for the 2 through 100-year storm with
plans submitted for a building permit. Improved or diverted drainage shall not be directed
across the side or rear property lines unless conveyed in an existing waterway, or a drainage
easement.
23. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan for this
project. The plan shall show the existing and proposed contours and/or spot elevations to
clearly depict the proposed grading and drainage. The plan shall show and label the high
point elevation or grade break at the yard areas and drainage arrows to show the proposed
drainage. Plans shall include the finished floor (FF) of the residences/garage, patio finish
surface elevations, finish grade elevations, and yard drainage.
24. Plans submitted for a building permit shall show that any improved drainage is directed to a
non-erosive outlet and ultimately discharged to the face of curb on Peach Street with an
approved sidewalk underdrain, per City Engineering Standards.
25. The building submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. The utility plan shall show
all existing and proposed on-site and off-site utilities. Show the location of all overhead and
underground utilities along with the location of any utility company meters. Show all existing
and proposed improvements located within the public right-of-way if applicable.
26. The building submittal shall show all new wire utilities to serve the development on all ten
parcels to be underground. The underground wiring shall be achieved without a net increase
in wood utility poles located within the public right-of-way unless otherwise approved by the
City and serving utility companies. Interim overhead wiring may be proposed to provide
replacement services to the existing residences until the PGE underground service to the
subdivision is available for the underground conversion.
27. PG&E and Tele-Com plans shall be provided in conjunction with the building plan submittal
and/or subdivision plans. Preliminary plans shall be reviewed by the engineer of record for
consistency with the overall design. The final PG&E handout package shall be reviewed and
approved by the engineer of record and the City prior to construction. PG&E, AT&T, and
Charter plans shall not be deferred unless specifically approved for deferral by the City.
28. If allowed by PG&E, plans submitted for a building permit shall show and reference a new
streetlight to be located on the existing wood joint pole on Toro Street, in accordance with
Engineering Standards #1010.G, #7520, and #7910.
29. Plans submitted for a building permit shall show newly provided driveway and parking areas
in compliance with the Parking and Driveway Standards for dimensions, maneuverability,
Item 3
Packet Page 108
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-20
1137 Peach Street, ARCH-0568-20219, SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
Page 16
slopes, drainage, and materials. Alternate paving material shall be provided consistent with
project plans and to the satisfaction of the Planning Division.
30. A final landscape plan shall be included with plans submitted for a building permit and shall
show a line-of-sight analysis for new plantings at driveway approaches to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
31. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees to be r emoved and trees to be
retained. The plan shall show any neighboring trees with canopies/root zones within the area
of construction disturbance. Tree preservation measures shall be shown and noted on the
building plans to the satisfaction of the Community Development and Public Works
Departments.
32. Safety pruning may be required for any existing street trees depending upon the scope of
proposed work and required construction activities. If required, any existing street trees along
the property frontage shall be safety pruned to the satisfaction of the City Arborist prior to
building permit issuance.
33. Plans submitted for a building permit shall show street trees at an approximate rate of one tree
per each 35 lineal feet of frontage. The City Arborist shall approve the proposed tree species
based on the location, soils type, and overhead wiring conflicts. The City Arborist shall
review and approve the tree species for the newly planted parkway trees prior to acceptance
as satisfying the street tree requirement.
34. The building plan shall show new trees with 4’ x 4’ wells with grates for areas along Peach
Street. Show all new tree wells to be located at the back of curb per city engineering standards
#8130. As an alternative, the City would support the removal of the infilled parkway to
provide a minimum tree planting area to support the new street tree plantings. Any parkway
and/or tree well plantings shall include provisions for irrigation from the on-site irrigation
system. All parkways shall be kept with plantings, groundcovers, or stable landscape
materials and shall be free of any debris for perpetuity.
35. The building plan submittal shall show the limits of the existing catch basin opening and
infrastructure for reference.
Engineering Division – Public Works/Community Development - Subdivision Conditions
36. The subdivision shall be recorded with a final map. The map preparation and monumentation
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.
37. All map exhibits and legal descriptions shall be prepared by a California Licensed Land
Surveyor or Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying.
Item 3
Packet Page 109
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-20
1137 Peach Street, ARCH-0568-20219, SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
Page 17
38. Prior to map recordation, Park In-Lieu fees shall be paid for the proposed new dwelling
units/lots. Credit for the existing houses to remain will be applicable.
39. A separate subdivision improvement or miscellaneous public improvement plan is not
required. The building plan submittal may be used to show some or all of the required private
on-site 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 will be required for the Public Works Department
review and inspection of the public subdivision/development improvements and map in
accordance with the most current fee resolution.
40. The site development plan submittal shall show any parking, access, utility, site, and/or
drainage improvements required to support the proposed subdivision. 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 improvements, water, sewer, storm drains, gas,
electricity, telephone, cable TV, and any related 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 parcel
map.
41. If “all electric” residences are proposed, gas service may not be required to each parcel. If
proposed, a “Notice of Requirements” may be required for concurrent recordation with the
map to identify the lack of gas service to any parcel(s).
42. Plans submitted for subdivision shall show the proposed water service lateral(s), meter sizing,
and private service laterals, sized in accordance with the approved fire sprinkler plans. Unless
a design exception is specifically approved, City Engineering Standards limit a meter
manifold to 4 1” water meters. A separate service lateral and meter manifold may be required
to accommodate the number of units, fire flow requirements, and the potential addition of a
common area landscape meter.
43. Any easements including but not limited to provisions for all public and private utilities,
access, grading, drainage, storm drain systems, construction, common driveways, and
maintenance of the same shall be shown on the final map and/or shall be recorded separately
prior to map recordation if applicable. Said easements may be provided for in part or in total
as blanket easements.
44. A 10’ Street Tree easement and 10’ PUE shall be shown and noted on the map along both the
Peach and Toro street frontages.
Item 3
Packet Page 110
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-20
1137 Peach Street, ARCH-0568-20219, SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
Page 18
45. A separate public pedestrian easement may be required behind the new or redeveloped
driveway approach(es) to accommodate the ADA sidewalk extension(s).
46. The map may be recorded prior to construction of the required public and/or private
subdivision improvements. If so, the map conditions or code requirements may be satisfied
by the preparation and approval of a subdivision improvement plan. A subdivision agreement
and guarantee will be required for this process.
47. An Operation and Maintenance Manual and Private Stormwater Conveyance Agreement shall
be provided in conjunction with the development project. The Stormwater Agreement shall
be recorded separately or concurrent with the map recordation.
48. The final map shall include reference to the project soils report in accordance with the
subdivision regulations. The report may be included on the cover sheet of the map or could
be included on an “additional map sheet”.
Utilities Department
49. Plans submitted for a building permit shall label all existing sewer laterals to remain or to be
abandoned per City Standards.
50. Plans submitted for a building permit showing sewer and water services shall be in accordance
with the engineering design standards in effect at the time the building permit is approved.
51. Plans submitted for a building permit shall clarify the size of existing and proposed water
services and water meters for the project.
52. Projects generating more than two cubic yards of total waste shall comply with AB 1826, and
local waste management ordinance to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
53. The building permit submittal shall include the San Luis Garbage Company letter of service
within the plan set.
54. The City’s Development Standards for Solid Waste Services require that single family
residential projects with interior storage are designed and constructed to include adequate
storage space for three 96-gallon waste wheelers. The minimum space required shall be 92”
side by 36” deep by 6’ tall. This area shall be depicted on the plans submitted for a building
permit or a Conditional Exception Application shall be provided.
55. Plans submitted for a building permit shall show the location of garbage, recycling and
organic bins located for pickup.
56. Projects having landscape areas greater than 500 square feet shall provide a Maximum
Applied Water Allowance calculation as required by the Water Efficient Landscape
Standards; Chapter 17.87 of the City’s Municipal Code.
Item 3
Packet Page 111
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-20
1137 Peach Street, ARCH-0568-20219, SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
Page 19
Indemnification
57. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers
and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents,
officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this
project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review
(“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified
Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate in
the defense against an Indemnified Claim.
On motion by ________________, seconded by _________________, and on the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 22nd day of July, 2020.
_____________________________
Brian Leveille, Secretary
Planning Commission
Item 3
Packet Page 112
PEACH STREETarc PACKAGE, 10/31/19
Prepared by TEN OVER STUDIO
PROVIDING MUCH NEEDED HOUSING ON PEACH STREET, THESE FIVE NEW HOUSES PROVIDE
A MODERN INTERPRETATION THAT BLENDS SEAMLESSLY WITH THE EXISTING HISTORIC
HOUSES ON SITE WHILE PRESERVING A SENSE OF CHARACTER AND UNIQUE DESIGN TO THE
NEIGHBORHOOD. THESE UNITS WERE DESIGNED TO FEEL LIKE INDIVIDUAL HOMES WITH
PRIVATE BACK YARDS AND AMAZING VIEWS OF THE LOCAL MOUNTAINS OF SAN LUIS OBISPO.
THE SHARED DRIVEWAY IS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO ALL NEW AND EXISTING
HOUSES WHILE PRESERVING AS MUCH OPEN SPACE PER HOME AS POSSIBLE.
Item 3
Packet Page 113
CLIENT
LEVI SELIGMAN
1405 GARDEN STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
CONTACT: LEVI SELIGMAN
levi@acquireslo.com
ARCHITECT
TEN OVER STUDIO
539 MARSH ST., SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
805.541.1010
CONTACT: WILL RUOFF
willr@tenoverstudio.com
SOILS REPORT, PROVIDED BY PACIFIC COAST TESTING, Inc.
PROJECT#: 19-8706
PROJECT INFO & DATA T1.0
DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN EXHIBIT EX-1
PRELIMINARY GRADING & DRAINAGER PLAN C1.1
PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN C2.1
SITE PLAN A1.0
(N) 2 BEDROOM FLOOR PLANS A2.0 TO A2.2
ELEVATIONS A3.0 TO A3.5
SUN SHADE STUDY A4.0
PROJECT IMAGES A5.0 TO A5.5
CONTACTS
index
JAMES M. DUFFY
C-30770
7.31.2019
RENEWALLICENSEDAR CHI
T
E
CTSTA
T
E
OF A L IFORNIAC
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
7 PEACH ST43, 1151, 1163 PEACH STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CATHESE DRAWINGS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE
AND ARE THE PROPERTY OF TEN OVER STUDIO, INC.
THE DESIGN AND INFORMATION REPRESENTED ON
THESE DRAWINGS ARE EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PROJECT
INDICATED AND SHALL NOT BE TRANSFERRED OR
OTHERWISE REPRODUCED WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN
PERMISSION FROM TEN OVER STUDIO, INC.
COPYRIGHT 2017
SYMBOLS
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT DIRECTORY
OWNER:
COMPANY NAME CONTACT:NAME
ADDRESS PH:PHONE
ADDRESS EMAIL:email
ARCHITECT:
PROJECT DATA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT ADDRESS
APN
ZONING
CURRENT USE
LOT SIZE
LIVING SPACE
GARAGE (TO BE REPLACED)
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
SHEET INDEX
TITLE / CODE
T1.0 TITLE SHEET
ARCHITECTURAL
A1.0 SITE PLAN
A2.0 RESIDENCE 1 FLOOR PLAN
A2.1 RESIDENCE 2 FLOOR PLAN
A2.2 RESIDENCE 3 FLOOR PLAN
A2.3 RESIDENCE 4 FLOOR PLAN
A3.0 RESIDENCE 1 ELEVATIONS
A3.1 RESIDENCE 2 ELEVATIONS
A3.2 RESIDENCE 3 ELEVATIONS
A3.3 RESIDENCE4 ELEVATIONS
A8.0 DETAILS
BUILDING CODE DATA
SPRINKLERS:REQUIRED:YES / NO
PROPOSED:YES / NO
CONSTRUCTION TYPE:
OCCUPANCY GROUP:
37 PEACH STREET
1137, 1143, 1151, 1163 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
KEYNOTE
DOOR NUMBER
N
HWY 1
PEACH STT
O
R
O
S
T
J
O
H
N
S
O
N
A
V
E
S
A
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
S
T
O
S
O
S
S
T
M
O
R
R
O
S
T
WALNUT ST
MILL STPALM ST
GENERAL NOTES
1. THE ARCHITECT HAS NO CONTROL OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MEANS, TECHNIQUES, SEQUENCE, OR
PROCEDURES OF CONSTRUCTION OR SAFETY PROGRAMS FOR THIS PROJECT. SUCH PROGRAMS AND
COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS, CODES OR ORDINANCES SHALL BE THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF OTHERS.
2. COORDINATE THE WORK OF ALL TRADES INVOLVED IN THE CEILING WORK TO ENSURE CLEARANCES FOR
FIXTURES, DUCTS, PIPING, CEILING SUSPENSION SYSTEM, ETC., NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THE FINISHED
CEILING HEIGHTS INDICATED ON ARCHITECT'S DRAWINGS.
3. ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO APPLICABLE CURRENT FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL CODES. THE
CONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE FOR ALL REQUIRED NOTIFICATION OF AND COORDINATION WITH CITY AND
STATE AGENCIES, AND PROVIDE REQUIRED PERMITS. ALL TESTS AND INSPECTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH
OBTAINING APPROVALS TO PROCEED WITH AND COMPLETE THE WORK SHALL BE PAID FOR BY THE
CONTRACTOR.
4. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE EXECUTION OF HIS WORK AND
FOR ANY CHANGES AND / OR DEVIATIONS FROM THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS MADE WITHOUT PRIOR
WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE OWNER. THE COST OF CORRECTIONS RESULTING FROM CHANGES AND / OR
DEVIATIONS SHALL BE BORNE BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR.
5. DESIGN ALTERATIONS MADE WITHOUT THE ARCHITECT'S KNOWLEDGE DURING THE COURSE OF
CONSTRUCTION ARE DONE AT THE OWNER'S AND / OR CONTRACTOR'S RISK. THE ARCHITECT SHALL NOT BE
HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH CHANGES.
6. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL OPERATIONS WITH THE OWNER, INCLUDING AREA FOR WORK,
MATERIALS STORAGE, AND ACCESS TO AND FROM THE WORK, SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR NOISY WORK,
TIMING OF WORK AND INTERRUPTION OF MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SERVICES. NOISY OR DISRUPTIVE
WORK SHALL BE SCHEDULED AT LEAST ONE (1) WEEK IN ADVANCE OF THE TIME WORK IS TO COMMENCE.
7. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR THE SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC
AND WORKERS DURING THE COURSE OF THE WORK.
8. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE HIGHEST STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP IN
GENERAL AND WITH SUCH STANDARDS AS ARE SPECIFIED.
9. GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DEMOLITION AS REQUIRED FOR COMPLETION OF
THE PROJECT. REMOVE ALL DEMOLISHED MATERIAL NOT DESIGNATED FOR REUSE FROM THE PREMISES.
10. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE FOR ALL WORK REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL FIRE CODE.
PROVIDE FOR ALL REQUIRED SHOP DRAWINGS AND APPROVALS. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
PROVIDING FIRE ALARM SYSTEM AUDIBILITY.
11. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SAMPLES OF ALL FINISHES OF SUCH SIZE AND NUMBER THAT THEY REPRESENT
A REASONABLE DISTRIBUTION OF COLOR RANGES AND PATTERN PRIOR TO INSTALLATION FOR ARCHITECT'S
APPROVAL. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SHOP DRAWINGS AND PRODUCT DATA FOR ARCHITECT'S
APPROVAL ON ALL SPECIAL ITEMS REQUIRING CUSTOM FABRICATION. (SHALL INCLUDE RATED FIRE DOORS
AND HARDWARE).
12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL EXISTING DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS PRIOR TO STARTING WORK.
ALL DIMENSIONS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS ON DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED AS GUIDELINES AND MUST BE FIELD
VERIFIED. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS FOR ANY REASON. REPORT ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCIES TO THE
ARCHITECT BEFORE CONTINUING WORK. COMMENCEMENT OF WORK IMPLIES THE ACCEPTANCE OF ALL
CONDITIONS. CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO COORDINATE THE WORK WITH THE WORK OF ALL OTHER TRADES.
13. OMISSIONS MADE IN THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS WHICH IS MANIFESTLY NECESSARY TO CARRY
OUT THE INTENT OF THE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS, OR WHICH IS CUSTOMARILY PERFORMED SHALL
NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR FROM PERFORMING SUCH OMITTED OR DESCRIBED DETAILS OF THE WORK
AS IF FULLY AND COMPLETELY SET FORTH AND DESCRIBED IN THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
14. A COMPLETE SET OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS MUST BE KEPT AT THE JOB SITE AT ALL TIMES AND ANY
CHANGES MUST BE NOTED THEREON AND INITIALED.
15. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS FOR ANY REASON. REPORT ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCIES TO THE
ARCHITECT BEFORE CONTINUING WORK.
16. PATCH, REPAIR, OR REPLACE ALL WORK DAMAGED BY NEW CONSTRUCTION. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR
SHALL PATCH WALL AND FLOOR TO CONFORM TO MATERIAL, TEXTURE, AND SURFACE ALIGNMENT WITH THE
ADJOINING SURFACE.
17. ALL FLOORS SHOULD BE LEVEL AND NOT VARY MORE THAN 1/4" IN 10'-0". THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY
ARCHITECT OF ANY CONDITIONS THAT DO NOT MEET THIS STANDARD.
18. MATERIALS, ARTICLES, DEVICES AND PRODUCTS ARE SPECIFIED IN THE DOCUMENTS BY LISTING
ACCEPTABLE MANUFACTURERS OR PRODUCTS, BY REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH REFERENCED STANDARDS,
OR BY PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS. FOR ITEMS SPECIFIED BY NAME, SELECT ANY PRODUCT NAMED.
FOR THOSE SPECIFIED BY REFERENCE STANDARDS OR BY PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS SELECT ANY
PRODUCT MEETING OR EXCEEDING SPECIFIED CRITERIA. FOR APPROVAL OF AN ITEM NOT SPECIFIED, SUBMIT
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS, PROVIDING COMPLETE BACK-UP INFORMATION FOR PURPOSES OF EVALUATION.
WHERE BUILDING STANDARD ITEMS ARE CALLED FOR, NO SUBSTITUTE WILL BE ACCEPTED.
19. MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL FIXTURES, OUTLETS, ETC., WHEN SHOWN ON THE ARCHITECTURAL
DRAWINGS, ARE FOR LOCATION INFORMATION ONLY. MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL TO BE DESIGNED BY
OTHERS. ALL CIRCUITING COORDINATION TO BE BY OTHERS.
20. CONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE DRAWINGS FOR ARCHITECT'S APPROVAL SHOWING LOCATIONS OF ALL HVAC
THERMOSTATS, GRILLES AND DIFFUSERS, FIRE AND SMOKE DETECTION DEVICES INCLUDING SPRINKLERS,
SMOKE DETECTORS, FIRE EXTINGUISHERS AND HOSE CABINETS, PLUMBING AND PLUMBING EQUIPMENT.
21. REPLACE OR RELOCATE ALL EXISTING PIPING, CONDUIT, WIRING, ETC. REQUIRED FOR THE COMPLETION OF
NEW WORK.
N PLAN GENERAL NOTES
NTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN AND LEAVE THE PROJECT AREA IN A CLEAN, SAFE AND ORDERLY
NSIBILITY OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO SAFELY CAP, SEAL OR TERMINATE ALL
HANICAL OR ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS AS NECESSARY AT AREAS OF DEMOLITION.
REUSED OR RETURNED TO OWNER SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN GOOD CONDITION. ALL ITEMS TO
ALL EITHER BE (1) RETAINED BY THE OWNER AT HIS DISCRETION, (2) REMOVED AND
TE, OR (3) DELIVERED TO AN APPROPRIATE DUMPSITE. ALL MATERIALS SHALL BE DISPOSED
CE WITH LOCAL AGENCY REQUIREMENTS.
LITION SHALL BE LIMITED FROM 7:00 AM TO 7:00 PM, MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY. VERIFY
ALL BE PROTECTED FROM CONSTRUCTION / DEMOLITION AS STATED IN CBC CHAPTER 33,
MEASURES SHALL BE IN EFFECT CONTINUOUSLY DURING DEMOLITION AS TO LIMIT THE
ORNE DEBRIS AND DUST. PROVIDE PROTECTION AROUND AREAS WHERE NEW WORK AND/OR
O BE PERFORMED IN ORDER TO PREVENT DUST AND DIRT FROM ENTERING ACTIVE PORTIONS
.
ONSTRUCTION DEBRIS TO BE HAULED OFF SITE SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY COVERED OR TARPED
W ANY MATERIAL TO LEAVE THE VEHICLE WHILE ON ANY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SHALL
DISPOSED OF IN MEANS APPROVED BY JURISDICTION.
RIS AND TRASH FROM PREMISES AND REMOVE FROM SITE DAILY.
RING CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CFC CHAPTER 33.
ONSTRUCTION DEBRIS SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED TO ACCUMULATE WITHIN THE BUILDING AND
VED DAILY.
S TO BE DEMOLISHED WITH OWNER/TNEANT PRIOR TO COMMENCING DEMOLITION/REMOVAL.
CT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES FOUND IMMEDIATELY.
RUCTION/DEMOLITION, NOTIFY ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY OF AN Y DISCREPANCIES FOUND
ANS AND THE AS BUILT CONDITION.
MEMBER SIZES AND DIRECTION AND NOTIFY ARCHITECT/ENGINEER WITH DISCREPANCIES.
MBING LOCATIONS WITH OWNER/TENANT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION/DEMOLITION AND NOTIFY
NY DISCREPANCIES.
OR REPLACE ALL WORK DAMAGED BY NEW CONSTRUCTION. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR
ALL AND FLOOR TO CONFORM TO MATERIAL, TEXTURE, AND SURFACE ALIGNMENT WITH THE
ACE.
ACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DEMOLITION AS REQUIRED FOR COMPLETION OF THE
VE ALL DEMOLISHED MATERIAL NOT DESIGNATED FOR REUSE FROM THE PREMISES.
LOCATE ALL EXISTING PIPING, CONDUIT, WIRING, ETC. REQUIRED FOR THE COMPLETION OF
DS AND RAFTERS TO BE CLEANED AND SEALED TO ELIMINATE SMOKE ODOR.
ED LUMBER TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED.
FLOOR PLAN NOTES
1. TOILET ROOMS SHALL HAVE EXHAUST RATE OF 50 CFM MINIMUM.
2. ELECTRICAL OUTLETS TO BE PLACED AT 18" TO CENTERLINE ABOVE FINISH FLOOR U.N.O.
3. ELECTRICAL SWITCHES TO BE PLACED AT 48" TO CENTERLINE FROM FINISH FLOOR U.N.O.
4. DOORS HANDLES, LOCK AND OTHER OPERATING DEVICES SHALL BE INSTALLED AT A MINIMUM 34" AND A
MAXIMUM 48" A.F.F.
5. ALL EXTERIOR WALL SHALL BE 2X FRAMING WITH MINIMUM INSULATION PER TITLE 24, U.N.O. REFER TO WALL
LEGEND.
6. ALL INTERIOR WALLS SHALL BE 2X4 FRAMING, TYPICAL U.N.O. REFER TO WALL LEGEND.
7. ALL PLUMBING WALLS SHALL BE 2X6 MINIMUM FRAMING. REFER TO WALL LEGEND.
8. PROVIDE R-13 MINIMUM INSULATION AT PLUMBING WALLS AND WALLS OF LAUNDRY ROOM.
9. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ROUGH AND TO FACE OF STUD (F.O.S.).
10. ALL DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FIELD VERIFIED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF ANY VARIATION,
DISCREPANCY OR OMISSION IS FOUND, THE CONTRACTOR OR SUB-CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE
ARCHITECT / DESIGNER IN WRITING AND OBTAIN WRITTEN RESOLUTION FROM ARCHITECT / DESIGNER PRIOR
TO PROCEEDING WITH ANY WORK.
11. PROVIDE MOISTURE EXHAUST DUCT WITH BACK-DRAFT DAMPER FOR THE DRYER EXHAUST (14' MAX. LENGTH
OF DRYER EXHAUST W/ TWO 90 DEGREE ELBOWS) PER 2013 CEC 504.3 & 504.3.1.2
12. VERIFY ALL EXISTING DIMENSIONS IN FIELD
13. NEW 5/8" GYP. BD. THROUGHOUT. INSULATION IN EXTERIOR WALLS PER TITLE 24 REPORT
14. ALL NEW PLUMBING FIXTURES THROUGHOUT TO BE OWNER SELECTED AND CONTRACTOR INSTALLED, AND
MUST MEET OR EXCEED CALGREEN MANDATORY MEASURES (CA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS SEC. 4.303.)
TOTAL FIXTURE COUNT TO REMAIN THE SAME AS PRIOR TO FIRE DAMAGE.
15. ALL FINISHES AND FIXTURES TO BE OWNER SELECTED AND CONTRACTOR INSTALLED.
DOOR & WINDOW NOTES
1. ALL WINDOWS AND DOORS SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH 2016 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE SECTION 110.6.
2. ALL WINDOWS SHALL BE CLEAR GLAZED, UNO, HAVE A LABEL LISTING THE CERTIFIED U-FACTOR, CERTIFIED
SOLAR HEAT GAIN COEFFICIENT (SHGC), AND INFILTRATION THAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF CEC SECTION
110.6. REFER TO TITLE 24 FOR ADDITIONAL GLAZING REQUIREMENTS.
3. ALL EXTERIOR WINDOWS AND WINDOWS BETWEEN CONDITIONED AND UNCONDITIONED SPACES SHALL LIMIT
AIR LEAKAGE AND ALL JOINTS AND PENETRATIONS CAULKED AND SEALED.
4. EXTERIOR WINDOWS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF MULTIPANE GLAZING WITH A MINIMUM OF ONE TEMPERED
PANE MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF 2016 CBC SECTION 2406, OR BE CONSTRUCTED OF GLASS BLOCK
UNITS, OR HAVE A FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING OF NOT LESS THAN 10 MINUTES WHEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH NFPA 257, OR BE TESTED TO MEET THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SFM 12-7A-2.
5. SITE BUILT WINDOWS SHALL COMPLY WITH CBC SECTION 2404.
6. ALL GLAZING IN EXTERIOR DOORS SHALL BE DUAL GLAZED AND TEMPERED, UNO. ALL GLAZING IN INTERIOR
DOORS SHALL BE SINGLE GLAZED AND TEMPERED.
7. THRESHOLD AND LANDINGS
7.1. THRESHOLDS AT DOORWAYS SHALL NOT EXCEED 3/4" IN HEIGHT FOR SLIDING DOORS SERVING
DWELLING UNITS OR 1/2" FOR OTHER DOORS. RAISED THRESHOLDS AND FLOOR LEVEL CHANGES
GREATER THAN 1/4" AT DOORWAYS SHALL BE BEVELED WITH A SLOPE NOT GREATER THAN ONE UNIT
VERTICAL IN TWO UNITS HORIZONTAL (50% SLOPE). THE THRESHOLD HEIGHT SHALL BE LIMITED TO 7-
3/4" AND THE DOOR IS AN EXTERIOR DOOR THAT IS NOT A COMPONENT OF THE REQUIRED MEANS OF
EGRESS; THE DOOR DOES NOT SWING OVER THE LANDING OR STEP; AND THE DOORWAY IS NOT ON AN
ACCESSIBLE ROUTE AND IS NOT PART OF AN ADAPTABLE OR ACCESSIBLE DWELLING UNIT. REFER TO CBC
1008.1.7.
8. ROUGH OPENINGS FOR DOOR & WINDOW INSTALLATION SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH SHOP DRAWINGS PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION.
9. ALL WINDOW AND DOOR HEADER/SILL HEIGHTS ARE TAKEN FROM THE FINISH FLOOR ELEVATIONS.
LIGHTING PLAN GENERAL NOTES
1. REFER TO CEC SECTION 150, MANDATORY MEASURES, AND/OR TITLE 24 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
2. ALL FIXTURE AND SWITCH LOCATIONS ARE SCHEMATIC. CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM A WALK THROUGH WITH
THE OWNER FOR VERIFICATION OF LOCATIONS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
3. HIGH EFFICIENCY LUMINAIRES OR LED LIGHT ENGINE WITH INTEGRAL HEAT SINK HAS AN EFFICIENCY THAT IS NO
LOWER THAN THE EFFICACIES CONTAINED IN TABLE 150-C AND IS NOT A LOW EFFICACY LUMINAIRE AS SPECIFIED
BY CEC SECTION 150(K) AND TITLE 24.
PROJECT LOCATION
1137, 1143, 1151,
1163 PEACH ST
AND 771 TORO ST
Item 3
Packet Page 114
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 T1.0
OCCUPANCY R-3
CONSTRUCTION TYPE VB, SPRINKLED
SPRINKLER SYSTEM 13-D
STORIES PROPOSED 2
BUILDING AREAS
GARAGE (SF)AREA (SF) OUTDOOR PATIO (SF)DECK, UNCOVERED (SF)
2 BED UNIT A 483.8 1465 156 0
TOTAL:2104.8
2 BED UNIT B 507.1 1404.3 150 174.9
TOTAL:2236.3
2 BED UNIT C 476.7 1460.4 150 119
TOTAL:2206.1
BUILDING INFO
DENSITY CALC
TOTAL 10 DU
DENSITY PER LOT LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3
0.083 ACRE 0.085 ACRE 0.085 ACRE
1.02 DU 1.02 DU
1
1
1.07 DU
LOT 9 LOT 10
LOT 5
0.086 ACRE
1.03 DU
DENSITY
5
5
LOT 4
0.089 ACRE
1 DU 1 DU
0.1 ACRE 0.083 ACRE 0.083 ACRE 0.083 ACRE 0.083 ACRE
TOTAL DENSITY ALLOWED
DENSITY CALCULATIONS
DU FACTORUNIT COUNT
1.2 DU 1 DU 1 DU
LOT 6 LOT 7 LOT 8
UNIT TYPE
(E) 2 BED
(N) 2 BED
5
5
1 DU
0.86 ACRE
12/ ACRE
10.32
LOT SIZE:
DENSITY FACTOR:
ALLOW. DENSITY:
PARKING REQUIRED
(E) RESIDENTIAL
(N) RESIDENTIAL USE UNIT COUNT (OR SF) PARKING FACTOR SPACES REQUIRED
2 BED UNIT A (LOT 5)1 2 2
2 BED UNIT B (LOT 7)1 2 2
2 BED UNIT C (LOT 8)1 2 2
2 BED UNIT B (LOT 9)1 2 2
1 BED UNIT C (LOT 10)1 2 2
GUEST PARKING 1
REQUIRED TOTAL 11
PROVIDED TOTAL 11
7TOTAL (E) PARKING TO REMAIN
2 BED LOT 6 (711 TORRO ST)
2
1
1
PARKING CALCULATIONS
2 BED LOT 1 (1137 PEACH ST)
2 BED LOT 4 (1163 PEACH ST)
(E) PARKING TO REMAINUSE
2 BED LOT 2 (1143 PEACH ST)
2 BED LOT 3 (1151 PEACH ST)
2
1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
THE PROPOSED PROJECT INVOLVES THE DEVELOPMENT OF FIVE NEW 2 BEDROOM SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCES. THE PROPOSED PROJECT CREATES A COMMON DRIVE INTO THE SITE AND PROVIDES 2
GARAGE PARKING FOR EACH UNIT, WITH THE TOTAL OF 10 PROPOSED PARKING SPACES. THE PROPOSED
DRIVEWAY WILL ALSO CONNECT WITH EXISTING ONES ON SITE TO INTEGRATE EXISTING WITH NEW AND
PROVIDE SHARED AMENITY TO ALL RESIDENCES. A COMMON INTEREST SUBDIVISION IS REQUIRED TO
ALLOW FOR THE LOT TO BE SPLIT INTO 10 PARCELS TO ALLOW FOR EACH RESIDENCE TO HAVE ITS OWN
LOT. THE PROJECT IS REQUESTING VARIABLE SIDE YARD SETBACKS FOR THE NEW SUBDIVISION PER
SECTION 17.70.170.D.2.c.
1137, 1143, 1151, 1163 PEACH ST AND 771 TORO ST
APN 002-316-005
CURRENT USE RESIDENTIAL
37471 SF .86 ACRE
MAX SITE COVERAGE ALLOWABLE 50%PROPOSED 32%, 12060 SF
DENSITY ALLOWABLE 12/ACRE = 10.32 PROPOSED 10 du
HEIGHT LIMIT ALLOWABLE 35'PROPOSED 25'-5"
ADJACENT ZONES NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST
R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2
SETBACKS:
20'5'+5'+5'+
2 BEDROOM UNIT A (LOT 5)
NORTH/STREET EAST/STREET SOUTH WEST
HT OF BUILDING 22'-1"19'-7"22'-1"19'-7"
SETBACK DISTANCE 20'-0"10'8'-8"5'-0"
2 BEDROOM UNIT B (LOT 7)
NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST
HT OF BUILDING 22'-6"18'-3"22'-6"18'-3"
SETBACK DISTANCE 28'-11"6'-10" *11'-3"8'-1"
2 BEDROOM UNIT C (LOT 8)
NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST
HT OF BUILDING 25'-5"25'-5"25'-5"18'-11"
SETBACK DISTANCE 23'8'-3" *11'-2"8'
2 BEDROOM UNIT B (LOT 9)
NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST
HT OF BUILDING 22'-6"18'-3"22'-6"18'-3"
SETBACK DISTANCE 24'-6"8'-10"11'-1"8'-10"
2 BEDROOM UNIT C(LOT 10)
NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST
HT OF BUILDING 25'-5"25'-5"25'-5"18'-11"
SETBACK DISTANCE 24'-6"11'11'-1"8'
*Per section 17.70.170.D.2.c "Variable Side and Rear Setbacks in New Subdivisions" are permitted
LAND USE REQUIREMENTS
ZONING
OVERLAY ZONES
LOT SIZE
R-2-H
H
ADDRESS
PROPOSED USE RESIDENTIAL
Item 3
Packet Page 115
Item 3
Packet Page 116
Item 3
Packet Page 117
Item 3
Packet Page 118
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 L1.0
SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
N
3617.5 SQ. FT.3717.8 SQ. FT.3704.0 SQ. FT.3855.2 SQ. FT.3738.9 SQ. FT.
4370.1 SQ. FT.3617.3 SQ. FT.3617.4 SQ. FT.3621.8 SQ. FT.3622.4 SQ. FT.
1 1 2 2
2
2
1
3 3 3 3 3 8
33
33
4 4 4 4 4
444
4
5
5 5 5
5
6 6
6
6
6 62
77 7
7
2
2
(N) DRIVEWAY
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 1
1137 PEACH ST
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 2
1143 PEACH ST
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 3
1151 PEACH ST
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 4
1163 PEACH ST
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT C, LOT 8
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 5
771 TORO
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT C, LOT 10
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT B, LOT 9
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT A LOT 5
ADJACENT
SHED
ADJACENT
SHED
ADJACENT
GARAGE
ADJACENT
BUILDING
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT B, LOT 7
ADJACENT
BUILDING
9 9
9
9
10
N
SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"03015 60
1 SITE PLAN
3617.5 SQ. FT.3717.8 SQ. FT.3704.0 SQ. FT.3855.2 SQ. FT.3738.9 SQ. FT.
4370.1 SQ. FT.3617.3 SQ. FT.3617.4 SQ. FT.3621.8 SQ. FT.3622.4 SQ. FT.
1 1 2 2
2
2
1
3 3 3 3 3 8
33
33
4 4 4 4 4
444
4
5
5 5 5
5
6 6
6
6
6 62
77 7
7
2
2
(N) DRIVEWAY
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 1
1137 PEACH ST
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 2
1143 PEACH ST
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 3
1151 PEACH ST
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 4
1163 PEACH ST
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT C, LOT 8
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 5
771 TORO
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT C, LOT 10
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT B, LOT 9
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT A LOT 5
ADJACENT
SHED
ADJACENT
SHED
ADJACENT
GARAGE
ADJACENT
BUILDING
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT B, LOT 7
ADJACENT
BUILDING
9 9
9
9
10
N
SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"03015 60
1 SITE PLAN
keynotes
1. (N) STREET TREE
2. (E) TREE TO REMAIN
3. (E) PROPERTY LINES
4. (N) PERMEABLE PAVER PATIOS
5. (N) CONCRETE WALKWAY
6. (N) 5’-0” TALL WOOD FENCE, TYP.
7. (E) CONCRETE DRIVEWAY
8. (N) CONCRETE DRIVEWAY
9. (E) SIDEWALK PLANTING AREA TO REMAIN
10. (E) RETAINING WALL TO REMAIN
SITE PLAN LEGEND
(N) DRIVEWAY
PLANTING AREA TO BE
PROVIDED BY RESIDENCE
(E) LAWN TO REMAIN
(N) CONCRETE PAVING
(N) PERMEABLE PAVER PATIOS
(N) 5’-0” WOOD FENCE
Item 3
Packet Page 119
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19
TREES QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT REMARKS
2 Magnolia grandiflora `Little Gem` / Dwarf Southern Magnolia 24"box Size: 20`-25` tall and 10`-15` wide
WUCOLS PF = .4 - .6
4 Maytenus boaria / Mayten Tree 24"box Size: 50` tall and 20` wide.
WUCOLS PF = .4-.6
SHRUBS QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE REMARKS
18 Acanthus mollis / Bear`s Breech 5 gal Size: 3`-4` tall and wide.
WUCOLS PF: .4-.6
67 Buxus x `Green Velvet` / Boxwood 15 gal Size: 3`-4` tall and wide.
WUCOLS PF: .4-.6
147 Helictotrichon sempervirens / Blue Oat Grass 1 gal Size: 1`-2` tall and wide.
WUCOLS PF: .1-.3
37 Rosa x `Noaschnee` / White Groundcover Rose 2 gal Size: 2` tall x 3` wide
.
WUCOLS PF: .4 - .6
28 Teucrium chamaedrys / Germander 1 gal Size: 1`-2` tall and 2`-3` wide
WUCOLS PF: .1 - .3
75 Verbena bonariensis / Purpletop Vervain 1 gal Size: 2`-4` tall and 1.5`-3` wide
.
WUCOLS PF: .1-.3
GROUND COVERS QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT SPACING REMARKS
439 sf Agrostis pallens / Thingrass flat Uniform and medium leaf texture
WUCOLS PF = .4-.6
N
03015 60
1 SITE PLAN
DWARF SOUTHERN
MAGNOLIA
BEAR'S BREECH
BOXWOOD BLUE OAT GRASS WHITE GROUNDCOVER
ROSE
GERMANDER PURPLETOP VERVAIN THINGRASS
MAYTEN TREE
L1.1
PLANT PALETTE
PLANTING PALETTE PLANTING IMAGES
Item 3
Packet Page 120
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19
SITE PLAN LEGEND
(N) CONCRETE PATIO
(N) DRIVEWAY
(N) OUTDOOR PATIO
(N) 5’ FENCE
A1.0
SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
N
keynotes
1. (E) TREE TO REMAIN
2. (E) TREE TO BE REMOVED
3 (E) DRIVEWAY CURB RAMP TO BE IMPROVED
TO (N) DESIGN
4. (N) 10’x20’ GUEST PARKING
5. (N) PROPERTY LINE
6. (N) CONCRETE PATIO
7. (N) 2-CAR GARAGE PARKING, TYP.
8. (N) 3’x8’ TRASH ARE, TYP.
9. (N) 5’ FENCE, TYP.
10. (N) BALCONY LINE ABOVE
11. (N) 2-BIKE RACK, TYP.
12. (E) TANDEM PARKING TO REMAIN, TYP.
13. (N) PORCH
14. (N) 150 SF OUTDOOR PATIO
3617.5 SQ. FT.3717.8 SQ. FT.3704.0 SQ. FT.3855.2 SQ. FT.3738.9 SQ. FT.
4370.1 SQ. FT.3617.3 SQ. FT.3617.4 SQ. FT.3621.8 SQ. FT.3622.4 SQ. FT.8'-8"SETBACK(N) DRIVEWAY
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 1
1137 PEACH ST
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 2
1143 PEACH ST
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 3
1151 PEACH ST
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 4
1163 PEACH ST
(E)
DRIVEWAY (E)
DRIVEWAY
(E)
DRIVEWAY
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT C, LOT 8
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 5
771 TORO(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT C, LOT 10
(E)
DRIVEWAY
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT B, LOT 9
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT A LOT 5
GARAGE
PARKING
1 & 2 FIRE HYDRANT+/- 80'FIRE HYDRANT
+/- 200'FIRE HYDRANT+/- 220'GARAGE
PARKING
5 & 6
GARAGE
PARKING
9 & 10
ADJACENT
SHED
ADJACENT
SHED
ADJACENT
GARAGE
ADJACENT
BUILDING
8
7
1
2
1
11
3
10 6
11
9
5 5 5
5
9 55
9(E) 771 TORO
PARKING
(E) 1151
PEACH
PARKING
(E) 1163
PEACH
PARKING
(E) 1143
PEACH
PARKING
(E) 1137
PEACH
PARKING
(E) 1137
PEACH
PARKING
(E) 1143
PEACH
PARKING
9
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT B, LOT 7
GARAGE
PARKING
3 & 4
9
GARAGE
PARKING
7 & 8
5
2
LOT 1 LOT 2
LOT 3 LOT 4
LOT 6
12
12
14510
11
8
2
1
A3.0
3
A3.0
GUEST
PARKING
11
4
14
14
13
14
14
511'-3"SETBACK8'-3"
SETBACK
11'-0"
SETBACK 11'-2"10'-6"39'-6"39'-3"14'-10"13'-6"8'-1"
SETBACK
8'-0"
SETBACK
8'-10"
SETBACK
8'-10"
SETBACK
8'-0"
SETBACK
6'-10"
SETBACK
5'-0"
SETBACK
10'-0"
SETBACK20'-0"SETBACK11'-1"SETBACK14'-1"SETBACK20'-0"7 1
11'-2"SETBACK1
10
109
5
9
2
A3.0
ADJACENT
BUILDING
5
(E) 1151
PEACH
PARKING
(E) 1163
PEACH
PARKING19'-5"19'-5"27'-1"26'-2"19'-7"19'-8"5'-0"8'-2"8
9'-10"
4'-5"5'-0"
6'-5"9'-11"7'-5"7'-2"5'-2"
Item 3
Packet Page 121
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A2.0
2 BED UNIT a SECOND FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
N
2 BED UNIT a FIRST FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
N
TWO-CAR
GARAGE
TRASHUP DNLIVING
ROOM
OPEN TO
BELOW
OFFICE
MASTER
BEDROOM
CLOSET
MASTER
BATHROOM
BEDROOMBATHROOMKITCHEN
DINING
STORAGE
EQ
41'-11"51'-11"10'-0"EQ
31'-3"
3'-6"
25'-2"
3'-7"10'-11"9'-0"51'-11"TWO-CAR
GARAGE
TRASHUP DNLIVING
ROOM
OPEN TO
BELOW
OFFICE
MASTER
BEDROOM
CLOSET
MASTER
BATHROOM
BEDROOMBATHROOMKITCHEN
DINING
STORAGE
EQ
41'-11"51'-11"10'-0"EQ
31'-3"
3'-6"
25'-2"
3'-7" 10'-11"9'-0"51'-11"Item 3
Packet Page 122
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A2.1
3 BED UNIT b SECOND FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
N
3 BED UNIT b FIRST FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
N
UP
DN
OPEN
TO
BELOW
TRASH
POWDER
TWO-CAR
GARAGE
LIVING
ROOM
KITCHEN
DINING
ROOM
CLOSETMASTER
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
BATHROOM
BALCONY
CLOSET
CLOSET
BATHROOM 7'-812"27'-212"34'-11"7'-912"23'-2"
30'-1112"22'-8"40'-11"7'-912"23'-2"
30'-1112"5'-612"12'-812"19'-412"11'-7"
30'-1112"
LAUNDRY
1/8" = 1'-0"SCALE:1 2 BED B SECOND FLOOR PLAN
1500.1 SQ FT
0
N
8
1/8" = 1'-0"SCALE:
421 16
2 2 BED B FIRST FLOOR PLAN
1500.1 SQ FT
Item 3
Packet Page 123
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A2.2
2 BED UNIT c SECOND FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
N
2 BED UNIT c FIRST FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
N
UP
DN
POWDER LAUNDRYCLOSET
TWO-CAR
GARAGE
LIVING
ROOM
DINING
ROOM
MASTER
BEDROOM
KITCHEN
CLOSET
BEDROOM
BATHROOM BATHROOM
OPEN
TO
BELOW
CLOSET
BALCONY
TRASH 3'-0"38'-11"10'-812"25'-212"21'-10"7'-912"
29'-712"6'-0"3'-0"44'-11"10'-812"25'-212"19'-10"7'-912"
29'-712"
1'-0"1'-0"
Item 3
Packet Page 124
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A3.0
1. NORTH ELEVATION -FROM PEACH ST
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
2. NORTH ELEVATION - FROM (N) DRIVEWAY
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
3. EAST ELEVATION - FROM TORO ST
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
(N) 2 BED UNIT A
LOT 5
(E) RESIDENCE 5
LOT 6
(E) RESIDENCE 4
LOT 4
(N) 2 BED UNIT B
LOT 7
(E) RESIDENCE 5
LOT 6
(N) 2 BED UNIT A
LOT 5
(N) 2 BED UNIT C
LOT 8
(N) 2 BED UNIT B
LOT 9
(N) 2 BED UNIT C
LOT 10
(E) RESIDENCE 3
LOT 3
(E) RESIDENCE 2
LOT 2
(E) RESIDENCE 1
LOT 1
TOP OF ROOF
22'-8"
PLPLPLPL
5'-0"5'-3"7'-7"7'-2"6'-4"9'-11"4'-6"4'-10"10'-0"
PL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
PLPLPLPL
11'-0"8'-10"8'-10"8'-0"8'-3"8'-1"6'-10"5'-0"
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"TOP OF ROOF
22'-8"
PL
14'-9"
PLPL
8'-2"21'-0"19'-8"
Item 3
Packet Page 125
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A3.1
1. LOT 5 NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
2. LOT 5 EAST ELEVATION
4. LOT 5 WEST ELEVATION3. LOT 5 SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
PL PL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"11'-0"22'-1"10'-0"
SECONDARY STREET
SETBACK
5'-0"
3 2 5 4
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"22'-1"11'-0"10'-0"5'-0"
52 34
PLPL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
20'-0"
FRONT SETBACK 8'-8"1
4532
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
PL PL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
20'-0"
FRONT SETBACK8'-8"1
4 325
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
PL PL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"11'-0"22'-1"10'-0"
SECONDARY STREET
SETBACK
5'-0"
3 2 5 4
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"22'-1"11'-0"10'-0"5'-0"
52 34
PLPL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
20'-0"
FRONT SETBACK 8'-8"1
4532
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
PL PL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
20'-0"
FRONT SETBACK8'-8"1
4 325
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
PL PL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"11'-0"22'-1"10'-0"
SECONDARY STREET
SETBACK
5'-0"
3 2 5 4
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"22'-1"11'-0"10'-0"5'-0"
52 34
PLPL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
20'-0"
FRONT SETBACK 8'-8"1
4532
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
PL PL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
20'-0"
FRONT SETBACK8'-8"1
4 32 5
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
PL PL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"11'-0"22'-1"10'-0"
SECONDARY STREET
SETBACK
5'-0"
3 2 5 4
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"22'-1"11'-0"10'-0"5'-0"
52 34
PLPL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
20'-0"
FRONT SETBACK 8'-8"1
4532
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
PL PL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
20'-0"
FRONT SETBACK8'-8"1
4 32 5
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
keynotes
1. STORM GREY (MALARKEY)
SHINGLE ROOF
2. WEB GRAY (SW 7975)
PORCH COLUMNS,
DOORS, WINDOW TRIMS, AND
FASCIA
3. RARE GRAY (SW 6199)
HARDIE-BOARD SIDING
4. WEB GRAY (SW 7975)
CLAPBOARD SIDING
5. ANDERSON TERRATONE WINDOW
FRAME. (GARAGE TO MATCH
WINDOW FRAME COLOR)
Item 3
Packet Page 126
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A3.2
1. LOT 7 EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
2. LOT 8 EAST ELEVATION
4. LOT 8 WEST ELEVATION3. LOT 7 WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
PL PL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
11'-3"
28'-11"
FRONT SETBACK1
5 23
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-3"
28'-11"
FRONT SETBACK 1
52 3
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-2"
23'-0"
FRONT SETBACK 1
56 7
PL PL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-2"
23'-0"
FRONT SETBACK1
5 67
PL PL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
11'-3"
28'-11"
FRONT SETBACK1
5 23
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-3"
28'-11"
FRONT SETBACK 1
523
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-2"
23'-0"
FRONT SETBACK 1
56 7
PL PL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-2"
23'-0"
FRONT SETBACK1
5 67
PL PL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
11'-3"
28'-11"
FRONT SETBACK1
5 23
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-3"
28'-11"
FRONT SETBACK 1
52 3
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-2"
23'-0"
FRONT SETBACK 1
56 7
PL PL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-2"
23'-0"
FRONT SETBACK1
5 67
PL PL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
11'-3"
28'-11"
FRONT SETBACK1
5 23
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-3"
28'-11"
FRONT SETBACK 1
52 3
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-2"
23'-0"
FRONT SETBACK 1
56 7
PL PL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-2"
23'-0"
FRONT SETBACK1
5 67
keynotes
1. STORM GREY (MALARKEY)
SHINGLE ROOF
2. THRESHOLD TAUPE (SW 7501)
PORCH COLUMNS, BALCONY,
DOORS, WINDOW TRIMS, AND
FASCIA
3. MINERAL GRAY (SW 2740)
HARDIE-BOARD SIDING
4. COLONNADE GRAY (SW 7641)
STUCCO
5. ANDERSON TERRATONE WINDOW
FRAME. (GARAGE TO MATCH
WINDOW FRAME COLOR)
6. WEB GRAY (SW 7975)
PORCH COLUMNS, BALCONY,
DOORS, WINDOW TRIMS, AND
FASCIA
7. RARE GRAY (SW 6199)
HARDIE-BOARD SIDING
Item 3
Packet Page 127
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A3.3
1. LOT 9 EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
2. LOT 10 EAST ELEVATION
4. LOT 10 WEST ELEVATION3. LOT 9 WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
PL PL
14'-1"
25'-3"
FRONT SETBACK1
5 23
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
14'-1"
25'-3"
FRONT SETBACK 1
5 23
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-1"
24'-6"
FRONT SETBACK 1
567
PL PL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-1"
24'-6"
FRONT SETBACK1
56 7
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
PL PL
14'-1"
25'-3"
FRONT SETBACK1
5 23
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
14'-1"
25'-3"
FRONT SETBACK 1
5 23
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-1"
24'-6"
FRONT SETBACK 1
567
PL PL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-1"
24'-6"
FRONT SETBACK1
56 7
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
PL PL
14'-1"
25'-3"
FRONT SETBACK1
5 23
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
14'-1"
25'-3"
FRONT SETBACK 1
5 23
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-1"
24'-6"
FRONT SETBACK 1
567
PL PL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-1"
24'-6"
FRONT SETBACK1
56 7
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
PL PL
14'-1"
25'-3"
FRONT SETBACK1
5 23
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
14'-1"
25'-3"
FRONT SETBACK 1
5 23
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-1"
24'-6"
FRONT SETBACK 1
567
PL PL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-1"
24'-6"
FRONT SETBACK1
56 7
keynotes
1. STORM GREY (MALARKEY)
SHINGLE ROOF
2. WEB GRAY (SW 7075)
PORCH COLUMNS, BALCONY,
DOORS, WINDOW TRIMS, AND
FASCIA
3. SOFTER TAN (SW 2740)
HARDIE-BOARD SIDING
4. TONY TAUPE (SW 7038) STUCCO
5. ANDERSON TERRATONE WINDOW
FRAME. (GARAGE TO MATCH
WINDOW FRAME COLOR)
6. DOWNING SAND (SW 2822)
PORCH COLUMNS, BALCONY,
DOORS, WINDOW TRIMS, AND
FASCIA
7. STORM CLOUD (SW 6249)
HARDIE-BOARD SIDING
Item 3
Packet Page 128
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A3.4
LOT 7-10 NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
LOT 7-10 SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
(N) 2 BED UNIT C
LOT 10
(N) 2 BED UNIT B
LOT 7
(N) 2 BED UNIT B
LOT 9
(N) 2 BED UNIT C
LOT 8
(N) 2 BED UNIT C
LOT 8
(N) 2 BED UNIT B
LOT 9
(N) 2 BED UNIT B
LOT 7
(N) 2 BED UNIT C
LOT 10
PL PL PL PL PL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
8'-1"10'-11"8'-10"8'-11"8'-0"8'-2"8'-2"6'-9"19'-0"25'-3"25'-5"19'-0"19'-0"25'-3"19'-0"25'-3"PLPLPLPLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
8'-1"10'-11" 8'-10"8'-11" 8'-0"8'-2" 8'-2"
6'-9"19'-0"25'-3"25'-5"19'-0"19'-0"25'-3"19'-0"25'-3"PL PL PL PL PL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
8'-1"10'-11"8'-10"8'-11"8'-0"8'-2"8'-2"6'-9"19'-0"25'-3"25'-5"19'-0"19'-0"25'-3"19'-0"25'-3"PLPLPLPLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
8'-1"10'-11"8'-10"8'-11"8'-0"8'-2"8'-2"6'-9"19'-0"25'-3"25'-5"19'-0"19'-0"25'-3"19'-0"25'-3"Item 3
Packet Page 129
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A4.0
SUMMER SOLSTICE - 10AM VERNAL SOLSTICE - 10AM WINTER SOLSTICE - 10AM
WINTER SOLSTICE - 12PM
WINTER SOLSTICE - 3PM
VERNAL SOLSTICE - 12PM
VERNAL SOLSTICE - 3PM
SUMMER SOLSTICE - 12PM
SUMMER SOLSTICE - 3PM
Item 3
Packet Page 130
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A5.0
VIEW FROM peach STREET - (N) 2 BED UNIT A AND (E) RESIDENCE 4
Item 3
Packet Page 131
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A5.1
VIEW FROM TORO STREET - (N) 2 BED UNIT A
Item 3
Packet Page 132
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A5.2
VIEW FROM (N) DRIVEWAY - (E) RESIDENCE 5 AND (N) 2 BED RESIDENCES
Item 3
Packet Page 133
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A5.3
VIEW FROM toro STREET
Item 3
Packet Page 134
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A5.4
new 2 bedroom unit B
Item 3
Packet Page 135
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A5.5
new 2 bedroom unit C
Item 3
Packet Page 136
Item 3
Packet Page 137
Item 3Packet Page 138
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE REPORT
FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner BY: Kyle Van Leeuwen, Assistant Planner
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1137 Peach St. FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0568-2019,
APPLICANT: Levi Seligman SBDV-0571-2019, & EID-0800-2019
For more information contact Kyle Van Leeuwen: 781-7091 or kvanleeu@slocity.org
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING
The applicant proposes to construct five new two-bedroom, two-story single-family residences
on a site within the Mill Street Historic District. The project site is currently developed with five
existing single-family residences, which are Contributing Historic Resources and will be retained
in their existing locations. The project proposes one new residence on the corner of Peach and
Toro Streets, with the four other residences located interior to the site behind the existing
structures. The project also includes a subdivision of the property into ten lots; each lot would
contain one single-family residence.
General Location: The 0.86 project site is
located on the corner of Peach Street and
Toro Street within the Medium-Density
Residential and zone and has a Historical
Preservation (H) Overlay, within the Mill
Street Historic District (R-2-H).
Present Use: Five single-family residences
(Contributing Historic Resources), to remain
General Plan: Medium Density Residential
Surrounding Uses: The area is characterized
by single-family dwellings, with some office
uses to the west, closer to Santa Rosa
Street. Twelve of the 17 properties in the
immediate vicinity are listed historic
resources (2 Master List, 10 Contributing
List).
2.0 FOCUS OF REVIEW
The CHC’s role is to review the proposed new project in terms of its consistency with the Historic
Preservation Ordinance, which includes the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and to
review the Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources sections of the Initial Study 1
1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: https://www.slocity.org/government/department-
directory/community-development/documents-online/environmental-review-documents/-folder-2059
Meeting Date: June 22, 2020
Item Number: 3
Item No. 1
Figure 1: Subject Property
Item 3
Packet Page 139
prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Attachment 3). An
Historic Preservation Report (Attachment 4) was prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants.
The Committee will make a recommendation to the Planning Commission as to the consistency
of the proposed project with applicable historical preservation policies and standards and may
recommend conditions of project approval as appropriate.
Historic Preservation Guidelines: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4144
Historic Preservation Ordinance: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4142
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Historic Preservation Report determined that the five existing dwellings were constructed
between 1906 and 1925. The existing structures are all single-story and exhibit multiple
architectural styles, including Queen Ann cottage and Craftsman bungalow (see Figure 2 below).
The structures are included in the City’s Inventory Historic Resources as Contributing Properties.
4.0 PROPOSED NEW STRUCTURES
As shown in project plans (Attachment 1), four of the five new structures are located to the rear
of the site, behind the existing contributing historic structures to remain. These structures are
oriented towards the common driveway, which will run from east to west from Toro Street. The
fifth structure, located on the corner of Toro and Peach Street, is oriented towards Peach Street.
5.0 EVALUATION/DISCUSSION
5.1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM GUIDELINES: The City’s Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines provides guidance for new structures within historic districts and on properties with
Figure 2: Existing dwellings
Item 3
Packet Page 140
historic resources. These Guidelines apply to the proposed project because it is located within
the Mill Street Historic District, and five Contributing Historic Resources are located within the
project site. Selected applicable guidelines, standards, and recommendations from th is
document are outlined below, and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines for the Mill Street
Historic District are provided as Attachment 2 for reference. The Committee should consider the
scale, form, and arrangement of new structures elements, the materials, window patterns, and
rooflines, and provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission as to whether the project
is consistent with applicable historical preservation standards and guidelines.
5.1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES Staff notes
§3.2.1 Architecturally compatible
development within Historic Districts. New
structures in historic districts shall be
designed to be architecturally compatible
with the district’s prevailing historic
character as measured by their consistency
with the scale, massing, rhythm, signature
architectural elements, exterior materials,
siting and street yard setbacks of the
district's historic structures (…). New
structures are not required to copy or imitate
historic structures or seek to create the
illusion that a new building is historic.
The CHC should discuss if the use of a
raised finished floor, similar eave line,
inclusion of an entry porch, and use of
siding on the proposed corner structure
follows the pattern of the existing
structures on Peach Street and the
prevailing character of the neighborhood.
Similarly, the CHC should discuss if the four
proposed structures interior to the site
effectively use similar rhythm, architectural
elements, and materials in their design as
the existing contributing structures and the
prevailing character of the neighborhood.
§3.2.2 Architectural compatibility. The CHC
reviews development in historic districts for
architectural compatibility with nearby
historic resources, and for consistency with
applicable design and preservation policies,
standards, and historic district descriptions
in Section 5.2. New development should not
sharply contrast with, significantly block
public views of, or visually detract from, the
historic architectural character of historically
designated structures located adjacent to
the property to be developed, or detract
from the prevailing historic architectural
character of the historic district.
The description of the Mill Street Historic
District in the HPPG identifies common site
features and characteristics for the district.
The CHC should discuss how well those
features and characteristics are included in
the project, such as a consistent street yard
setback, raised finished floor, and entry
porch (refer to Figures 3 and 4, below).
Prominent architectural features within the
district include gable and hipped roofs,
traditional fenestration, and painted siding.
The proposed new corner structure does
not block views of neighboring structures in
a way that detracts from its architectural
character or blocks defining features.
Item 3
Packet Page 141
______________________________________________________________________________
Figure 3: Proposed corner structure, existing structure in district (1237 Mill), guidelines example of
1.5-story craftsman bungalow.
Figure 4: Proposed new two-story structures, sketches of existing structures, guidelines example of
new development in historic districts
Item 3
Packet Page 142
5.2 Environmental Review
An Initial Study 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. Pertinent evaluation within the Initial
Study for CHC consideration can be found in the Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
sections of the Initial Study (Sections 5 and 18). The Initial Study cultural resources evaluation
found that the project would have a less than significant impact on historic resources. As outlined
in the Historic Evaluation Report (Attachment 4), SWCA Environmental Consultants found that
none of the project’s proposed design features, either individually or collectively, would cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource . The Initial Study
evaluation found less than significant impacts to archaeological resources with incorporation of
mitigation measures, including training and contingency measures in the event of an
unanticipated discovery.
The Draft IS/MND was released for the required 30-day public review period on June 11, 2020
and the public review period will conclude on July 11, 2020.
6.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend that the Planning Commission find the project consistent with the Historic
Preservation Ordinance
2. Continue review to another date with direction to staff and applicant.
3. Recommend that the Planning Commission find the project inconsistent with historical
preservation policies, citing specific areas of inconsistency.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Plans
2. Mill Street Historic District (HPPG § 5.2.4)
3. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – Cultural and Tribal Resources sections
4. Historic Preservation Report for Redevelopment of APN 002-316-005, Paula Juelke Carr,
M.A., May 2020, SWCA Environmental Consultants
Item 3
Packet Page 143
Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of June 22, 2020 Page 1
Minutes
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Monday, June 22, 2020
Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee was called to order on
Monday, June 22, 2020 at 5:30 p.m. via teleconference, by Chair James Papp.
ROLL CALL
Present: Committee Members Damon Haydu, Glen Matteson, Vice Chair Shannon Larrabee,
Chair James Papp
Absent: Committee Member Eva Ulz
Staff: Senior Planner Brian Leveille, Associate Planner Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner Kyle
Van Leeuwen, and Deputy City Clerk Megan Wilbanks
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None
--End of Public Comment--
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
1. Approve the minutes of the May 18, 2020 Cultural Heritage Committee meeting.
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER MATTESON, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER HAYDU, CARRIED 4-0-0 (Member Ulz absent), to approve the
minutes of the May 18, 2020 Cultural Heritage Committee meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
2. 1144 Chorro Street. Review of a six-story mixed-use building consisting of approximately
30,000 square feet of commercial/office space and 50 residential dwelling units, within the
Downtown Historic District, including review of the cultural resources analysis of the project.
The project includes a rezone to provide a Planned Development Overlay, demolition of an
existing structure, permanent preservation of an off-site building located at 868 and 870
Monterey Street, and a request to allow a maximum building height of 75 feet , where 50 feet
is normally allowed in the Downtown Commercial zone. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental review (CEQA) is proposed; Project Address: 1144 Chorro, 868 and 870
Monterey, 876 and 890 Marsh, 895, 898, 973 Higuera Streets,; Case #: ARCH-1687-2018,
PDEV-0509-2019, EID-0475-2019; Zone: C-D-H; Jamestown Premier SLO Retail, LP,
Item 3
Packet Page 144
Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of June 22, 2020 Page 2
owner/applicant.
Associate Planner Kyle Bell presented the staff report and responded to Committee inquiries.
Applicant representatives, Mark Rawson and Paula Carr, provided a PowerPoint presentation
and responded to Commissioner inquiries.
Public Comment
Michael Boudreau
--End of Public Comment--
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER HAYDU, SECONDED BY VICE
CHAIR LARRABEE, CARRIED 3-1-1 (Member Matteson dissenting and Member Ulz
absent), finding the project consistent with the Downtown Historic District and recommends
that the Planning Commission find the project consistent with the Historic Preservation
Ordinance with consideration of the following:
• The top three stories should be changed to brick facing material to match the lower three
stores to de-emphasize the height of the building.
• The CHC recognizes that the Riley’s department store uniquely embodies mid-century
modern architecture in the Downtown Historic District.
3. 1137 Peach Street. Review of five new two-bedroom, two-story single-family residences,
each with an attached two-car garage, and review of the cultural resources analysis of the
project. The project site is within the Mill Street Historic District and includes the retention of
five, two-bedroom, single-story residences, which are on the Contributing List of Historic
Properties. The project also includes a common-interest subdivision to create ten lots, each will
contain one of the ten residences, and requested exceptions from development standards to
allow interior side and rear setbacks to be reduced and to allow required parking to be provided
in tandem. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental review (CEQA) is proposed;
Project address: 1137 Peach Street; Case #: ARCH-0568-2019, SBDV-0571-2019, EID-
0800-2019; Zone: R-2-H; Levi Seligman, owner/applicant.
Assistant Planner Kyle Van Leeuwen presented the staff report and responded to Committee
inquiries.
Applicant representative, Joel Snyder, provided a PowerPoint presentation and responded to
Commissioner inquiries.
Public Comment
James Lopes
Laura Gaither
--End of Public Comment--
Item 3
Packet Page 145
Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of June 22, 2020 Page 3
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY CHAIR PAPP, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER
HAYDU, CARRIED 4-0-1 (Member Ulz absent), to recommend the Planning Commission
find the project consistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines with the
following:
• The CHC finds this project compatible with the Historic District and the surrounding
historic buildings and the applicant will work with designated members of the Committee
consisting of Chair Papp, Vice Chair Larrabee, and Committee Member Haydu to explore
options for greater variety of materials and design for the single family residences to be
consistent with the neighborhood pattern.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
Senior Planner Leveille provided an agenda forecast.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:23 p.m. The next Regular Cultural Heritage Committee meeting
is scheduled for Monday, July 27, 2020 at 5:30 p.m., via teleconference.
APPROVED BY THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE: XX/XX/2020
Item 3
Packet Page 146
CityofSanLuisObispo,CommunityDevelopment,919PalmStreet,SanLuisObispo,CA,934013218,805.781.7170,slocity.org
July 2, 2020
TO: Architectural Review Commission
FROM: Kyle Van Leeuwen, Assistant Planner
VIA: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner, ARC Liaison
SUBJECT: Item 4: ARCH-0568-2019 (1137 Peach)
The purpose of this memo is to update the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) on recent
aesthetic modifications made by the applicant in response to the recommendations of the Cultural
Heritage Committee (CHC).
On June 22, 2020, the CHC held a scheduled hearing to review the project located at 1137 Peach
Street. At this hearing, the CHC found the project to be consistent with the Historic Preservation
Ordinance and the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and recommended the Planning
Commission find the project consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance During the hearing,
the applicant also agreed to work with a subcommittee of the CHC to explore some options to provide
additional architectural variety in architectural styling of the interior structures (lots 7 thru 10),
reflective of the neighborhood and the four residences fronting Peach Street.
On June 30, 2020, City staff and members of the applicant’s architectural team met with two of the
subcommittee members, James Papp and Shannon Larrabee, to go over the modification made to the
architectural styling of the interior structures. Some minor modifications to the corner structure (lot
5) were also discussed. The subcommittee members agreed that the modifications made by the
architectural team successfully provided a variety in styling that better reflects the neighborhood and
variety of adjacent existing structures facing Peach Street.
The updated renderings are attached to this memo, along with a description of those changes provided
by the architectural team.
The subcommittee also provided the following notes for subsequent hearings.
The increase in overall height of the structures on lot seven and nine is necessary to successfully
execute the Victorian style of these two structures, which includes a steeper roof pitch.
The two-car wide garage doors on lots seven and nine would better match the Victorian style
proposed if they were broken up into two, single-car wide garages, similar to the garages shown
on lots eight and ten of the modified designs.
The contrast in colors between windows and window casings should be minimized. The white
widows shown within the brown casings should be changed to a darker color.
Item 3
Packet Page 147
Ten Over Studio, Inc.
805. 541.1010
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
info@tenoverstudio.com
tenoverstudio.com
Page 1 of 2
PEACH STREET RESIDENCES
ARC LETTER
PROJECT: Peach Street Residences
ADDRESS: TBD Peach Street, San Luis Obispo
TO: Kyle Van Leeuwen
ADDRESS: City of SLO
FROM: TEN OVER STUDIO
CONTACT: jenniferb@tenoverstudio.com
DATE: July 02, 2020
COMMENTS FROM ORIGINAL CHC MEETING
Overall site layout with 2-story buildings at the rear of the site is precedented in this
neighborhood
Alley driveway precedented in neighborhood (Peach/Mill Alley)
The word 'eclectic' to describe the existing neighborhood
Two houses being similar (sister-like) is acceptable, even encouraged, as it is true of the existing
homes by WJ Smith
Directive to design more character into the proposed residences
Previously proposed described as banal. Perhaps too much function over form.
DESIGN REVISIONS
Cues we took: Massing and roof lines, added details and more varied color schemes.
Overall Design Revisions:
o Varied the siding
o Varied roof color throughout buildings to add variety.
o Referenced existing homes’ color schemes to continue a similar palette, while keeping
each home’s colors totally unique.
Refined corner house design- to incorporate more details (updated columns, porch railing,
banding) and material changes
Victorian and Craftsman were the most relevant styles to take cues from based on our floor
plan layouts and existing homes in the area.
Biggest change came from embracing the Victorian style for 2 of the residences.
o Added bay windows, protruding gable elements, trim detail, fascia treatment detailing
and some decorative enhancements, included fiber cement shingles.
o Deepened the entry porches to make them a stronger feature and to conform to the
style of the surrounding neighborhood as mentioned in the Historic Report for the
project and CHC Meeting.
o Included steeper roof pitches to conform to the Victorian Style within required height
limits. Created a variety of heights so buildings don’t look like one large mass from
Peach Street and to give the sister-like relationship
o Varied the siding to include fiber cement shingles.
Changes to Craftsman Style Residences
o Split the garage doors into two to break up the visual mass.
Item 3
Packet Page 148
Ten Over Studio, Inc.
805. 541.1010
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
info@tenoverstudio.com
tenoverstudio.com
Page 2 of 2
o Added more decorative details (brackets, columns, railings)
o Varied the gable details and entry porch roofs.
We feel we have ended with an improved project. The homes each have charm, balance, and
personality.
Item 3
Packet Page 149
BLANK PAGE
This page is intended to be blank so that you can print double-sided.
Item 3
Packet Page 150
PEACHSTREETCHC
PACKAGE, 6/30/20
Prepared by TEN OVER STUDIO
Providing much needed housing on peach street, these five new houses provide a modern
interpretation that blends seamlessly with the existing historic houses on site while preserving
a sense of character and unique design to the neighborhood. These units were designed to feel
like individual homes with private back yards and amazing views of the local mountains of San
Luis Obispo. The shared driveway is designed to provide access to all new and existing houses
while preserving as much open space per home as possible.
Item 3
Packet Page 151
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 6/30/20 A5.0
VIEW FROM peach STREET - (N) 2 BED UNIT A AND (E) RESIDENCE 4
ORIGINAL DESIGN PRESENTED ON 6/22/20
Item 3
Packet Page 152
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 6/30/20 A5.1
VIEW OF LOTS 7 THROUGH 10
ORIGINAL DESIGN PRESENTED ON 6/22/20ORIGINALDESIGNPRESENTEDON6/22/20
Item 3
Packet Page 153
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 6/30/20 A5.2
VIEW FROM peach STREET - (N) 2 BED UNIT A AND (E) RESIDENCE 4
PROPOSED DESIGN PRESENTED ON 6/30/ 20
VIEW FROM peach STREET - (N) 2 BED UNIT A AND (E) RESIDENCE 4
PROPOSED DESIGN PRESENTED ON 6/30/20
Item 3
Packet Page 154
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 6/30/20 A5.3
N) 2 BED - UNIT b, lot 7
PROPOSED DESIGN PRESENTED ON 6/ 30/ 20
N) 2 BED - UNIT b, lot 7
PROPOSED DESIGN PRESENTED ON 6/ 30/ 20
Item 3
Packet Page 155
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 6/30/20 A5.4
N) 2 BED - UNIT c, lot 8
PROPOSED DESIGN PRESENTED ON 6/ 30/ 20
N) 2 BED - UNIT c, lot 8
PROPOSED DESIGN PRESENTED ON 6/ 30/ 20
Item 3
Packet Page 156
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 6/30/20 A5.5
N) 2 BED - UNIT b, lot 9
PROPOSED DESIGN PRESENTED ON 6/ 30/ 20
N) 2 BED - UNIT b, lot 9
PROPOSED DESIGN PRESENTED ON 6/ 30/ 20
Item 3
Packet Page 157
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 6/30/20 A5.6
N) 2 BED - UNIT c, lot 10
PROPOSED DESIGN PRESENTED ON 6/ 30/ 20
N) 2 BED - UNIT c, lot 10
PROPOSED DESIGN PRESENTED ON 6/ 30/ 20
Item 3
Packet Page 158
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 6/30/20 A5.5
OVERALL SITE VIEW
PROPOSED DESIGN PRESENTED ON 6/30/20
Item 3
Packet Page 159
Item 3
Packet Page 160
Meeting Date: July 6, 2020
Item Number: 4
Item No. 1
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION REPORT
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING
The applicant proposes to construct five new two-bedroom, two-story single-family residences on a
0.86-acre site within the Mill Street Historic District. The project site is currently developed with five
existing single-family residences, which are Contributing Historic Resources and will be retained in their
existing locations. The project proposes one new residence on the corner of Peach and Toro Streets,
with the four other residences located interior to the site behind the existing structures. The proj ect
also includes a subdivision of the property into ten lots; each lot would contain one single -family
residence. The applicant has requested exceptions from development standards to allow interior side
setbacks from proposed property lines to be reduced (five feet where seven feet is the standard, six
feet where eight feet is the standard, seven feet where eight or nine feet is the standard, and eight feet
where eleven feet is the standard), and to allow required parking to be provided in tandem .
General Location: The 0.86 project site is located
on the corner of Peach Street and Toro Street
within the Medium-Density Residential zone with
a Historical Preservation (H) Overlay, within the
Mill Street Historic District (R-2-H).
Present Use: Five single-family residences
(Contributing Historic Resources), to remain
General Plan: Medium Density Residential
Surrounding Uses: The area is characterized by
single-family dwellings, with some office uses to
the west, closer to Santa Rosa Street. Twelve of
the 17 properties in the immediate vicinity are
listed historic resources (2 Master List,
10 Contributing List).
PROPOSED DESIGN
Architecture: Craftsman
Design details: Two-bedroom homes, outdoor patios/balconies, hipped and gabled roofs, stucco and
siding walls, two-car garages
Materials: Siding and stucco
Colors: Light brown, tan, blue, taupe, yellow, & light and medium grays
FROM: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner BY: Kyle Van Leeuwen, Assistant Planner
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1137 Peach St. FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0568-2019,
APPLICANT: Levi Seligman SBDV-0571-2019, & EID-0800-2019
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
For more information contact: (Kyle Van Leeuwen) at 781-7091 or kvanleeuwen@slocity.org
Figure 1: Subject Property
Item 3
Packet Page 161
ARCH-0568-2019, SBDV-0571-2019, EID-0800-2019
1137 Peach
Page 2
2.0 FOCUS OF REVIEW
The ARC’s role is to 1) review the residential buildings in terms of consistency with the Community
Design Guidelines (CDG) and applicable City Standards and 2) provide comments and
recommendations to the Planning Commission.
Community Design Guidelines: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2104
3.0 COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES/DISCUSSION ITEMS
The proposed development must be consistent with the requirements of the General Plan, Zoning
Regulations, and CDG. Staff has identified the discussion items below related to consistency with CDG
Chapters 2 (General Design Principles), 5 (Residential Project Design), and 6 (Site Planning and Other
Design Details).
Highlighted Sections Discussion Items
Chapter 2 – General Design Principles
§2.1.B – Site function
The project includes the retention of five structures on the property, with new
detached structures proposed. The ARC should consider how the various
activities and elements proposed on the site are logically located so the
project will operate efficiently, and effectively address the needs of all users.
§2.2.F – Coordinate the The ARC should discuss whether the new structures are designed to
Figure 2: Renderings of project design.
Item 3
Packet Page 162
ARCH-0568-2019, SBDV-0571-2019, EID-0800-2019
1137 Peach
Page 3
new with the old coordinate with the existing structures to remain onsite.
Chapter 5.3 – Infill Development
§5.3.A.1 General principles
The project proposes new structures in a medium-density neighborhood that
is mostly “built out”. The ARC should discuss whether the project is
compatible in scale, siting, detailing and overall character with adjacent
buildings and those in the immediate neighborhood.
§5.3.A.2 General principles
The ARC should discuss whether the project continues existing neighborhood
patterns, such as front porches and entries facing the street, and finished floor
height.
§5.3.B Building design
The project site is in a historic district that encompasses many different
architectural styles. The ARC should discuss whether the project incorporates
the traditional architectural characteristics of the existing houses in the
neighborhood, including window and door spacing, exterior materials, roof
style and pitch, ornamentation, and other details.
§5.3.C Visual impacts from
building heights
The project includes a 1.5-story structure on the corner portion of the site and
two-story structures in the interior of the site. The ARC should discuss
whether the height of new structures is consistent with of surrounding
residential structures.
Cultural Heritage Committee Review and Recommendation
The project was reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) on June 22, 2020 for consistency
with the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. The CHC found
the project to be consistent with the ordinance and guidelines and recommended approval to the
Planning Commission. The applicant also agreed to work with a subcommittee of the CHC to explore
some options to provide additional architectural variety in architectural styling of the interior
structures, reflective of the neighborhood and the four residences fronting Peach Street These
changes will be aesthetic and will not significantly change the scale, massing, placement, or floor plans
of the current proposal as presented to the ARC. Staff will provide updates on any recommended
modifications prior to and/or during the ARC meeting.
4.0 PROJECT STATISTICS
Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required*
Density (units/acre) 10 10.32
Front Setback (Peach) 20 feet 20 feet
Rear Setback (from existing PL) 11 feet 11 feet
Side Setback (from existing PL) 8 feet 8 feet
Maximum Height of Structures 25 feet 35 feet
Max Building Coverage 32% 50%
Total # Parking Spaces (New) 11 10
Environmental Status Draft IS/MND has been prepared, and released for the required 30-day
public review period, ending July 11, 2020
*2019 Zoning Regulations
Item 3
Packet Page 163
ARCH-0568-2019, SBDV-0571-2019, EID-0800-2019
1137 Peach
Page 4
SIDE SETBACKS FROM PROPOSED PROPERTY LINES
Lot Structure Proposed Required**
East West East West
1 Existing 5 10 5 5
2 Existing 10 5 5 5
3 Existing 7* 6* 8 8
4 Existing 5* 8 7 7
5 New NA 7* NA 9
6 Existing NA 5 NA 5
7 New 7* 8 8 8
8 New 8* 8 11 8
9 New 9 9 8 8
10 New 11 NA 11 NA
*Exception Requested **2019 Zoning Regulations
5.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES
5.1 Recommend approval of the project, based on consistency with the Community Design
Guidelines (CDG). This action may include recommendations for conditions to address further
consistency with the CDG.
5.2 Continue the project. An action continuing the application should include direction to th e
applicant and staff on pertinent issues, with references to specific CDG.
5.3 Recommend denial the project based on findings of inconsistency with CDG. An action
denying the application should include recommended findings that cite the basis for denial
and should reference inconsistency with the General Plan, CDG, Zoning Regulations or other
policy documents.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
6.1 Project Plans
6.2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Digital attachment: https://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=26748)
Item 3
Packet Page 164
Minutes
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
Monday, July 6, 2020
Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission was called to order on Monday, July
6, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. via teleconference, by Chair Allen Root.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Richard Beller, Michael DeMartini (5:08 p.m.), Mandi Pickens, Vice
Chair Christie Withers and Chair Allen Root
Absent: Commissioner Micah Smith
Staff: Senior Planner Shawna Scott and Deputy City Clerk Megan Wilbanks
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None
--End of Public Comment--
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
1. Minutes of the Architectural Review Commission meeting of June 1, 2020 and June 15,
2020.
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE CHAIR WITHERS SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
PICKENS, CARRIED 5-0-1 (Commissioner Smith absent), to approve the minutes of the
Architecture Review Commission meetings of June 1, 2020 and June 15, 2020.
PUBLIC HEARING
2. Project Address: 1035 Madonna Road; Case #: ARCH-0796-2019; Zone: Neighborhood-
Commercial Zone (N-C) San Luis Ranch Specific Plan; Arris Studio, Thom Jess,
applicant. Review of a four-story, 200 room dual brand hotel in the San Luis Ranch Specific
Plan area; The project is consistent with the previously certified FEIR and SEIR for the San
Luis Ranch Specific Plan and no additional environmental review is required per CEQA.
Contract Planner John Rickenbach presented the staff report and responded to Commissioner
inquiries.
Item 3
Packet Page 165
Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of July 6, 2020 Page 2
Applicant representative, Heather Wiebe, responded to Commissioner inquiries.
Public Comments:
None
--End of Public Comment--
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER PICKENS SECOND BY VICE CHAIR
WITHERS CARRIED 5-0-1 (Commissioner Smith absent), to recommend that the Planning
Commission approve the project with the following recommendations:
• Consider using a commercial-grade lap siding product to ensure durability
3. Project Address: 830 Orcutt Road; Case #: ARCH-0764-2019, AFFH-0210-2020, USE-
0209-2020; Zone: Commercial Services (C-S) zone; 830 Orcutt, LLC, owner/applicant.
Review of a mixed-use project consisting of 15 residential units and 1,714 square feet of
commercial space within the Commercial Services (C-S) zone. The project includes a density
bonus of 5% including a request for an alternative incentive to relax development standards
for the creek setback requirement and a request to allow residential uses on the ground floor
within the first 50 feet of the structure along the street frontage, the project also includes a
request for a 10 percent parking reduction. Project is categorically exempt from environmental
review (CEQA).
Associate Planner Kyle Bell presented the staff report and responded to Commissioner
inquiries.
Applicant representative, Bryan Ridley, responded to Commissioner inquiries.
Public Comments:
None
--End of Public Comment--
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BELLER SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
DEMARTINI, CARRIED 5-0-1 (Commissioner Smith absent), to recommend that the project
be continued to a date uncertain with the following recommendations to the applicant and staff:
• Provide additional information regarding the applicability of the Housing Accountability
Act in relation to the project’s requested exceptions..
• Consider providing a residential gate along the pedestrian entrance to the residential units
along the east property line, for the safety of the residents.
• The project should address consistency with Community Design Guideline 2.1.C, where
site activities are logically located so that the project will operate efficiently and effectively
for the needs of all uses, specifically the relationship to open space and the adjacent creek.
Consider providing community space oriented toward the creek.
• The project should be revised to provide further articulation of each building’s mass along
the drive aisle.
Item 3
Packet Page 166
Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of July 6, 2020 Page 3
• Additional landscaping should be provided to soften and create a counterpoint to the
architectural design, landscaping should include organic elements.
• The project should be redesigned to provide private or common open spaces for residents,
consideration should be provided for common open space between the commercial and
residential units, and along the creek, balconies should also be added to the residential
units.
• Consider adding alternative pavers along the drive aisle and parking areas that coordinates
with landscaping and open areas.
4. Project address: 1137 Peach Street; Case #: ARCH-0568-2019, SBDV-0571-2019, EID-
0800-2019; Zone: R-2-H; Levi Seligman, owner/applicant. Review of five new two-
bedroom, two-story single-family residences, each with an attached two-car garage. The
project site is within the Mill Street Historic District and includes the retention of five, two-
bedroom, single-story residences, which are on the Contributing List of Historic Properties.
The project also includes a common-interest subdivision to create ten lots, each will contain
one of the ten residences. The applicant has requested exceptions from development standards
to allow interior side setbacks to be reduced and to allow required parking to be provided in
tandem. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental review (CEQA) is proposed.
Assistant Planner Kyle Van Leeuwen presented the staff report and responded to
Commissioner inquiries.
Applicant representative, Will Ruoff, responded to Commissioner inquiries.
Public Comments:
Levi Seligman
Jeremy Weintraub
Timothy & Sharon Watson
Josh Frantz
--End of Public Comment--
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE CHAIR WITHERS SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
PICKENS, CARRIED 3-2-1 (Commissioners Beller and DeMartini dissenting, Commissioner
Smith absent), to recommend that the Planning Commission approve the project with the
following recommendation:
• Consider adding trees from the approved “street tree” list along the fence of the shared
driveway with similar spacing as required for street trees, adding shade to the driveway
and a more organic separation between the existing properties.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
Senior Planner Shawna Scott provided a brief agenda forecast.
ADJOURNMENT
Item 3
Packet Page 167
Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of July 6, 2020 Page 4
The meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m. The next Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review
Commission is scheduled for Monday, July 20, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. via teleconference.
APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: XX/XX/2020
Item 3
Packet Page 168
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For EID # 0800-2019
1. Project Title:
1137 Peach Street Residential Subdivision
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Kyle Van Leeuwen, Assistant Planner
(805) 781-7091
4. Project Location:
1137 Peach Street (APN 002-316-005), San Luis Obispo, CA
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Levi Seligman
1405 Garden Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designations:
Medium Density Residential (12 dwelling units/acre)
7. Zoning:
Medium-Density Residential with Historical Preservation Area Overlay Zone (R-2-H)
8. Description of the Project:
The project includes a common-interest subdivision of a 0.86-acre medium-density residential parcel (Assessor’s
Parcel Number [APN] 002-316-005) to create 10 parcels and construct five new single-family homes and a 20-
foot-wide common driveway that would provide access to new and existing residences within the site. There are
five existing single-family residences within the project site; as part of the proposed subdivision, each existing
residence would be located on a new parcel (Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 10), and five additional parcels would be created
to accommodate construction of five new single-family residences on the remaining parcels (Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, and
9). All parcels have a medium-density residential zoning designation (R-2), which allows for single-family homes
with a density of 12 dwelling units per acre. The new common driveway would provide access from Toro Street
and would provide primary access to Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9 and rear access to Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and
10 are developed with existing 2-bedroom, single-family dwellings, including attached garages. The proposed
project would provide additional rear access and parking , permeable paving patios, utility improvements, and
Item 3
Packet Page 169
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
landscaping improvements at these existing residences, but does not propose demolition, reconstruction, or
replacement of the existing residences.
Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 would each be developed with a 2 -bedroom single-family dwelling and 2-car garage. The
project would also include removal of up to five trees, and installation of new water, wastewater, and stormwater
infrastructure to service the proposed residences.
The subject parcel is located at the intersection of Peach Street and Toro Street, approximately 0.15 miles northeast
of downtown San Luis Obispo in the City-designated Mill Street Historic District. Topography of the site is
essentially level with an elevation of approximately 270 feet above mean sea level. Buildout of the new common
driveway and residences would result in removal of five trees. The project is subject to development standards
identified in the City of San Luis Obispo (City) Municipal Code Chapter 17.18 Medium-Density Residential (R-2)
Development Standards, which identify minimum property line setback distances, building height and floor area
ratio, and lot coverage standards. The project is requesting variable side yard setbacks for the new subdivision per
Section 17.70.170.D.2.c. Proposed development characteristics and setbacks are shown in T able 1. The project
would also be subject to the City Municipal Code Chapter 17.56 Historic Preservation Overlay Standards, which
are intended to provide for residential and infill projects of high architectural quality that are compatible with
existing development.
Table 1. Lot and Proposed Residential Development Characteristics
Lot
Number
Height
(feet)
Front
Setback
(feet)
Interior Side
Setbacks (feet)
(height=side
setback)
Corner
Lot-Side
Setback
(feet)
Rear Setbacks
(feet)
(height=rear
setback)
Minimum
Lot Size
(square
feet)
Standard 35’ 20’
20-22 = 9
23-24 = 10
25-26 = 11
10’
20-22 = 9
23-24 = 10
25-26 = 11
5,000
Lot 1 (E) 19’ (E) 10’ = 5’
10’ = 10’ N/A 12’ = 11’ 3,621
Lot 2 (E) 19’ (E) 10’ = 10’
10’ = 5’ N/A 12’ = 11’ 3,718
Lot 3 (E) 19’ (E) 18’ = 7’ (8’ req)
18’ = 6’ (8’ req) N/A 12’ = 14’ 3,704
Lot 4 (E) 18’ (E) 16’ = 5’ (7’ req)
16’ = 8” N/A 12’ = 15’ 3,855
Lot 5 22’ 20’ 20’ = 7’ (9’ req) 10’ 23’ = 9’ (10’ req) 3,739
Lot 6 (E) 20’ (E) 12’ = 8’
12’ = 20’ N/A 12’ = 5’ 4,370
Lot 7 25’ N/A 19’ = 7’ (8’ req)
19’ = 8’ N/A 22’ = 11’ 3,617
Lot 8 25’ N/A 25’ = 8’ (11’ req)
19’ = 8’ N/A 25’ = 11’ 3,617
Lot 9 25’ N/A 19’ = 9’
19’ = 9’ N/A 22’ = 11’ 3,622
Lot 10 25’ N/A 25’ = 11’
19’ = 8’ N/A 25’ = 11’ 3,624
Item 3
Packet Page 170
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
9. Project Entitlements:
Architectural Review
Subdivision
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
The property is surrounded by medium-density single-family residential development, as well as office buildings
within the same block to the southwest.
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area
requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for
consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural
resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
Native American Tribes were notified about the project consistent with Ci ty and State regulations including, but
not limited to, Assembly Bill 52. The AB 52 notification period closed on April 3, 2020, and formal consultation
was not requested.
12. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
N/A
Item 3
Packet Page 171
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
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 ☐ Public Services
☐ Agriculture and Forestry
Resources ☒ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ☐ Recreation
☒ Air Quality ☐ Hydrology and Water Quality ☐ Transportation
☒ Biological Resources ☐ Land Use and Planning ☒ Tribal Cultural Resources
☒ Cultural Resources ☐ Mineral Resources ☒ Utilities and Service Systems
☐ Energy ☒ Noise ☐ Wildfire
☐ Geology and Soils ☐ Population and Housing ☒ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FISH AND WILDLIFE FEES
☐
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect
determination request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife, or
habitat (see attached determination).
☒
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and
Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and G ame Code. This initial study has been
circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
☒
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State
agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Housing and Community
Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)).
Item 3
Packet Page 172
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared. ☐
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, by or agreed to by the project
proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☒
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required. ☐
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant” impact(s) or “potentially significant unless
mitigated” impact(s) on the environment, but at l east one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it
must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed
☐
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
☐
Signature Date
For: Michael Codron,
Printed Name Community Development Director
Item 3
Packet Page 173
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like
the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors
to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, t hen the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there
are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less t han Significant Impact."
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-
referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above ch ecklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects
were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe
the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which
they addressed site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts
(e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where
appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
Item 3
Packet Page 174
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
1. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, w ould the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1, 4 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
1, 5 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced
from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable
zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
1, 3, 6, 7 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1, 7 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The topography of the city of San Luis Obispo is generally defined by several low hills and ridges , such as Islay Hill, Bishop
Peak, and Cerro San Luis—three of the nine peaks known as the Morros—which provide scenic focal points for much of the
city. The project vicinity exhibits intermittent views of nearby natural landmarks, including Cerro San Luis.
The project is located within an urbanized residential neighborhood in the Mill Street Historic District of the city of San Luis
Obispo (city) and is generally surrounded by residential uses and office buildings. The project site currently consists of fi ve one-
story single-family homes with no attached or detached garages. The visual character of the project vicinity is comprised of older
residences with wood and stucco exteriors, constructed between 1906 and 1925, street trees, and sidewalks. Public views of
Cerro San Luis from viewers travelling along Peach Street at this location are heavily screened by existing buildings and
vegetation. Distant views of Islay Hill are available for viewers travelling along Toro Street at this location.
a) A scenic vista is generally defined as a high-quality view displaying good aesthetic and compositional values that can
be seen from public viewpoints. Some scenic vistas are officially or informally designated by public agencies or other
organizations. A substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista would occur if the proposed project would significantly
degrade the scenic landscape as viewed from public roads or other public areas. The project site is located in an
urbanized area with intermittent views of Cerro San Luis. Public views of Cerro San Luis from viewers travelling along
Peach Street at this location are heavily screened by existing buildings and vegetation. Based on the City’s Conservation
and Open Space Element (COSE) map of scenic roadways and vistas, the project site is not located along roadways
considered to be of moderate or high scenic value or w ithin the cone of view of a scenic roadway. Santa Rosa and
Johnson Avenue in the project vicinity are identified as having moderate scenic value; however, the project site would
not be highly visible from these roadways. Therefore, the project is not located within a scenic vista and potential
impacts would be less than significant.
b) The project site is located approximately 0.15 miles southeast of U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101). Based on the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) California Scenic Highways online mapping tool, the section of the U.S. 101
closest to the project site is eligible for state scenic highway designation but is not officially designated (reference source
5). The project site would not be visible to viewer s travelling along U.S. 101 due to existing development, vegetation,
and topography. Based on the City’s COSE map of scenic roadways and vistas, the project site is not located along and
would not be highly visible from roadways considered to be of moderate or high scenic value or within the cone of view
of a scenic roadway. The project would not demolish historic buildings (the existing residences, which are identified as
contributing resources to the Mill Street Historic District, would be retained onsite ) and the project does not propose
development that is substantially inconsistent with surrounding uses because it proposes residential uses within an
Item 3
Packet Page 175
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
existing residential area. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial damage to scenic resources within a state
or local scenic highway and impacts would be less than significant.
c) The proposed subdivision and construction would occur within an urbanized residential area and is considered an infill
development project. Proposed tree removals would be consistent with the City’s Tree Ordinance, which establishes
protection and compensatory planting requirements. The proposed residential development would be consistent with
existing zoning and land use designations for the site and consistent with surro unding uses. The project requires an
exception to standard setbacks, but those exceptions would not result in a substantial change in the visual character of
the project site due to the compact nature of surrounding residential uses.
The project is subject to the City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Guidelines. The intent of the Guidelines is
that new structures “shall be designed to be architecturally compatible” with the prevailing historic character. A Historic
Preservation Report was prepared by SWCA for the project and concluded that none of the project’s proposed design
features, either individually or collectively, would constitute an effect that would cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an historical resource – in this instance defined as any or all of the adjacent contributing properties
to the Mill Street Historic District or the Mill Street Historic District as a whole . Similarly, none of the project’s
proposed design features, either individually or collectively, would cause substantial adverse change in the significance
of an historical resource (as defined above) such that that the significance of the historical resource would be materially
impaired (14 CCR § 15064.5[b][1]). Therefore, the Historic Preservation Report concluded that the proposed
development would not cause the project to have a significant effect on the environment as defined under CEQA (14
CCR § 15064.5[b]).
The project would also be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to ensure consistency with the
City’s Community Design Guidelines (CDG). Consistency with the CDG and Historic Preservation Guidelines would
ensure any potential aesthetic impacts related to conflicts with regulations governing scenic quality would be less than
significant.
d) The project is in an urbanized area with existing light sources from neighboring residential and office uses as well as
light from vehicular circulation along neighboring streets. The proposed development of five single-family residences
would add additional sources of exterior and inter ior light in the area. The proposed lighting would not be inconsistent
with existing surrounding nighttime lighting and the project would be subject to Lighting and Night Sky Preservation
standards set forth in the City Municipal Code (17.70.100), which require residential development to minimize glare
and obtrusive light by limiting outdoor lighting that is misdirected, excessive, or unnecessary. Therefore, potential
impacts associated with development of the project site related to light and glare would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Conclusion
The project is not located within a scenic vista or within the viewshed of a designated scenic highway. The project would be
subject to applicable standards set forth in the City’s CDG and Municipal Code, as well as the City’s Historic Preservation
Guidelines. The project would be subject to review by the City Architectural Review Commission to ensure consistency with
applicable guidelines prior to finalizing and approving design plans. Therefore, no potentially significant impacts to aesthetic
resources would occur, and no mitigation is necessary.
Item 3
Packet Page 176
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation
as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest
resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by th e
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and
Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided
in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Bo ard. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non -
agricultural use?
2, 8 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? 2, 9 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest
land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined
by Government Code section 51104(g))?
2 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use? 2 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) 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?
2, 8, 9 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
The California Department of Conservation (DOC) classifies and maps agricultural lands in the state in the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program (FMMP). The FMMP identifies five farmland categories: Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide
Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance, and Farmland of Local Potential. The project site is designated
as Urban and Built-Up Land by the FMMP and therefore, is not considered farmland.
According to California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 12220(g), forest land is defined as land that can support 10%
native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or mor e
forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiver sity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.
Timberland is defined as land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the State Board of
Forestry and Fire Protection as experimental forest land, which is available for and capable of growing a crop of trees of a
commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees. The project site does not contain
forest land or timberland.
a) The project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land by the FMMP. The project site is not in agricultural use and
is not located on lands designated Farmland by the FMMP. Due to existing onsite and surrounding urbanized uses, the
potential for the site to support agricultural uses in the future is very low. Therefore, the project would not result in the
conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and no impacts would occur.
Item 3
Packet Page 177
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
b) The project site does not include land use designations or zoning for agricul tural uses and is not located within or
adjacent to land under an active Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning
for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract and no impacts would occur.
c-d) The project site does not include forest land or timberland and does not include land use designations or zoning for
forest land or timberland. Therefore, the project would not conflict with zoning for, result in the loss of, or result in the
conversion of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production and no impacts would occur.
e) The project includes the subdivision of a residentially zoned infill parcel in an established residential neighborhood near
downtown San Luis Obispo. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial changes in the environment that could
result in conversion of nearby agricultural land or forest land to non-agricultural or non-forest use and no impacts would
occur.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Conclusion
The project site is located in an urbanized area and is not with in or adjacent to Prime Farmland, land zoned for agricultural or
forest land use, or land under a Williamson Act contract. No potentially significant impacts to agriculture, forest land, or
timberland would occur, and no mitigation is necessary.
3. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district 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?
4, 10, 11,
12, 15 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) 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?
10, 11,
12 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? 1 ,11, 13 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial number of people? 1, 13 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The city is located within the South Central Coast Air Basin (SCCAB), which also includes Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties.
Air quality within the SCCAB is regulated by several jurisdictions, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD).
San Luis Obispo County is currently designated as “nonattainment” for the state standards for ozone, partial nonattainment (in
eastern San Luis Obispo County, outside of the project area) for federal ambient standards for ozone, and nonattainment for the
state standards for particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter (PM10). The COSE identifies goals and policies to
achieve and maintain air quality that supports health and enjo yment for those who live, work, and visit the city. These goals and
Item 3
Packet Page 178
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
policies include meeting state and federal air quality standards, reducing dependency on gasoline- or diesel-powered motor
vehicles, and encouraging walking, biking, and public transit use.
The SLOAPCD has developed a CEQA Air Quality Handbook (most recently updated with a November 2017 Clarification
Memorandum) to evaluate project-specific impacts and determine if potentially significant impacts could result from a project.
To evaluate long-term emissions, cumulative effects, and establish countywide programs to reach acceptable air quality levels,
the SLOAPCD adopted a Clean Air Plan (CAP) in 2001.
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others, depend ing on the population groups and the
activities involved. CARB has identified the following groups who are most likely to be affected by air pollution (i.e., sens itive
receptors): children under 14, the elderly over 65 years of age, athletes, and people wi th cardiovascular and chronic respiratory
diseases. Sensitive receptor locations include schools, parks and playgrounds, day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and
residential dwelling units. The project site is located within close proximity to multiple sensitive receptors, including residential
dwelling units within 50 feet of the parcel boundaries and surrounding residential neighborhoods.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) has been identified as a toxic air contaminant by the CARB. Any ground disturbance
proposed in an area identified as having the potential to contain NOA must comply with the CARB Airborne Toxics Control
Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (17 California Code of Regulations
[CCR] Section 93105). The SLOAPCD Naturally Occurring Asbestos Map indicates that the project site is located within an
area identified as having a potential for NOA to occur.
a) In order to be considered consistent with the 2001 San Luis Obispo County CAP, a project must be consistent with the
land use planning and transportation control measures and strategies outlined in the CAP. The proposed project would
be consistent with the general level of development anticipated and projected in the CAP. The project w ould also be
consistent with the CAP’s land use and circulation management strategies because it consists of an infill project within
an urbanized area proximate to public transit stops and bicycle routes. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than
significant.
b) San Luis Obispo County is currently designated as non-attainment for ozone and PM10 under state ambient air quality
standards. Construction of the project would disturb approximately 37,900 sf of land and result in emissions of ozone
precursors, including reactive organic gasses (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and fugitive dust emissions (PM10).
During operation, the project would result in emissions of ozone precursors associated with mobile source emissions
and other uses.
Construction Emissions
The project would result in approximately 37,900 sf f ground disturbance during construction, including approximately
850 cubic yards of cut and 850 cubic yards of fill. This would result in the generation of construction dust as well as
short-term construction vehicle emissions, including diesel particulate matter (DPM), ROGs, NOx, and particulate
matter (PM). As shown in Table 2 below, the project’s construction emissions would not exceed the APCD’s applicable
screening thresholds for ROG, NOx, DPM, or PM10. Therefore, potential construction-related emissions of these
pollutants would be less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable.
Table 2. Project Construction Emissions
Criteria Pollutant
Total Project
Emissions
(assuming 1
month/22 day
construction
period)
APCD
Screening
Threshold
Exceeds
Threshold?
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) + Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) 193.46 total lbs
8.79 lbs/day 137 lbs/day No
Item 3
Packet Page 179
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) 8.33 total lbs
0.38 lbs/day 7 lbs/day No
Fugitive Particulate Matter (PM10) .6525 total tons 2.5 tons/quarter No
Operational Impacts
Implementation of the proposed project would result in a marginal increase in vehicle trips, electricity use, and
architectural coating off-gassing that would generate criteria pollutant emissions. Based on Table 1-1 of the
SLOAPCD’s CEQA Handbook, the size of a single-family residential project expected to exceed SLOAPCD’s
operational greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions Brightline Threshold would be a project proposing a minimum of 76
dwelling units. The size of a single-family residential project expected to exceed the SLOAPCD operational threshold
for ozone precursors would consist of a minimum of 128 dwelling units. The project would construct 5 new single-
family dwelling units; therefore, the project would not exceed any of the thresholds established by the SLOAPCD for
operational emissions. Therefore, potential impacts associated with project-related or a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment would be less than significant.
c) The project site is located within 1,000 feet of multiple sensitive receptors, including single -family residential units to
the north, east, and south of the project site. The development of five new single-family residences on-site would result
in temporary construction vehicle emissions and fugitive dust that may affect surrounding sensitive receptors.
SLOAPCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook recognizes special conditions, such as proximity to se nsitive receptors, that
require implementation of standard construction mitigation measures to reduce diesel idling (DPM) and fugitive dust.
Due to the project’s proximity to surrounding residential areas (less than 1,000 feet), standard measures for reduc ing
DPM and fugitive dust are required. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 have been identified to reduce exposure of
sensitive receptors to adverse fugitive dust and construction vehicle emissions; therefore, impacts would be less than
significant with mitigation.
The SLOAPCD Naturally Occurring Asbestos Map indicates that the project site is located within an area identified as
having a potential for NOA to occur. The project includes excavation for foundation installation and road construction,
and trenching and installation of new water, wastewater and stormwater service pipelines to the proposed new
residences. Pursuant to SLOAPCD requirements and the CARB ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and
Surface Mining Operations (17 CCR 93105), the applic ant is required to provide geologic evaluation prior to any
ground-disturbing activities and comply with existing regulations regarding NOA, if present. Mitigation Measures AQ-
3 and AQ-4 have been identified to require the applicant to complete a geologic evaluation and follow all applicable
protocols and procedures if NOA is determined to be present on-site. Based on compliance with identified mitigation
and existing regulations, this potential impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
Some or all of the existing infrastructure (pipes, fencing, paving, yard improvements) located on-site were constructed
before 1926 and may have the potential to include asbestos containing materials (ACM) and/or lead -based paint.
Demolition of these structures may have the potential to result in harmful asbestos or lead emissions. Mitigation
Measure AQ-5 has been identified to require full compliance with applicable regulatory requirements for removal and
disposal of these toxic contaminants if present on -site, including notification of the SLOAPCD prior to demolition of
existing utilities/improvements. Based on compliance with identified mitigation and existing regulations, potential
impacts associated with other emissions would be less than significant with mitigation.
d) Project development activities, such as building construction, utility trenching, and installation, would generate odors
associated with equipment exhaust and fumes. The proposed activities would not differ significantly from those
resulting from any other type of construction project. Any effects would be short term in nature and limited to the
construction phase of the proposed project. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Item 3
Packet Page 180
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
AQ-1 During all construction activities and use of diesel vehicles, the applicant shall implement the following idling control
techniques:
1. Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors for Both On- and Off-Road Equipment.
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors if feasible;
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted;
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment shall be used whenever possible; and,
d. Signs that specify the no idling requirements shall be posted an d enforced at the construction site.
2. California Diesel Idling Regulations. 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:
a. 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,
b. 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 1,000 feet of a restricted area, except as noted in Subsection
(d) of the regulation.
Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers of the 5 -minute idling
limit. The specific requirements and exceptions in the regulation can be reviewed at the following website:
www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/2485.pdf.
AQ-2 During all construction and ground-disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following particulate matter
control measures and detail each measure on the project grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor or builder
shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the
measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visib le emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity
for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. 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 provid ed to the City Community
Development Department prior to commencement of construction. 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.
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 SLOAPCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60 -minute period.
Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind s peeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed
(non-potable) water should be used whenever possible.
c. All dirt stockpile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust ba rriers 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 1 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 SLOAPCD.
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.
Item 3
Packet Page 181
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 miles per hour 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 2 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 Section 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 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 roadwa ys 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 plans.
m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons whose responsibility is to ensure any fugitive du st
emissions do not result in a nuisance and to enhance the implementation of the mitigation measures as nece ssary
to minimize dust complaints and reduce visible emissions below the SLOAPCD’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 SLOAPCD Compliance Division prior to the
start of any grading, earthwork, or demolition (Contact Tim Fuhs at 805-781-5912).
AQ-3 Prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities, the applicant shall retain a registered geologist to conduct a geologic
evaluation of the property, including sampling and testing for NOA in full compliance with SLOAPCD requirements
and the CARB ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (17 CCR 93105). This
geologic evaluation shall be submitted to the City Community Development Department upon completion. If the
geologic evaluation determines that the project would not have the potential to disturb NOA, the applicant must file an
Asbestos ATCM exemption request with the SLOAPCD.
AQ-4 If NOA are determined to be present on-site, proposed earthwork, demolition, and construction activities shall be
conducted in full compliance with the various regulatory jurisdictions regarding NOA, including the CARB ATCM for
Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Op erations (17 CCR 93105) and requirements stipulated in the
National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP; 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Section
61, Subpart M – Asbestos). These requirements include, but are not limited to, the foll owing:
a. Written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the SLOAPCD;
b. Preparation of an asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant; and
c. Implementation of applicable removal and disposal protocol and req uirements for identified NOA.
AQ-5 Prior to initiation of demolition activities, the applicant shall implemen t the following measures to reduce the risk
associated with disturbance of ACM and lead-coated materials that may be present within the existing structures onsite:
a. Demolition of the on-site structures shall comply with the procedures required by the Natio nal Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR 61, Subpart M – Asbestos) for the control of asbestos
emissions during demolition activities. SLOAPCD is the delegated authority by the U.S. EPA to implement
the Federal Asbestos NESHAP. Prior to demolition of on-site structures, SLOAPCD shall be notified, per
Item 3
Packet Page 182
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
NESHAP requirements. The project applicant shall submit proof that SLOAPCD has been notified prior to
demolition activities to the City Community Development Department.
b. If during the demolition of the existing structures, paint is separated from the construction materials (e.g.,
chemically or physically), the paint waste shall be evaluated independently from the buildi ng material by a
qualified hazardous materials inspector to determine its proper management. All hazardous materials shall be
handled and disposed of in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. According to the Department
of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), if the paint is not removed from the building material during demolition
(and is not chipping or peeling), the material can be disposed of as non -hazardous construction debris. The
landfill operator shall be contacted prior to disposal of lead-based paint materials. If required, all lead work
plans shall be submitted to SLOAPCD at least 10 days prior to the start of demolition. The applicant shall
submit proof that paint waste has been evaluated by a qualified hazardous waste materials inspector and handled
according to their recommendation to the City Community D evelopment Department.
Conclusion
With implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5, residual impacts associated with air quality would be less
than significant.
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?
1, 4 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
1, 4 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected
wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
1, 4, 17 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
1, 4 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
1, 7, 16 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
1, 18 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
Item 3
Packet Page 183
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
The project site is located in an urbanized area within downtown San Luis Obispo and is surrounded by residential and office
uses. The project site currently consists of five single-family residences with several street trees located along the frontage of
Peach Street and Toro Street, and several trees scattered throughout the parcel. The nearest water feature to the project site is
San Luis Obispo Creek, located approximately 0.3 mile to the southeast.
The city of San Luis Obispo is generally surrounded by open rangeland used for grazing and other agricultural uses and open
space areas that support a variety of natural habitats and plant communities. The city’s many creeks provide sheltered corridors
that allow local wildlife to move between habitats and open space areas. The City COSE identifies various goals and policies to
maintain, enhance, and protect natural communities within the City planning area. These policies include, but are not limited to,
protection of listed species and species of special concern, preservation of existing wildlife corridors, protection of signif icant
trees, and maintenance of development setbacks from creeks.
The City’s Tree Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 12.24) was ado pted in 2010 and recently updated in 2019 with the purpose
of establishing a comprehensive program for installing, maintaining, and preserving trees within the city. This ordinance inc ludes
policies that encourage preservation of trees whenever possible and feasible, detail the procedure and requirements for acquisition
of a permit for tree removal within the city, and identify application requirements for tree removals associated with development
permits. The City has also established a Heritage Tree Progr am which protects Heritage trees throughout the city designated by
the Tree Committee and City Council. Based on the City’s GIS Division Heritage Trees map, no heritage trees are locat ed within
the project site.
a) The project would allow for the development of five new single-family residences within the project site, consistent
with adjacent areas. The project is located in downtown San Luis Obispo and surrounded by moderately dense
residential and office uses. Due to the level of existing development, freq uent human activity, regular vehicle noise,
lighting, and developed nature of the area, the project site does not contain suitable habitat for sensitive plant or wildlife
species. Therefore, impacts to special-status plants and wildlife would be less than significant.
b) There are no mapped blue line creeks and no riparian vegetation or other sensitive natural communities within or
immediately adjacent to the proposed area of disturbance. The project is located approximately 0.3 mile from the nearest
creek and associated riparian habitat and would not result in any direct or indirect impacts to this habitat. Therefore, the
project would not result in impacts to riparian habitat or other sen sitive natural communities and no impact would occur.
c) Based on the National Wetlands Inventory Map, the project site does not support state or federal wetlands or other
potentially jurisdictional water features. Therefore, the project would not result in an adverse effect on state or federally
protected wetlands and no impacts would occur.
d) The project is not located within an area designated as a wildlife corridor within the COSE. The project site does not
contain habitat features conducive to migratory wildlife species such as riparian corridors or ridgelines. Project
development would result in the removal of mature trees, several of which are larger than 12 inches in diameter at
standard height (DSH). Bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) may have the potential to
pass through the area and nest in trees on the project site. While in an urban environment, mature trees have the potential
to support nesting habitat for birds. If project construction activities are conducted between February and September,
they could result in direct and indirect impacts to nesting birds, if present. 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 impact. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is included to minimize potential impacts to nesting migratory birds
during construction. With implementation of BIO-1, the project would not interfere with the movement of resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or wildlife nursery sites and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
e) The project site does not contain any heritage trees or native vegetatio n. The proposed subdivision and subsequent
development of five single-family residences would result in the removal of up to five mature trees. The project would
add six new street trees (four dwarf southern magnolias and two mayten trees) to be located along the Peach Street and
Toro Street property frontages, which would compensate for the tree removals. The project would not adversely affect
sensitive habitats or resources identified in the COSE or impact any heritage trees designated by the Heritage Tree
Program. The proposed area of disturbance does not support sensitive resources that are protected by local policies and
Item 3
Packet Page 184
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
plans. Therefore, the project would not result in a conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources and impacts would be less than significant.
f) The project is not located within an area under an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved state, regional, or local habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with
the provisions of an adopted plan and no impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures
BIO-1 If feasible, tree removal shall be scheduled to occur from September 16 to January 31, outside of the typical nesting
bird season, to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds. If tree removal or other construction activit ies are proposed
during the nesting season (February 1 through September 15), prior to any ground disturbing activity, surveys for active
nests shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within one week prior to the start of activities. If nesting birds are
located on or near the proposed project site, they shall be avoided until they have successfully fledged or the nest is no
longer deemed active. A non-disturbance buffer of 50 feet will be placed around non-listed, passerine species, and a
250-foot buffer will be implemented for raptor species. All activity will remain outside of that buffer until a qualified
biologist has determined that the young have fledged or that proposed construction activities would not cause adverse
impacts to the nest, adults, eggs, or young. If special-status avian species are identified, no work shall be conducted
until an appropriate buffer is determined in consultation with the City and the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Conclusion
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is included to minimize potential impacts to nesting migratory birds during construction. No other
potentially significant impacts were identified. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, project impacts to
biological resources would be less than significant.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource pursuant to §15064.5 ? 3, 19, 20 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 ? 4, 61 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? 4, 61 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Evaluation
Pre-Historic Setting
Archaeological evidence demonstrates that Native American groups (including the Chumash) have occupied the Central Coast
for at least 10,000 years. San Luis Obispo is located within an area historically occupied by the Obispeño Chumash, the
northernmost of the Chumash people of California. The earliest evidence of human occupation in the region comes from
archaeological sites along the coast. The project site is located within a Burial Sensitivity Area as identified in Figure 1 of the
COSE.
Historic Setting
The City COSE establishes various goals and policies to balance cultural and historical resource preservation with other
community goals. These policies include, but are not limited to the following:
Item 3
Packet Page 185
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
• Identification, preservation, and rehabilitation of significant historic and architectural resources;
• Prevention of demolition of historically or architecturally significant buildings unless doing so is necessary to
remove a threat to health and safety;
• Consistency in the design of new buildings in historical districts to reflect the form, spacing and materials of
nearby historic structures; and
• Identification and protection of neighborhoods or districts having historical character due to the collective effect
of Contributing or Master List historic properties.
The City Historic Preservation Ordinance (SLOMC14.01) was adopted in 2010 for the purpose of promoting the public health,
safety and welfare through the identification, protection, enhancement and preservation of those properties, structures, site s,
artifacts and other cultural resources that represent distinctive elements of San Luis Obispo’s cultural, educational, social,
economic, political and architectural history. This ordinance includes the responsibilities of the Cultural Heritage Committe e
(CHC), which is responsible for reviewing and providing recommendations to City Council regarding certain projects associated
with historic districts and/or resources. The ordinance establishes the City’s historical designations “Master List”, “Contri buting
List Resources or Properties”, and “Non-contributing Properties”, and references the use of the Secretary of Interior Standards,
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines for projects that
involve new development in Historic Districts and the modification, demolition or relocation of structures included on the
Inventory of Historic Resources.
The project site is located within the Mill Street Historic District Preservation Overlay Zone (C-D-H). The Mill Street Historic
District is one of five historic districts in the city which also include Old Town, Chinatown, Downtown, and the Railroad Historic
District. The Mill Street Historic District was developed at the turn of the 20 th century, with the majority of the existing buildings
dating from the 1900s to 1920s, the district’s primary period of historical and architectural significance. Architectural styles in
the Mill Street district include examples of Neo-classic Row House, Victorian (with elements of Gothic Revival, Queen Anne,
Stick and Eastern Shingle), Tudor Revival, Mission Revival, and Craftsman Bungalow, with many homes borrowing
architectural details from more than one style.
The parcel is currently occupied by five single -family residences constructed between 1906 and 1925. All five of the existing
residences on-site are listed as contributing resources to the Mill Street Historic District. The proposed project would construct
five new two-story, single-family residences (each with a double garage below th e main living area) on the project site. The
City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines provide guidance for construction within historic districts and on properties
with historic resources, alterations to historic resources, and reconstruction of his toric resources.
Characteristics of houses defining the Mill Street Historic District include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Houses set back from the street;
• Either no garage or later-built garages, generally small, detached, and set behind or be side the house;
• Either no driveway or Hollywood driveways of two parallel concrete strips;
• Raised foundation, requiring several steps leading from street t o the front door; and
• Recessed and sheltered usable front porches that are a focal point in design .
The project would not demolish, relocate, or alter the existing one-story residences, but would provide additional rear
access and parking, permeable paving patios, utility improvements, and landscaping improvements at these existing
residences.
a) The project is subject to the City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Guidelines. The intent of the Guidelines is
to ensure that new structures “shall be designed to be architecturally compatible” with the prevailing historic character.
A Historic Preservation Report was prepared by SWCA for the project and concluded that none of the project’s proposed
design features, either individually or collectively, would constitute an effect that would cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an historical resource – in this instance defined as any or all of the adjacent contributing
properties to the Mill Street Historic District or the Mill Street Historic District as a whole. Similarly, none of the
Item 3
Packet Page 186
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
project’s proposed design features, either individually or collectively, would cause substantial adverse change in the
significance of an historical resource (as defined above) such that that the significance of the historical resource would
be materially impaired (14 CCR § 15064.5[b][1]). Therefore, the Historic Preservation Report concluded that the
proposed development would not cause the project to have a significant effect on the environment as defined under
CEQA (14 CCR § 15064.5[b]). Potential impacts would be less than significant.
b) The project site is located in a Burial Sensitivity Area per the City’s COSE. A Cultural Resources Survey of the Peach
and Toro Project was prepared for the project in March 2020, which included review of archival records and
archaeological site records, a records search at the Central Coast Information Center (CCIC), and an intensive survey
of the project site. The records search identified no cultural resources recorded within the project site. The field
investigation and survey identified no prehistoric materials or resources within the project site. The Cultural Resources
Survey concluded that the potential for intact archaeological resources to exist on the project site is low. In the unlikely
event that buried cultural materials are encountered during construction, all ground disturbances will cease until a
qualified archaeologist is contacted to evaluate the nature, integrity, and significance of the deposit (refer to mitigation
measures CR-1 through CR-3, below).
Therefore, impacts related to a substantial adverse change in the significance of archaeological resources would be less
than significant with mitigation.
c) No human remains are known to exist within the project site; however, the discovery of unknown human remains is a
possibility during ground-disturbing activities. Protocol for properly responding to the inadvertent discovery of human
remains is identified in the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and is detailed in Mitigation
Measure CR-3. Potential impacts related to disturbance of human remains would be less than significant with
incorporation of Mitigation Measure CR-3. Therefore, impacts related to disturbance of human remains would be less
than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
CR-1 Cultural Resource Awareness Training. Prior to construction activities, a qualified archaeologist shall conduct a cultural
resource awareness training for all construction personnel including the following:
a. Review the types of archaeological artifacts that may be uncovered;
b. Provide examples of common archaeological artifacts to examine;
c. Review what makes an archaeological resource significant to archaeologists and local native Americans;
d. Describe procedures for notifying involved or interested parties in case of a new discovery;
e. Describe reporting requirements and responsibilities of construction personnel;
f. Review procedures that shall be used to record, evaluate, and mitigate new discoveries; and
g. Describe procedures that would be followed in the case of discovery of disturbed as well as intact human burials
and burial-associated artifacts.
CR-2 If cultural resources are encountered during subsurface earthwork activities, all ground disturbing activities within a 25 -
foot radius of the find shall cease and the City shall be notified immediately. Work shall not continue until a City-
qualified archaeologist assesses the find and determines the need for further study. If the find includes Native American
affiliated materials, a local Native American tribal representative will be contacted to work in conjunction with the City-
approved archaeologist to determine the need for further study. A standard inadvertent discovery clause shall be
included in every grading and construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously
unidentified resources found during construction shall be re corded on appropriate California Department of Parks and
Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria by a qualified archaeologist.
If the resource is determined significant under CEQA, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a research
design and archaeological data recovery plan, in conjunction with locally affiliated Native American representative(s)
Item 3
Packet Page 187
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
as necessary, that will capture those categories of data for which the site is significant. The archaeologist shall also
perform appropriate technical analysis, prepare a comprehensive report, and file it with the Central Coast Information
Center (CCIC), located at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and provide for the permanent curation of the
recovered materials.
CR-3 In the event that human remains are exposed during earth disturbing activities associated with the project, an immediate
halt work order shall be issued and the Community Development Director and locally affiliated Native American
representative(s) (as necessary) shall be notified. State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further
disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains shall occur until the
County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall notify the Native American
Heritage Commission within 24 hours. These requirements shall be printed on all building and grading plans.
Conclusion
With implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-3, residual impacts associated with cultural resources would be
less than significant.
6. ENERGY
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy
resources, during project construction or operation?
21, 23,
24 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency?
21, 22,
23, 24 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) has historically been the primary electricity provider for the City. In October 2018,
the City Council committed to joining the Monterey Bay Community Power (MBCP) and beginning in January 2020, MBCP is
the City’s primary electricity provider. MBCP provides 100% carbon-free electricity.
The California Building Code (CBC) contains standards that regulate the method of use, properties, performance, or types of
materials used in the construction, alteration, improvement, repair, or rehabilitation of a building or other improvement to real
property. The CBC includes mandatory g reen building standards for residential and nonresidential structures, the most recent
version of which are referred to as the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. These standards focus on four key areas:
smart residential photovoltaic systems, updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to the
exterior and vice versa), residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements, and nonresidential lighting requirements.
The City is currently developing local amendments to the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) to encourage all-electric new
buildings. When paired with Monterey Bay Community Power's carbon free electr icity supply, all electric new buildings are
carbon free and avoid health and safety issues associated with fossil fuels and GHGs. At its meeting on Tuesday, September 3,
2019, the City Council introduced the Clean Energy Choice Program; the City Council h as yet to adopt the ordinance. Unlike
some cities that are banning natural gas entirely, the proposed Clean Energy Choice Program will provide options to people who
want to develop new buildings with natural gas. New projects wishing to use natural gas wil l be required to build more efficient
and higher performing buildings and offset natural gas use by perfor ming retrofits on existing buildings or by paying an in-lieu
fee that will be used for the same purpose.
The City COSE establishes goals and policies to achieve energy conservation and increase use of cleaner, renewable, and locally
controlled energy sources. These goals include increasing the use of sustainable energy sources and reducing reliance on non -
Item 3
Packet Page 188
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 21 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
sustainable energy sources to the extent possible and encouraging the provision for and protection of solar access. Policies
identified to achieve these goals include, but are not limited to, use of best available practices in energy conservation,
procurement, use and production; energy-efficiency improvements; pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly facility design; fostering
alternative transportation modes; compact, high-density housing; and solar access standards.
The City Climate Action Plan also identifies strategies and policies to increase use of cleaner and renewable energy resources in
order to achieve the City’s GHG emissions reduction target. These strategies include promoting a wide range of renewable energy
financing options, incentivizing renewable energy generation in new and existing developments, and increasing community
awareness of renewable energy programs. The City’s CAP is currently being updated.
a) During construction, fossil fuels, electricity, and natural gas would be used by construction vehicles and equipment.
The energy consumed during construction would be temporary in nature and would be typical of other similar
construction activities in the city. State and federal regulations in place require fuel-efficient equipment and vehicles
and prohibit wasteful activities, such as diesel idling; therefore, potential impacts associated with construction energy
use would be less than significant.
The project would result in an overall increase in consumption of energy resources associated with vehicle trips and
electricity and natural gas usage by project occupants. The project would be designed in full compliance with the CBC,
including applicable green building standards, ensuring a high standard for energy efficiency in building design,
materials, light fixtures, and appliances. The project would rely on the local electricity service provider, MBCP, to
supply project electricity needs. MBCP provides 100 percent carbon-free electricity. Compliance with existing building
codes would ensure the project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources . Through use of 100% greenhouse gas (GHG) free
electricity resources, project energy use would not result in a significant environmental impact; therefore, impacts would
be less than significant.
b) The project would be designed in full compliance with the CBC, including applicable green building standards. The
project would be consistent with energy goals and policies in the COSE associated with use of best available practices
in energy conservation. The project would be consistent with other goals and policies set forth in the City’s Climate
Action Plan associated with renewable energy or energy efficiency , including the provision of compact, high-density
housing. Therefore, the project would not result in a conflict with , or obstruction of, a state or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Conclusion
The project has been located and designed in full compliance with applicable energy efficiency standards, and would not co nflict
with state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. No potentially significant impacts related to energy wou ld
occur and no mitigation measures are necessary .
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
Item 3
Packet Page 189
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 22 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by
the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
14, 25,
26 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? 14, ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 14 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv. Landslides? 14 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1, 26, 28 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
14, 29 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 of
the California Building Code (2013), creating substantial direct
or indirect risks to life or property?
14, 29 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
1 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature? 1, 29, 30 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The City’s General Plan Safety Element identifies active, potentially active, and inactive mapped and inferred faults with the
potential to affect the city in the event of rupture. The Los Osos Fault, adjacent to San Luis Obispo, is identified under the State
of California Alquist-Priolo Fault Hazards Act and is classified as active. The West Huasna, Oceanic, and Edna faults are
considered potentially active and present a moderate fault rupture hazard to developments near them. The San Andreas Fault and
the offshore Hosgri Fault, which present the most likely source of ground shaking for San Luis Obispo, have a high probabilit y
of producing a major earthquake within an average lifespan. The highest risk of ground shaking is found on deep soils that were
deposited by water, are geologically recent, and have many pore spaces among the soil grains. These soils are typically in valleys.
Faults capable of producing strong ground -shaking motion in San Luis Obispo include the Los Osos, Point San Luis, Black
Mountain, Rinconada, Wilmar, Pecho, Hosgri, La Panza, and San Andreas faults. Engineering standards and building codes set
minimum design and construction methods for structures to resist seismic shaking. Based on the DOC Fault Activity Map and
the Safety Element Earthquake Faults – Local Area map, the project site is not located within or in the immediate vicinity of an
active fault zone.
The project site is underlain by one soil unit, as described below, based on the San Luis Obispo County Soil Survey:
162. Los Osos-Diablo Complex, 5-9% slopes. This complex is about 35% Los Osos soil and 30% Diablo soil. The Los Osos
soil is moderately deep and well-drained. Permeability is slow and the available water capacity is low to medium. Surface
runoff is medium and the hazard of water erosion is moderate. The Diablo soil is deep and well drained. Permeability is
slow and the available water capacity is moderate to very high. Surface runoff is medium and the hazard of water erosion is
slight. This soil has high shrink-swell potential. The main limitations for these soils for urban development are high shrink -
swell potential, low strength and slow permeability. These soils are hard to pack. These limitations can require special design
considerations for urban development and most other engineering practices.
Item 3
Packet Page 190
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 23 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
A geotechnical investigation report was prepared by Pacific Coast Testing, Inc. to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the
project site. The geotechnical investigation identified sandy clays with medium to high expansivity to a depth of 4 to 5 feet with
Franciscan bedrock below.
a.i) Based on Figure 3 (Earthquake Faults – Local Area) of the Safety Element and the DOC Fault Activity Map of
California, no known fault lines are mapped on or within 0.5 mile of the project site. Therefore, the project would not
have the potential to result in substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault and imp acts
would be less than significant.
a.ii) Due to the highly seismic nature of the region, potential future development on the project site would very likely be
subject to strong seismic ground shaking at some point(s) during the life of the project. The geotechnical investigation
identified a peak ground acceleration for the project site of 0.46 1 gravity (2% probability in 50 years) which would
produce severe perceived ground shaking with moderate to heavy potential damage. Development of the five additional
single-family residences onsite would be required to be designed in full compliance with seismic design criteria
established in the CBC to adequately withstand and minimize the risk associated with the level of seismic ground
shaking expected to occur in the project region. The geotechnical investigation included recommendations to minimize
seismic risks. Development would be designed in full compliance with seismic design criteria established in the CBC
and would adhere to the recommendations in the geotechnical report; therefore, impacts associated with strong seismic
groundshaking would be less than significant.
a.iii) The geotechnical report included an evaluation of on-site soils and potential soil limitations, including expansive soils
and liquefaction. Due to the soil density, the presence of clayey soils, and the shallow depth to bedrock, the potential
for liquefaction at the site is low.
In accordance with CBC Chapter 18, any geologic issues identified in the report would be addressed through standard
site construction techniques, as required by the CBC. Potential future development on the project site would be required
to be designed in compliance with standard seismic design criteria established in the CBC to reduce risk associated with
seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. In addition, the project would be designed in accordance with all
recommendations of the geotechnical report. Therefore, impacts related to substantial adverse effects due to seismic-
related ground failure would be less than significant.
a.iv) The project site is essentially flat. Based on the Ground Shaking and Landslide Hazards Map in the City Safety Element,
the project site is located within an area with low landslide potential. Therefore, the pro ject would not result in
significant adverse effects associated with landslides and no impacts would occur.
b) The project is located within a developed infill site and does not include substantial vegetation removal. No substantial
permanent changes in existing topography or total area of exposed soil would occur. The project would require surface
grading and deeper cuts for foundation and utility installation. Grading permits are required for projects, excavations,
or fills exceeding 50 cubic yards in volume and require implementation of standard Best Management Practices (BMPs)
to ensure substantial erosion, siltation, and/or sedimentation are avoided. Therefore, compliance with existing regulation
and BMPs would reduce potential impacts related to soil erosion and loss of topsoil to less than significant.
c) The Geotechnical Report prepared for the project site identified expansivity of the on-site soils as the primary soils
engineering concern. The report identified little or no potential for landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse. Project construction would follow the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and would be required
to be designed in compliance with standard seismic design criteria established in the CBC to reduce risk associated with
seismic-related ground failure. Construction would also be required to comply with CBC seismic requirements to
address potential seismic-related ground failure. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
d) Based on the Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County, the project site is located in an area underlain by s oils with
moderate-to-high shrink-swell potential. Based on the 2019 Geotechnical Report, soil expansivity is a primary concern
at the project site. Soil borings conducted in 2019 indicated that the upper sandy clay onsite met the criteria to be
classified in the “high” expansion category, per CBC Table 18-I-B. The volume changes that soils undergo in this
Item 3
Packet Page 191
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 24 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
cyclical pattern can stress and damage slabs and foundations. Review of 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 accordance with CBC
Chapter 18. Any issues identified in the report will be addressed through standard site construction techniques, as
required by the Code, and/or through compliance with the recommendations of the project’s Geotechnical Report.
Typical precautionary measures would likely include premoistening the underlying soil in conjunction with placement
of non-expansive material beneath slabs, and a deepened and more heavily reinforced fo undation. In addition, the
project would be required to be designed in compliance with standard seismic design criteria established in the CBC to
reduce risk associated with ground failure, including from expansive soils. Therefore, based on compliance wit h existing
regulations, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant.
e) The project would include a new connection to the City sewer system. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater
treatment systems are proposed onsite. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
f) The project site is underlain by Franciscan Assemblage composed of a mélange of claystone, graywacke, and blocks of
other Franciscan rocks of the Mesozoic era. The Franciscan Assemblage consists of various types of rocks that form ed
along the Pacific Oceanic and North American Plates; these rocks were subsequently deformed and meta morphosed
during subduction of the Pacific Oceanic Plate. Various authors have reported the presence of marine invertebrates in
the Franciscan Assemblage throughout California (e.g., Bailey et al. 1964); however, marine invertebrate fossil
specimens are generally common, well developed, and well documented. They would generally not be considered a
unique paleontological resource. Because of the nature of this rock assemblage (e.g., vertebrate fossils in the original
parent material generally would have been destroyed during the subduction and metamorphosis process) and the general
lack of previously recorded vertebrate fossil localities, this formation is c onsidered to have a low paleontological
sensitivity.
There are no known paleontological resources on th e project site and there are no unique geologic features on the
property. Grading and excavation is proposed for residential foundations to remove expansive soils. Based on the low
sensitivity of the underlying geologic unit and the lack of proposed activities that would result in significant cuts into
bedrock, the project would not have the potential to result in impacts to a unique paleontological resour ce or unique
geologic feature; therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Conclusion
Based on the location of the project site and underlying geologic and soil properties, and compliance with existing regulations
and recommendations of the required Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the project , potential impacts would be less than
significant and no mitigation measures are required .
8. 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, 11 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
10, 12,
23 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
Item 3
Packet Page 192
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 25 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
GHGs are any gases that absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere and are different from the criteria pollutants discussed in
Section 3, Air Quality, above. The primary GHGs that are emitted into the atmosphere as a result of human activities are carbon
dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases. In 2012, the City established a Climate Action Plan
that identified measures and implementation strategies in order to achieve the City’s GHG reduction target of 1990 emission
levels by 2020. The City’s Climate Action Plan is currently being updated. In addition, the City is currently developing a plan
for achieving carbon neutrality by 2035. The City’s 2016 Community Wide GHG Emissions Inventory showed that 50% of the
city’s GHG emissions came from transportation, 22% came from commercial and industrial use s, 21% came from residential
uses, and 7% from waste.
Statewide legislation, rules, and regulations have been adopted to reduce GHG emissions from significant sources. Senate Bill
(SB) 32 and Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 extended the state’s GHG reduction goals and required the CARB to regulate sources
of GHGs to meet a state goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, 40 % below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80%
below 1990 levels by 2050. Other statewide policies adopted to reduce GHG emissions include Assembly Bill (AB) 32, SB 375,
SB 97, Clean Car Standards, Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Renewable Portfolio Standard, CBC, and the California Solar Initiative.
Plans, policies, and guidelines have also been established at the regional and local levels to a ddress GHG emissions and climate
change effects within the city. In March 2012, the SLOAPCD approved thresholds for GHG emission impacts, and these
thresholds have been incorporated into the CEQA Air Quality Handbook and updated in 2017 with a clarification memorandum.
The Bright-Line Threshold of 1,150 Metric Tons of CO2/year (MTCO2e/yr) is the most applicable GHG threshold for most
projects. Table 1-1 in the SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (updated November 2017) provides a list of general land
uses and the estimated sizes or capacities of those uses expected to exceed the GHG Bright Line Threshold of 1,150 MTCO2/yr.
Projects that exceed the criteria or are within 10% of exceeding the criteria presented in Table 1-1 are required to conduct a more
detailed analysis of air quality impacts. It is important to note the Bright-Line Threshold of 1,150 MT CO2/year was developed
to meet the state goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020; however, construction and operation of the project
would occur well beyond 2020. Therefore, the project would be subject to the SB 32 -based targets for 2030, which are 40%
below the AB 32-based 2020 targets. The SLOAPCD’s GHG thresholds have not been updated to comply with SB 32 and the
more recent, more stringent GHG reduction goals; therefore, the Bright Line Threshold and SLOAPCD screening thresholds are
included for informational purposes only.
a) Construction-related activities that would generate GHG emissions include worker trips and hauling trips to and from
the project site, and off-road construction equipment (i.e. dozers, loaders, excavators). As discussed in Section 3. Air
Quality, project emissions during construction activities would not exceed SLOAPCD’s construction emissions
thresholds. In addition, impacts related to GHG emissions occur on a global scale and are, therefore, cumulative in
nature. Short-term construction-related emissions rarely result in a considerable contribution to GHG emissions. The
project would be well below the thresholds established in Table 1-1 of the SLOAPCD’s CEQA Handbook for
operational GHG emissions. Therefore, the project would not exceed the operational thresholds established by the
SLOAPCD for GHG emissions. The project would rely on the local electricity service provider, MBCP, to supply
project electricity needs, which supplies energy from 100% GHG-free sources.
The proposed development proposes infill development and is located in close proximity to local public transit facilities
and bicycle infrastructure, increasing the ability for future occupants to replace vehicle trips with alternative modes of
transportation, further reducing its overall GHG emissions. The project is also consistent with CARB’S 2017 Scoping
Plan, which describes local planning efforts that can further reduce GHG reduction goals, including through developing
land use plans with more efficient development patterns that bring people and destinations closer together in more
mixed-use, compact communities that facilitate walking, biking, and use of transi t. Therefore, the project would not
generate substantial GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the
environment, and potential impacts would be less than significant.
b) As discussed in threshold a) above, the project would not exceed any of the operational thresholds es tablished by the
SLOAPCD for GHG emissions. The project would be consistent with the land use policies identified in the SLOAPCD
CAP that encourage cities to develop at higher densities and encour age growth within their respective urban reserve
lines to reduce overall vehicle trips and travel distances. The project would be consistent with policies established in
CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan and the City’s CAP promoting infill development. The project would not conflict with or
Item 3
Packet Page 193
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 26 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
obstruct implementation of a plan or policy adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions; therefore, impacts
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Conclusion
The project would be located and designed to minimize GHG emissions and would not result in a conflict with an applicable
plan or policy adopted for reducing GHG emissions. No potentially significant impacts associated with GHG emissions have
been identified and no mitigation measures are n ecessary.
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
1 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
1, 13 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
1 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
32, 33 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area?
35 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
1 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires?
1 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The Hazardous Waste and Substances Site (Cortese) List is a resource used by the state, local agencies, and developers to comply
with CEQA requirements related to the disclosure of information about the location of hazardous materials release sites.
California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) to develop,
at least annually, an updated Cortese List. Various state and local government agencies are required to track and document
Item 3
Packet Page 194
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 27 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
hazardous material release information for the Cortese List. The California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC)
EnviroStor database tracks DTSC cleanup, permitting, enforcement, and investigation efforts at hazardous waste facilities and
sites with known contamination, such as federal superfund sites, state response sites, voluntary cleanup sites, school cleanup
sites, school investigation sites, and military evaluation sites. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker
database contains records for sites that impact, or have the potential to impact, water in California, such as Leaking Underground
Storage Tank (LUST) sites, Department of Defense sites, and Cleanup Program Sites. The remaining data regarding facilities or
sites identified as meeting the “Cortese List” requirements can be located on the Cal/EPA website:
https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/.
Based on a review of the SWRCB Geotracker database and the DTSC EnviroStor database, there are no active hazardous waste
cleanup sites within the project site. The closest cleanup site is located immediately south of the project site; the closed cleanup
site has been remediated and closed since 2002.
Based on the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, the project site is not located
within the Airport Land Use Planning Area or noise contours.
a) The project does not propose the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous substances. Any potentially hazardous
substances used within the project site during construction or buildout conditions (e.g., cleaners, solvents, oils, paints,
etc.) would be transported, stored, and used according to regulatory requirements and existing procedures for t he
handling of hazardous materials. Therefore, project impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous substances would be less than significant.
b) The project does not propose the routine handling or use of hazardous materials or volatile substances that would result
in a significant risk of upset or accidental release conditions. Demolition and construction activities associated with the
proposed project are anticipated to require use of limited quantities of hazardous substance s, including gasoline, diesel
fuel, hydraulic fluid, solvents, oils, and paints.
The project includes demolition of existing infrastructure on the property that could contain asbestos and lead (e.g.,
through driveway modifications, utility line replacement, etc.). Asbestos, a naturally occurring fibrous material, was
used as a fireproofing and insulating agent in building construction before being banned by the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in the 1970s. Because it was widely used prior to discovery of its negative health effects,
asbestos can be found in a variety of building materials and components including sprayed-on acoustic ceiling materials,
thermal insulation, wall and ceiling texture, floor tiles, and pipe insulation. Asbestos is classified into two main
categories: friable and non-friable. Friable asbestos can release asbestos fibers easily when disturbed and is considered
Regulated Asbestos-Containing Material (RACM). Friable (easily crumbled) materials are particularly hazardous
because inhalation of airborne fibers is the primary mode of asbestos entry into the body, which potentially causes lung
cancer and asbestosis. Non-friable asbestos will release fibers less readily than RACM and is referred to as Category I
or Category II, non-friable. Non-friable asbestos and encapsulated friable asbestos do not pose substantial health risks.
The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) considers asbestos containing building
materials (ACBM) to be hazardous when a sample contains more than 0.1 percent as bestos by weight; Cal/OSHA
requires it to be handled by a licensed, qualified contractor.
Lead can be found in paint, water pipes, plumbing solder, and in soils around buildings and structures with lead-based
paint. In 1978, the federal government required the reduction of lead in house paint to less than 0.06 percent (600 parts
per million [ppm]). However, some paints manufactured after 1978 for industrial uses or marine uses legally contain
more than 0.06 percent lead. Exposure to lead can result in bioa ccumulation of lead in the blood, soft tissues, and bones.
Children are particularly susceptible to potential lead-related health problems because lead is easily absorbed into
developing systems and organs.
Prior to any building demolition, CCR Title 8 Section 5208 requires that a state-certified risk assessor conduct a risk
assessment and/or paint inspection of all structures constructed prior to 1978 for t he presence of asbestos. If such hazards
are determined to exist onsite, the risk assessor would pre pare a site-specific hazard control plan detailing ACBM
removal methods and specific instructions for providing protective clothing and gear for abatement p ersonnel. If
Item 3
Packet Page 195
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 28 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
necessary, the project sponsor would be required to retain a state certified ACBM remov al contractor (independent of
the risk assessor) to conduct the appropriate abatement measures as required by the plan. Wastes from abatement and
demolition activities would be disposed of at a landfill(s) licensed to accept such waste. Once all abatement measures
have been implemented, the risk assessor would conduct a clearance examination and provide written documentation
to the City that testing, and abatement have been completed in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws and
regulations.
Several regulations and guidelines pertain to abatement of and protection from exposure to lead -based paint. These
include Construction Safety Order 1532.1 from Title 8 of the CCR and lead-based paint exposure guidelines provided
by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In California, lead -based paint abatement must be
performed and monitored by contractors with appropriate certification from the California Department of Health
Services. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure impacts related to hazardous materials exposure would be
less than significant.
The project would be subject to the City’s Municipal Code requirements associated with Demolition and Moving of
Buildings public safety standards. These standards include general requirements for building demolition activities,
permitting for such activities, and includes subsections for dust and debris management, fire safety, and removal and
disposal of demolition materials. Construction contractors would be required to comply w ith applicable federal and
state environmental and workplace safety laws for the handling of hazardous materials, including the Federal OSHA
Process Safety Management Standard (California Code of Regulations 29.1910.119), which includes requirements for
preventing and minimizing the consequences of accidental release of hazardous materials. In addition, Mitigation
Measures AQ-3, AQ-4 and AQ-5 have been identified to require full compliance with applicable regulatory
requirements for removal and disposal of toxic contaminants if present on-site, including notification of the SLOAPCD
prior to demolition of the existing structure. Therefore, potential impacts wou ld be less than significant with mitigation.
c) The project site is located approximately 0.36 mile from the nearest school facility, Mission College Preparatory
Catholic High School, located at 761 Broad Street. The project site is not located within 0.25 mile of an existing or
proposed school facility. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
d) Based on a search of the DTSC EnviroStar database, the SWRCB Geotracker database, and Cal/EPA’s Cortese List
website, there are no hazardous waste cleanup sites within the project site. The closest cleanup site is located
immediately south of the project site and has been remediated and closed since 2002. There are no active hazardous
waste cleanup sites within the project site or within close proximity to the project site. Therefore, impacts would be less
than significant.
e) The project site is located approximately 2.9 miles north of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. Based on
the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport ALUP, the project is not located within the airport Land Use Planning
Area or noise contours. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
f) The project could result in periodic temporary lane closures along Toro Street during the construction phase. No road
closures are anticipated and the project would provide alternative detour routes through the project vicinity. Due to the
project site location, there are multiple detours available within 500 feet of proposed construction activities. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant temporary or permanent impact on any adopted
emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. Any construction-related detours would include proper
signage and notification and would be short-term and limited in nature and duration. For further discussion on potential
impacts to transportation, see Section 17. Therefore, potential impacts wo uld be less than significant.
g) The project is not located within or adjacent to a wildland area. The project would be required to comply with all
applicable fire safety rules and regulations including the California Fire Code and Public Resources Code prior to
issuance of building permits; therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Item 3
Packet Page 196
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 29 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-3, AQ-4, and AQ-5.
Conclusion
The project does not propose the routine transport, use, handling, or dispos al of hazardous substances. It is not located within
proximity to any known open contaminated sites, schools, or airports. Impacts related to the potential release of asbestos or lead
would be mitigated with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-3, AQ-4 and AQ-5. Project implementation would not
subject people or structures to substantial risks associated with wildland fires and would not impair implem entation or interfere
with any adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-3, AQ-4 and AQ-5 would
ensure potential impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant and no further mitigation
is necessary.
10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
37, 43 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
39, 40,
41 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site; 1, 37 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; 1, 37 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater draina ge systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
1, 37 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? 1, 38 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation? 38, 42 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
37, 39,
41, 43 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
The project site is located within the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed. The S an Luis Obispo Creek watershed is an
approximately 53,271-acre coastal basin in southern San Luis Obispo County. It rises to an elevation of about 2,500 feet above
sea level in the Santa Lucia Range. San Luis Obispo Creek flows to the Pacific Ocean and has six major tributary basins: Stenner
Creek, Prefumo Creek, Laguna Lake, East Branch San Luis Obispo Creek, Davenport Creek, and See Canyon. The creek flows
through the city of San Luis Obispo and empties into the Pacific Ocean just west of Avila Beach.
Item 3
Packet Page 197
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 30 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
The City is enrolled in the State General Permit National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program
governing stormwater. As part of this enrollment, the City is required to implement the Post-Construction Stormwater
Management requirements adopted by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) through the
development review process. The primary objective of these post-construction requirements is to ensure that the permittee is
reducing pollutant discharges to the Maximum Extent Practicable and preventing stormwater discharges from causing or
contributing to a violation of receiving water quality standards in all applicable development projects t hat require approvals
and/or permits issued.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year flood zone identifies areas that would be subject to inundation
in a 100-year storm event, or a storm with a 1% chance of occurring in any given year. Base d on FEMA’s National Flood Hazard
Layer (NFHL) Viewer, the project site is no t located within a 100-year flood zone.
In 2015, the state legislature approved the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). SGMA requires governments
and water agencies of high- and medium-priority basins to halt overdraft and bring groundwater basins into balanced levels of
pumping and recharge. Under SGMA, these basins should reach sustainability within 20 years of implementing their
sustainability plans. The project is located within the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin, which has been designated by
the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) as a high-priority basin. The County of San Luis Obispo (County) and
the City formed Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) within their respective jurisdictions to ensure full compliance with
SGMA throughout the entire San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin.
a) The project proposes infill development located within a developed site and would not include substantial vegetation
removal. The project site is not located in close proximity to any mapped creeks or surface water bodies that could be
adversely affected by project construction or operation. Because the project would be located within a developed area
comprised of residential yards and outbuildings and would include gutters , downspouts, and chambers to capture and
retain stormwater flows similar to existing conditions, implementation of the project would not substantially change the
volume or velocity of runoff off-site.
The City’s Public Works, Utilities, and Community Development Dep artments are responsible for coordinating the
implementation of the City’s Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP). This comprehensive program is required under
the Phase II Stormwater Regulations regulated by SWRCB, San Luis Obispo Region. The primary goal of t he program
is to minimize urban runoff that enters the municipal storm drain system and carries bacteria and other pollutants into
the local creeks, watershed, and to the ocean. As part of these requirements, the City has been mandated to establish a
set of minimum designated Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Pollution Prevention Methods (PPMs). BMPs are
steps taken to minimize or control the amount of pollutants and runoff. PPMs are strategies to eliminate the use of
polluting materials, and/or not expose potential pollutants to rainwater or other runoff. Development is required to be
undertaken in strict accordance with conditions and requirements of this program. The project site is generally flat and
does not pose a substantial risk to downslope runoff, sedimentation, erosion, or runoff. With implementation of standard
BMPs and PPMs, and compliance with the City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Standards related to stormwater
management, the project would not substantially affect surface water or groundw ater quality. Therefore, potential
impacts would be less than significant.
b) The project would be serviced by the City’s water system, which has four primary water sources, including the Whale
Rock Reservoir, Salinas Reservoir, Nacimiento Reservoir, and recycled water (for irrigation), with groundwater serving
as a fifth supplemental source. The City no longer draws groundwater for potable purposes as of 2015. Therefore, the
project would not deplete groundwater resources, and impacts would be less than significant.
c.i-iii) The project site is generally flat and does not pose a substantial risk to downslope runoff, sedimentation, or erosion.
The project site is currently developed with five existing single-family homes with associated driveways, yards, walks,
sidewalks, and street trees. The proposed single-family homes would include rooftop gutters and downspouts to capture
surface runoff. The runoff from the new residences and driveway connection would be directed to the existing landscape
to the east and captured within a proposed underground chamber placed under the proposed driveway.
Item 3
Packet Page 198
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 31 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
The project would not result in substantial permanent changes in impervious surface area onsite and would be designed
to adequately capture and retain stormwater flows. The project incorporates pervious pavers in exterior spaces (e.g.,
through use of pervious pavers in the common driveway and patios) which would further reduce changes in onsite
drainage patterns. Surface runoff and storm drains would drain into a proposed trench drain system that would connect
to a proposed stormwater storage system before draining to the existing City stormwater drain beneath Peach Street.
The proposed trench drain system has been designed to accommodate the volume of an 85 th percentile 24-hour storm
(1.2 inches of rainfall). The project site is not located in proximity to any surface stream or body of water that would be
subject to risk associated with erosion or siltation as the result of project construction or operation. The project in cludes
a stormwater storage system that would prevent substantial increases in stormwater runoff that would lead to on - or off-
site flooding or exceedance of existing stormwater drainage systems. With implementation of standard BMPs and
PPMs, and compliance with the City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Standards related to stormwater management, the
project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. Therefore, potential impacts associated
with alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the site would be less than significant.
c.iv) Based on the FEMA NFHL Viewer, the project site is not located within a 100 -year flood zone and, therefore, would
not have the potential to impede or redirect flood flows and impacts would be less than significant.
d) Based on the County of San Luis Obispo Tsunami Inundation Maps, the project site is not located in an area with
potential for inundation by a tsunami. The project site is not located within close proximity to a standing body of water
with the potential for a seiche to occur. Therefore, the project site has no potential to release pollutants due to project
inundation and no impacts would occur.
e) As discussed in the analysis above, the project would not deplete groundwater supplies, or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge. The project includes stormw ater storage facilities to facilitate onsite detention and would not
conflict with the Central Coastal Basin Plan or other water quality control plans. The project would not con flict with
SGMA, or other local or regional plans or policies intended to manage water quality or groundwater supplies; therefore,
no impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Conclusion
The project site is not located within a 100 -year flood zone and does not proposed alterations to existing drainages or other
surface waters. The project would not substantially increase impervious surfaces , would manage stormwater onsite, and does not
propose alterations to existing water courses. Therefore, potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less
than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
11. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 1 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with
any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
1, 4, 44 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
Item 3
Packet Page 199
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 32 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
The project site is located in a Medium-Density Residential with Historical Preservation Area Overlay Zone (R-2-H) and is
generally surrounded by office buildings to the south and southwest and residential neighborhoods on all other sides.
a) The proposed infill development would not result in a physical division between an established community. The project
would be consistent with the general level of development within the project vicinity and would not create, close, or
impede any existing public or private roads, or create any other barriers to movement or accessibility within the
community. Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community and no impacts
would occur.
b) The project would be consistent with the property’s land use designation and the guidelines and policies for development
within the applicable zoning designation, Land Use Element, and COSE. The project would be consistent with existing
surrounding land uses and designations and is not located within a site containing sensitive en vironmental resources;
therefore, the project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects and potential impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Conclusion
No potentially significant impacts associated with land use would result from the proposed project; therefore, no mitigation
measures are necessary.
12. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
4 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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?
4 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
Based on the COSE, mineral extraction is prohibited within city limits.
a-b) No known mineral resources are present within the project site and future extraction of mineral resources is very unlike ly
due to the urbanized nature of the area. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Conclusion
No impacts to mineral resources were identified; therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary.
Item 3
Packet Page 200
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 33 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
13. NOISE
Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
7, 45, 46 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels? 47, 48 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or
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?
35 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
The City’s General Plan Noise Element establishes standards for maximu m acceptable noise levels associated with stationary
and transportation sources. Noise created by new transportation noise sources are required to be mitigated to not exceed the
maximum acceptable noise levels below (Table 3).
Table 3. Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Uses due to Transportation Noise Sources
Noise-Sensitive Use
Outdoor
Activity
Areas1
Indoor Spaces
Ldn or CNEL
in dB
Ldn or CNEL
in dB Leq in dB2 Lmax in dB3
Residences, hotels, motels, hospitals, nursing homes 60 45 -- 60
Theaters, auditoriums, music halls -- -- 35 60
Churches, meeting halls, office building, mortuaries 60 -- 45 --
Schools, libraries, museums -- -- 45 60
Neighborhood parks 65 -- -- --
Playgrounds 70 -- -- --
Note: Ldn = day-night average sound level, CNEL = community noise equivalent level, dB = decibels, Leq = equivalent continuous sound level, Lmax =
maximum sound level.
1 If the location of outdoor activity areas is not shown, the outdoor noise standard shall apply at the property line of the receiving land use.
2 As determined for a typical worst-case hour during periods of use.
3 Lmax indoor standard applies only to railroad noise at locations south of Orcutt Road.
The Noise Element also identifies Policy 1.4, regarding noise created by new transportation sources, including road, railroad,
and airport expansion projects, which states noise from these sources shall be mitigated to not exceed the levels specified i n
Table 3 for outdoor activity areas and indoor spaces of noise-sensitive land uses.
In addition, per City Municipal Code Chapter 9.12 Noise Control, operating tools or equipment used in construction between
weekday hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. or any time on Sundays or holidays is strictly prohibited, except for emergency works
of public service utilities or by exception issued by the City’s Community Development Department. The Municipal Code also
Item 3
Packet Page 201
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 34 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
states that construction activities shall be conducted in such a manner, where technically and economically feasible, that the
maximum noise levels at affected properties will not exceed 75 A-weighted decibels (dBA) at single-family residences. Based
on the City’s Municipal Code, operating any device that creates vibration that is above the vibration perception threshold of an
individual at or beyond 150 feet from the source if on a public space or right -of-way is prohibited (9.12.050.B.7).
a) The project includes construction of five single-family homes and a new driveway and related appurtenances. During
construction of the project, noise from construction activities may intermittently dominate the noise environment in the
immediate area. Typical noise levels produced by equipment commonly used on demolition and constru ction projects
are shown in Table 4 below.
Table 4. Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels
Equipment Type Typical Noise Level (dBA)
50 ft From Source
Backhoe 80
Compactor 80
Concrete Mixer 85
Concrete Pump 82
Dozer 85
Excavator 85
Heavy Truck 84
Paver 85
Scraper 85
The project site is located approximately 10 feet from the nearest residential units, which generally surround the project
site. Noise produced by construction equipment would be short-term, intermittent, and would be required to comply
with City Municipal Code construction timeframe constraints prohibiting construction equipment use between weekday
hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. or any time on Sundays or holidays.
Based on the construction equipment anticipated to be used and proximity to surrounding single -family residences,
construction activities associated with future development of the site have the potential to exceed the construction noise
limit of 75 dBA at single-family residences established in the City Municipal Code. Mitigation Measure N-1 has been
identified to require that all construction equipment shall have the manufacturers’ recommended noise abatement
methods installed, such as mufflers, engine enclosures, and engine vibration insulators, intact and operational. In
addition, all construction activities would be limited to daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through
Saturday and would be prohibited on Sundays and federal and state holidays, in accordance with the City Municipal
Code Noise Control standards.
Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-5 would ensure potential impacts associated with
generation of a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established would be less than significant with mitigation.
Upon completion of construction activities, vehicle noise and other on-site residential noise generated from the new
single-family residences would be consistent with the surrounding noise levels and would not result in a substantial
increase in ambient noise levels. Therefore, impacts associated with generation of a substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance would be less than significant.
Item 3
Packet Page 202
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 35 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
b) Use of heavy equipment would generate groundborne noise and vibration ; however, the project does not propose pile
driving or other high impact activities that would generate substantial groundborne noise or groundborne vibration
during construction.
The vibration threshold at which there is a risk to historic and historic-age buildings is 0.5 inches per second particle
velocity (in/sec ppv) for transient sources and 0.25 in/sec ppv for continuous/frequent intermittent sources. With regard
to human perception, vibration levels would begin to be perceptible at levels of 0.04 in/sec ppv for continuous events
and 0.25 in/sec ppv for transient events. Groundborne vibration levels associated with representative construction
equipment are summarized in Table 5 below.
Table 5. Representative Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment Peak Particle Velocity at 25 feet (in/sec)
Large bulldozer 0.089
Caisson drilling 0.089
Loaded trucks 0.076
Jackhammer 0.035
Small Bulldozers 0.0003
While some construction activities may result in perceptible vibration, the project -generated vibration levels would be
well below the thresholds identified as having the potential to adversely affect surrounding historic buildings and the
substantial majority of construction activities and resulting vibration would not be at levels perceptible to humans.
Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
c) The project site is located approximately 2.9 miles north of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. Based on
the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport ALUP, the project is not located within the Airport Land Use Planning
Area or noise contours. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures
N-1 For the entire duration of the construction phase of the project, the following Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall
be adhered to:
1. Stationary construction equipment that generates noise that exceeds 60 dBA at the project boundaries shall be
shielded with the most modern noise control devises (i.e. mufflers, lagging, and/or motor enclosures).
2. Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, rock drills, etc.) used for project construction shall be
hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed-air exhaust
from pneumatically powered tools.
3. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed-air exhaust shall be used.
4. All construction equipment shall have the manufacturers’ recommended noise abatement methods installed,
such as mufflers, engine enclosures, and engine vibration insulators, intact and operational.
5. All construction equipment shall undergo inspection at periodic intervals to ensure proper maintenanc e and
presence of noise control devices (e.g., mufflers, shroudin g, etc.).
N-2 Construction plans shall note construction hours, truck routes, and all construction noise Best Management Practices
(BMPs) on project plans, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City Community Development Department prior
Item 3
Packet Page 203
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 36 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
to issuance of grading/building permits. The City shall provide and post signs stating these restrictions at construction
entry sites prior to commencement of construction and maintained throughout the construction phase of the project. All
construction workers shall be briefed at a pre-construction meeting on construction hour limitations and how, why, and
where BMP measures are to be implemented.
N-3 Construction activities shall be conducted so that the maximum noise levels at affected properties will not exceed 75 dBA
for single-family residences where feasible.
N-4 For all construction activity at the project site, additional noise attenuation techniques shall be employed as needed to
ensure that noise levels are maintained within levels allowed by the City of Sa n Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Title 9,
Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control). Such techniques shall include, but are not limited to:
• Sound blankets shall be used on noise-generating equipment.
• Stationary construction equipment that generates noise levels above 65 dBA at the project boundaries shall be
shielded with a barrier that meets a sound transmission class (a rating of how well n oise barriers attenuate sound)
of 25.
• All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with factory-
recommended mufflers.
• The movement of construction-related vehicles, with the exception of passenger vehicles, along roadways
adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., Monday through
Saturday. No movement of heavy equipment shall occur on Sundays or official holidays (e.g., Thanksgiving,
Labor Day).
• Temporary sound barriers shall be constructed between construction sites and affected uses.
N-5 The project contractor shall inform residents and busine ss operators at properties within 300 feet of the project of
proposed construction timelines and noise complaint procedures to minimize potential annoyance related to construction
noise. Signs shall be in place prior to and throughout grading and construct ion activities informing the public that noise-
related complaints shall be directed to the construction manager prior to the City’s Community Development Department.
Conclusion
The project has the potential to periodically exceed City Municipal Code construction and operational noise standards for single-
family residential uses. Implementation of Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-5 would ensure potential impacts associated with
temporary exceedances of local established standards would be less than signif icant. No other potentially significant impacts
associated with noise were identified and no additional mitigation measures are necessary.
14. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
49, 50 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
1 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
San Luis Obispo is the largest city in terms of population in San Luis Obispo County and has grown from 45,119 in 2010 to
approximately 46,548 in 2018 according to the City’s General Plan 2018 Annual Report. According to the City’s Housing
Element, between 2005 and 2019, the City’s population grew by 2,140 persons, a total increase of 4.8 percent, or annual increase
of 0.3 percent. Based on the City’s 2018 General Plan Annual Report, the city’s total buildout population would be 57,200
Item 3
Packet Page 204
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 37 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
people. The City’s housing tenure is approximately 39% owner-occupied and 61% renter-occupied, which is strongly influenced
by California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly) and Cuesta College enrollment. A large portion of the
city’s population has difficulty finding affordable housing within the city due to economic, physical, or sociological
circumstances. The city contains the largest concentration of jobs in the county and the city’s population increases to an estimated
70,000 persons during workdays.
The City’s General Plan Housing Element identifies various goals, policies, and programs based on an assessment of the housing
needs, opportunities, and constraints. The City’s overarching goals for housing include ensuring safety and affordability,
conserving existing housing, accommodating for mixed-income neighborhoods, providing housing variety and tenure, planning
for new housing, maintaining neighborhood quality, providing special needs housing, encouraging sustainable housing and
neighborhood design, maximizing affordable housing opportunities for those who live or work in the city, and developing
housing on suitable sites.
a) The project would develop five new single-family homes, which would result in approximately 12 new residents
(assuming 2.32 people per household). The project has been designed to be consistent with goals and policies established
in the City’s Housing Element associated with the provision of new housing, sustainable housing design, and the
provision of affordable housing opportunities. The project would be consistent with the projected population growth for
the city and the City’s Housing Element goals and policies. The project would not result in substantial unplanned
population growth; therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
b) The project would not result in the displacement of any existing or proposed housing; therefore, no impacts would
occur.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Conclusion
The project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth or displace existing housing or people. The project woul d
not result in potentially significant impacts to population or housing; therefore, no mitigation is necessary.
15. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? 50, 51 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Police protection? 50, 51 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Schools? 50, 51 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Parks? 50, 51 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Other public facilities? 50, 51 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
Item 3
Packet Page 205
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 38 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
The project site is located within the service area of the City’s Fire Department and would be served by City Fire Station 1. The
newest fire station in the City, Fire Station 1 provides primary response to the downtown area of San Luis Obispo. This stati on
is staffed by a Battalion Chief and a 4-person paramedic truck company.
The City’s Police Department (SLOPD), which consists of 85.5 employees, 59 of which are sworn police officers, provides
public safety services for the city. The SLOPD operates out of one main police station located at 1042 Walnut Street at the
intersection of Santa Rosa (Highway 1) and U.S. 101. The project site is located within the San Luis Coastal Unified School
District (SLCUSD), and public parks and recreational trails within the city are managed and maintained by the City’s Parks and
Recreation Department.
All new residential and non-residential development within the city is subject to payment of development impact fees, which are
administered by and paid through the Community Development Department. Development impact fees provide funding for
maintaining City emergency services, infrastructure, and facilities. For example, fire protection impact fees provide funding for
projects such as the renovation of the City’s fire stations and the replacement of fire service vehicles an d equipment.
a) Fire protection: The project proposes infill development and would not result in a substantial increase in demand on
fire protection services. The project would result in a negligible increase in residents within the city and would be
consistent with the projected population growth for San Luis Obispo. The project would not result in a substantial
increase in the number of units or population in the city and would not result in the need for construction of new or
expanded fire protection facilities. In addition, the project would be subject to development fees for fire protection,
which would offset the project’s contribution to increased demand on fire protection services. Therefore, impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities would be less than significant.
Police protection: The project proposes infill development and would not result in a substantial increase in demand on
police protection services. The project would result in a negligible increase in residents within the city and would be
consistent with the projected population growth for the city. The project would not result in a substantial increase in the
number of units or population in the city and would not result in the need for cons truction of new or expanded police
protection facilities. In addition, the project would be subject to development impact fee s for police protection, which
would offset the project’s contribution to increased demand on police protection services. Therefore, impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities would be less than significant.
Schools: The project site would be located within the SLCUSD and potential future development of residential uses at
the project site would be subject to payment of development impact fees to offset the potential marginal increase in
student attendance in the SLCUSC’s schools as a result of the project. These fees would be used to maintain sufficient
service levels, which include incremental increases in school capacities. Through participation in this fee program,
potential project impacts on schools would be less than significant.
Parks: Development of five new single-family homes would result in a negligible increase in residents that could result
in an incremental increase in local park usership. The project would not result in the need for construction of new or
expanded public parks or other public recreation facilities. The project would be subject to park development impact
fees, which would offset the project’s contribution to increased demand on park an d recreational facilities. Through
participation in this fee program, potential project impacts on parks would be less than significant.
Other public facilities: The project would result in a negligible increase in use of other City public facilities, such as
roadways and public libraries. The project would be subject to transportation development impact fees, which would
offset the project’s contribution to increased use of City roadways. Through participation in this fee program and
standard development impact fees, potential project impacts on other public facilities would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Item 3
Packet Page 206
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 39 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
Conclusion
The project would not result in significant impacts to public services; therefore, no mitigation measures are ne cessary.
16. RECREATION
a) Would the project 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?
50, 51,
52 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
51 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
Existing City recreational facilities consist of 28 parks and recreational facilities, in addition to 10 designated natural resources
and open space areas and two bike trails. The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Recreation Element identifies goals, policies,
and programs to help plan, develop, and maintain community parks and recreation facilities. The City’s statement of overall
department goals is for the City Parks and Recreation facilities and programs to enable all citizens to participate in fun, healthy,
or enriching activities that enhance the quality of life in the community. As demand for recreational facilities and activities grow
and change, the City intends to focus its efforts in the following areas: contin uing development of athletic fields and support
facilities; providing parks in underserved neighborhoods; providing a multi-use community center and therapy pool; expanding
paths and trails for recreational use; linking recreation facilities; and meeting the special needs of disabled persons, at-risk youth,
and senior citizens.
Parks and Recreation Element Policy 3.13.1 establishes the City’s goal to develop and maintain a park system at the rate of 1 0
acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, of which, 5 acres shall be dedicated as neighborhood parks.
a, b) The project would result in a marginal increase in the demand on public parkland and neighborhood parks from an
increased residential population. While the project would result in a slight increase in residents within the city, the
project would be consistent with the projected population growth for the city of San Luis Obispo. The project would be
subject to City park in-lieu fees, which would offset the project’s contribution to increased demand on park and
recreational facilities and contribute to helping the City achieve its goal service ratio of 10 acres of parkland per 1,000
residents. These fees would be used in the future to contribute funding for the establishment of new park/recrea tional
facilities or expansion of existing facilities; however, these actions would not be directly triggered by, or required as a
result of, implementation of the project. Through participation in this fee program, potential project impacts associated
with accelerated deterioration of existing facilities or construction of new pa rk facilities would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Conclusion
The project would be subject to payment of City park land in-lieu fees for parks and recreation facilities, which would offset
potential project impacts associated with the incremental increase of demand on these facilities. No potentially significant
impacts to parks or recreation facilities would occur and no mitigation measures are neces sary.
Item 3
Packet Page 207
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 40 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
17. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing
the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
1, 15, 22,
53 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)? 1, 22 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
1, 15 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1, 15, 49 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Circulation Element identifies current traffic levels and delays of public roadways
and transportation goals and policies to guide development and express the community’s preferences for current and futur e
conditions. Goals included in the plan include, but are not limited to, maintaining accessibility and protecting the environm ent
throughout San Luis Obispo while reducing dependence on single-occupant use of motor vehicles, reducing use of cars by
supporting and promoting alternative transportation, such as walking, riding buses and bicycles, and carpooling; promoting the
safe operation of all modes of transportation; and widening and extending streets only when there is a demonstrated need and
when the widening would cause no significant, long-term environmental problems.
Level of Service (LOS) is a term used to describe the operating condition s of an intersection or roadway based on factors such
as speed, travel time, queuing time, and safety. LOS designations range between A and F, with A representing the best operating
conditions and F, the worst. The Circulation Element establishes the minimum acceptable LOS standard for vehicles in the
downtown area of the city as LOS E and states any degradatio n of the LOS below this standard shall be determined significant
under CEQA.
The City’s 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan outlines the City’s officia l policies for the design and development of bikeways
within the city and in adjoining territory under Coun ty jurisdiction but within the City’s Urban Reserve and includes specific
objectives for reducing vehicle use and promoting other modes. The project site is located in the City’s Central District. In the
project area, Mill Street has Class III bicycle lanes and Toro Street is a planned bicycle boulevard, as identified in the City of
San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan. Bicycle boulevards are low-volume, low-speed streets that have been optimized
for bicycle travel through treatments such as traffic calming and traffic reduction, signage and pavement markings, and
intersection crossing treatments. The Toro Street Bicycle Boulevard is planned between Islay Street and Highway 101 but does
not have an established timeline for development.
In 2013, SB 743 was signed into law with the intent to “more appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with
statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions” and required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to identify new metrics for
identifying and mitigating transportation impacts within CEQA. As a result, in December 2018, the California Natural Resources
Agency certified and adopted updates to the State CEQA Guidelines. The revisions included new requirements related to the
implementation of SB 743 and identified vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita, VMT per employee, and net VMT as new
metrics for transportation analysis under CEQA (as detailed in Section 15064.3 [b]). Beginning July 1, 2020, the newly adopted
VMT criteria for determining significance of transportation impacts must be implemented statewide.
SLO Transit operates transit service within the city of San Luis Obispo and San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority
(SLORTA) operates transit service throughout San Luis Obispo County and adjacent areas.
Item 3
Packet Page 208
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 41 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
a) The development of five single-family residences would result in a marginal increase of temporary construction traffic
and long-term vehicle trips. Neither temporary construction vehicle traffic nor operational vehicle trips from the five
single-family residences would generate enough vehicle trips to substantially affect surrounding roadway and
interchange LOS, and the project would not impact surrounding bicycle infrastructure or transit services. Therefore, the
project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, and impacts
would be less than significant.
b) Based on State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b), projects located within 0.5 mile of either an existing major transit
stop or along an existing high-quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation
impact. The project would be infill development and is located within 0.5 mile of the San Luis Obispo Downtown
Transit Center and approximately eleven public transit stops. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the
standards set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) and impacts would be less than significant.
c-d) During the construction phase, the project may result in a periodic detour and/or minor lane closure on Toro and/or
Peach Streets. Proposed lane closures and use and transport of construction vehicles and equipment within an area that
experiences a low volume of vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic would have a low potential to result in safety
hazards. If traffic control is required, it would be short term and there are numerous adequate alternative routes
proximate to the project site. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
The project also includes construction of a driveway extension from Toro Street to access the proposed residences
onsite. No changes to the existing driveways would be required and residential development would not require
modification of any surrounding roadways. These potential improvements would be designed and constructed in
compliance with City Public Works standards to provide adequate vehicle and emergency vehicle access to all five
residences. The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses
or result in inadequate emergency access; therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Conclusion
Potential future infill development of residential uses at the project site would not result in a reduction in LOS on surrounding
intersections and would be consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) regarding VMT. Any future development
at the project site would be required to meet City Public Works safety design standards and would maintain adequate emergency
access. Therefore, no potentially significant impacts related to transportation would occur and no mitigation measures are
necessary.
18. 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, or 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)
17, 18,
19 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Item 3
Packet Page 209
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 42 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
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.
17, 18,
19 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Evaluation
Approved in 2014, AB 52 added tribal cultural resources to the categories of resources that must be evaluated under CEQA.
Tribal cultural resources are defined as either of the following:
1. Sites, features, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe
that are either of the following:
a. Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR; or
b. Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k).
2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in PRC Section 5024.1(c). In applying these criteria for the purposes of this paragraph, the
lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe.
Recognizing that tribes have expertise with regard to their tribal history and practices, AB 52 requires lead agencies to provide
notice to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project if they have requested
notice of projects proposed within that area. If the tribe requests consultation within 30 days upon receipt of the notice, the lead
agency must consult with the tribe regarding the potential for adverse impacts on tribal cultural resources as a result of a project.
Consultation may include discussing the type of environmental review necessary, the presence and/or significance of tribal
cultural resources, the level of significance of a project’s impacts on the tribal cultural resources, and available project alternati ves
and mitigation measures recommended by the tribe to avoid or lessen potential impacts on tribal cultural resources
a.i-ii.) The City has provided notice of the opportunity to consult with appropriate tribes per the requirements of AB 52 . One
tribal representative, Fred Collins of the Northern Chumash Tribal Council, responded requesting the records search
and archaeological report prepared for the project. Upon receipt of these reports, Mr. Collins confirmed that the Northern
Chumash Tribal Council would not be requesting a formal consultation and has no further comments on the project.
Mitigation measures CR-1 through CR-3 have been identified to address the potential for inadvertent discovery of
cultural resources and require cultural resource awareness training and cessation of work area if a discovery is made
until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. Therefore, impacts related to a substantial adverse
change in the significance of tribal cultural resource would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-3.
Conclusion
With implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-3, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than
significant.
Item 3
Packet Page 210
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 43 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities,
the construction or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
1 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal,
dry, and multiple dry years?
54, ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
51 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise
impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
55, 56 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and
reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 55, 56 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The City Utilities Department is the sole water provider within the city, provides potable and recycled water to the communit y,
and is responsible for water supply, treatment, distribution, and resource planning. The City Water Resource Rec overy Facility
(WRRF) treats all of the wastewater from the city, Cal Poly, and the County airport. The WRRF treats 4.5 million gallons of
wastewater daily, 365 days a year. The most recent upgrade to the WRRF was completed to improve the quality of water
discharged into San Luis Obispo Creek (located downstream of the project site). The WRRF has very stringent discharge
requirements and now produces a high -quality effluent that surpasses drinking water standards for many constituents. Plans to
utilize a portion of this effluent to irrigate parks, median strips, landscap ing, and other appropriate uses are being implemented
under the City’s Water Reuse Program.
a) The project includes the installation of new water, wastewater, stormwater, and natural gas infrast ructure and
connections to City infrastructure. These components have been evaluated for their potential to result in adverse
environmental effects throughout this document. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5, CR-1 through CR-3, and
N-1 through N-5 would reduce potentially significant environmental impacts that could result from installation and
establishment of new utility connections associated with air quality, cultural resources, and noise to less than significant.
Therefore, potential environmental impacts associated with construction or extension of existing utilities would be less
than significant with mitigation.
b) The project would be served by the City’s water system, which has four primary water sources, including Whale Rock
Reservoir, Salinas Reservoir, Nacimiento Reservoir, and recycled water (for irrigation), with groundwater serving as a
fifth supplemental source. The City no longer draws groundwater for potable purposes as of 2015. As of May 2020,
both the Whale Rock and Salinas Reservoirs are at above 84% storage capacity and Nacimiento Reservoir is at 50%
storage capacity.
Based on the City Utilities Department website, the City’s diversification of water sources in the last several decades
has allowed the City to maintain sufficient water supplies even following the driest years on record. The total water
available for the City in 2019 was 10,136 acre-feet per year (AFY), which included 244 AFY of recycled water. As this
availability was adjusted following years of drought and updates to the City’s safe annual yield model, the availability
is considered a reasonable long-term safe yield value for the purposes of this analysis. The City’s water demand for
Item 3
Packet Page 211
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 44 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
2019 was 4,762 AF. Compared against the City’s 2019 annual availability, the City has approximately 5,374 AF of
water surplus available to allocate to new beneficial uses within the City.
The project would be required to pay development impact fees to offset the project’s marginal impact on the City’s
water resources. Therefore, based on the City’s current surplus of water supplies and payment of development impact
fees to offset use, potential impacts associated with having sufficient water supplie s during normal, dry, and multiple
dry years would be less than significant.
c) The project would be served by the City’s sewer system and include s the installation of new sewer infrastructure to
connect the five new residential units to existing City sewer infrastructure. The project would result in an incremental
increase in wastewater demand on the City’s WRRF. Impact fees are collected at the time building permits are issued
to accommodate the project’s contribution to the City’s WRRF capacity. Therefore, impacts associated with the City’s
capacity to serve the project’s wastewater needs would be less than significant.
d) Based on the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), the project would result in the
generation of approximately 5.2 pounds of solid waste per resident per day, or 62.4 pounds of solid waste generation
per day. This represents an incremental increase in demand on San Luis Garbage Company, the local solid waste service
provider. Waste generated from the project site would likely be disposed of at the Cold Canyon Landfill. Cold Canyon
Landfill has approximately 14,500,000 cubic yards of remaining capacity and is expected to reach capacity in 2040.
Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
e) Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) shows that Californi ans dispose of
roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills, posing a threat to groundwater, air
quality, and public health. The five single-family residences would be required to adhere to the standards set forth in
the City’s Development Standards for Solid Waste Services for trash, green waste, and recycling. Therefore, the project
would be in compliance with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
waste and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5, BIO-1, CR-1 through CR-3, and N-1 through N-5.
Conclusion
With implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5, BIO-1, CR-1 through CR-3, and N-1 through N-5, potential
impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant.
20. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? 57, 59 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
1, 57, 58,
59, 60 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Item 3
Packet Page 212
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 45 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire
risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
1, 7, 58,
59, 60 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of
runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
1, 57, 58,
59, 60 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The project site is located in an urban area within the city of San Luis Obispo. Urban fire hazards result from the materials, size,
and spacing of buildings, and from the materials, equipment, and activities they contain. Additional factors include access,
available water volume and pressure, and response time for fire fighters. Based on the City ’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the
risk of wildland fires is greatest near the city limits where development meets rural areas of combustible vegetation. Most of the
community is within 1 mile of a designated High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone , which indicates significant risk to
wildland fire.
The Safety Element identifies four policies to address the potential hazards associated with wildfire, which include approving
development only when adequate fire suppression services and facilities are available, classif ying Wildland fire hazard severity
zones as prescribed by CAL FIRE, prohibiting new subdivisions located within “Very High” wildland fire hazard severity zones,
and continuing enhancement of fire safety and construction codes for buildings.
a) The project proposes infill development within an existing residential neighborhood. Implementation of the proposed
project would not result in a significant temporary or per manent impact on any adopted emergency response plans or
emergency evacuation plans. No breaks in utility service or road closure s would occur as a result of project
implementation; therefore, the project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation
plan and impacts would be less than significant.
b) The project site is located within a developed parcel located within an urban area in the city of San Luis Obispo. The
project would not substantially change the existing flat topography of the project site. Project construction would be
required to comply with the California Fire Code and would not exacerbate existing fire conditions. Therefore, potential
impacts would be less than significant.
c) The project includes construction of a dead-end driveway approximately 250 feet in length. The City’s Municipal Code
requires dead-end streets in excess of 150 feet in length to include an approved emergency turnaround unless all
buildings are protected with approved fire sprinkler systems, in which case the distance may be extended to 300 feet.
The project includes 13-D sprinkler systems in all buildings which would meet fire code requirements. The project also
includes the installation of new water, emergency water, wastewater, stormwater, and natural gas infrastructure and
connections to City infrastructure. These proposed infrastructure components would be located within existing
developed land and would be required to be installed in full compliance with applicable CBC and California F ire Code
regulations; therefore, potential impacts associated with exacerbation of fire risk from installation of new infrastruct ure
would be less than significant.
d) The project site is generally flat and is not located near a hillslope or in an area subject to downstream flooding or
landslides. The project does not include any design elements that would expose people or structures t o significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage
changes. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Item 3
Packet Page 213
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 46 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
Conclusion
The project would not expose people or structures to new or exacerbated wildfire risks and would not require the development
of new or expanded infrastructure or maintenance to reduce wildfire risks. Therefore, potential impacts associated with wildfire
would be less than significant.
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially 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, substantially 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?
N/A ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
The project would develop five new single-family residences within the project site, which would result in the removal of up to
five trees. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is included to minimize potential impacts to nesting migratory birds during tree removal
and construction.
Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-3 have been included to require awareness training be conducted for all construction
crew members so that cultural resources can be recognized if unearthed during site disturbance activities and to require work be
halted in the event of an unanticipated discovery until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find and identify
the appropriate protocol for properly responding to the inadvertent discovery. With implementation of the recommended
mitigation measures, potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
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 past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
N/A ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
When project impacts are considered along with, or in combination with, other reasonably foreseeable impacts, the project’s
potential cumulative impacts may be significant. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to reduce project -
related impacts to a less-than-significant level. Based on implementation of identified project-specific mitigation measures and
the relatively limited number and extent of potential impacts, the cumulative effects of the proposed project would not be
cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant with mitigation.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
N/A ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
The project has the potential to result in significant impacts associated with air quality and noise that could result in sub stantial
adverse effects on human beings. Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce these potential impacts to less than
significant, including, but not limited to, standard idling restrictions, dust control measures, preparation of a geologic
investigation for asbestos, and implementation of noise control measures. With incorporation of mitigation measures identified
in this Initial Study, potential environmental effects of the project would not directly or indirectly result in any substantial adve rse
effects on human beings and this impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
Item 3
Packet Page 214
ER ###-## (1137 Peach Street Subdivision)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 47 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
22. 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
23. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. Architectural Review Commission Package. Ten Over Studios, October 31, 2019.
2. City of San Luis Obispo Interactive Parcel Viewer, January 2015
3. SWCA. Historic Preservation Report for Redevelopment of APN 002-316-005 (Peach and Toro Streets). 2020
4. City of San Luis Obispo Conservation & Open Space Element (COSE), 2006.
5. Caltrans, California Scenic Highways, February 2017
6. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines, June 2010
7. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, May 2019
8. California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2018
9. California Department of Conservation Land Conservation Act of 1965: San Luis Obispo County, 2006
10. San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, County Attainment Status, 2019
11. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 2012 (revised
November 2017)
12. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District Clean Air Plan, Decembe r 2001
13. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control Board Naturally Occurring Asbestos Mapping Tool, 2020
14. Pacific Coast Testing, Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Residences 1137 Peach Street (APN 002 -316-005) 2019
15. City of San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan, 2013
16. San Luis Obispo Heritage Trees Map, 2019
17. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory Map, 2019
18. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Natural Community Conservation Plans Map 2019
19. Historic Properties in San Luis Obispo, California (A SLO Story Map), accessed March 9, 2020
20. San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Program Guidelines 2010
21. Pacific Gas and Electric webpage: Delivering low emission energy, accessed March 9, 2020
22. San Luis Obispo Transit 2019-20120 User Guide, June 17, 2019
23. City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan, August 2012
24. California Building Code, 2019
25. California Department of Conservation Fault Activity Map of California, 2010
26. City of San Luis Obispo Safety Element, 2014
Item 3
Packet Page 215
ER ###-## (1137 Peach Street Subdivision)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 48 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
27. Areas of Land Subsidence in California, USGS, Accessed March 10, 2020
28. NRCS Web Soil Survey, 2019
29. Department of Conservation, Soil Web Survey 2020
30. Geologic Map of the San Luis Obispo Quadrangle, San Luis Obispo County, California, 2004
31. California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Envirostor Accessed March 10, 2020
32. State Water Resources Control Board, Geotracker Accessed March 10, 2020
33. California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List Data Resources Accessed March 10, 2020
34. San Luis Obispo 2016 Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Update 2019
35. County of San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan, May 2005
36. SLO Watershed Project, San Luis Obispo Creek Description, 2014
37. SLO Stormwater Website 2020
38. Federal Emergency Management Agency’s National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer , accessed November 4,
2019
39. SGMA Groundwater Management, California Department of Water Resources Webpage, 2019
40. San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin, County of San Luis Obispo Webpage, 2019
41. Water Sources, City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Webpage , Accessed November 2019
42. Department of Conservation (DOC) Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning Port San Luis Quadrangle,
2009
43. Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast Basin, 2019
44. City of San Luis Obispo Land Use Element 2014
45. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element, 1996
46. Construction Noise Handbook: Construction Equipment Noise Levels and Ranges, Federal Highway
Administration, September 2017
47.
Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. United States Department of Transpor tation, Federal
Transit Administration (FTA). September 2018. Available at:
<https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-
impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf>.
48. Transportation and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans). September 2013. Available at: <http://website.dot.ca.gov/env/noise/docs/tcvgm-sep2013.pdf>.
49. City of San Luis Obispo 2014-2019 General Plan Housing Element, January 2015
50. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Annual Report, 2018
51. Community Development Department Development Impact Fees, 2018
52. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Parks and Recreation Element, 2001
53. City of San Luis Obispo Circulation Element, October 2017
54. 2018 Water Resources Status Report, 2018
55. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates, California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery
(CalRecycle), accessed November 2019
56. SWIS Facility Detail Cold Canyon Landfill, Inc., California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery,
Accessed March 11, 2020
57. San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2006
58. San Luis Obispo General Plan Safety Element 2014
59. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps, San Luis Obispo County,
March 2009
60. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. 15.04. Construction and Fire Prevention Regulations. 2019
61. Cultural Resources Survey of the Peach and Toro Project, City of San Luis O bispo, San Luis Obispo County,
California. March 2020. Prepared by: Central Coast Archaeological Research Consultants.
Item 3
Packet Page 216
ER ###-## (1137 Peach Street Subdivision)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 49 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
Attachments
1. Project Plans
2. Historic Preservation Report for Redevelopment of APN 002-316-005 (Peach and Toro Streets). SWCA May 2020.
Item 3
Packet Page 217
ER ###-## (1137 Peach Street Subdivision)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 50 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
Air Quality
AQ-1 During all construction activities and use of diesel vehicles, the applicant shall implement the following idling control
techniques:
1. Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors for Both On- and Off-Road Equipment.
e. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors if feasible;
f. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted;
g. Use of alternative fueled equipment shall be used whenever possible; and,
h. Signs that specify the no idling requirements shall be posted and enforced at the construction site.
2. California Diesel Idling Regulations. 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 spe cifies that
drivers of said vehicles:
a. 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,
b. 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 1,000 feet of a restricted area, except as noted in Subsection
(d) of the regulation.
Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers of the 5 -minute idling
limit. The specific requirements and exceptions in the regulation can be reviewed at the following website:
www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/2485.pdf.
AQ-2 During all construction and ground-disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following particulate matter
control measures and detail each measure on the project grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor or
builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of
the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20%
opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. 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 City
Community Development Department prior to commencement of construction. 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.
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 SLOAPCD’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 miles per hour. Reclaimed
(non-potable) water should be used whenever possible.
c. All dirt stockpile 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 of any soil -disturbing activities.
e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than 1 month after initial grading shall be
sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.
Item 3
Packet Page 218
ER ###-## (1137 Peach Street Subdivision)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 51 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved c hemical soil binders,
jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the SLOAPCD.
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 miles per hour 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 2 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 Section 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 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, t he 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 plans.
m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons whose responsibility is to ensure any fugitive
dust emissions do not result in a nu isance and to enhance the implementation of the mitigation measures as
necessary to minimize dust complaints and reduce visible emissions below the SLOAPCD’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 SLOAPCD Compliance
Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork, or demolition (Contact Tim Fuhs at 805-781-5912).
AQ-3 Prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities, the applicant shall retain a registered geologist to conduct a geologic
evaluation of the property, including sampling and testing for NOA in full compliance with SLOAPCD requirements
and the CARB ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (17 CCR 93105). This
geologic evaluation shall be submitted to the City Community Development Department upon completion. If the
geologic evaluation determines that the project would not have the potential to disturb NOA, the applicant must file
an Asbestos ATCM exemption request with the SLOAPCD.
AQ-4 If NOA are determined to be present on-site, proposed earthwork, demolition, and construction activities shall be
conducted in full compliance with the various regulatory jurisdictions regarding NOA, including the CARB ATCM
for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (17 CCR 93105) and requir ements stipulated
in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP; 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR]
Section 61, Subpart M – Asbestos). These requirements include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the SLOAPCD;
b. Preparation of an asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant; and
c. Implementation of applicable removal and disposal protocol and requirements for identified NOA.
AQ-5 Prior to initiation of demolition activities, the applicant shall implement the following measures to reduce the risk
associated with disturbance of ACM and lead -coated materials that may be present within the existing structures
onsite:
Item 3
Packet Page 219
ER ###-## (1137 Peach Street Subdivision)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 52 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
a. Demolition of the on-site structures shall comply with the procedures required by the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR 61, Subpart M – Asbestos) for the control of asbestos
emissions during demolition activities. SLOAPCD is the delegated authority by the U.S. EPA to implement
the Federal Asbestos NESHAP. Prior to demolition of on-site structures, SLOAPCD shall be notified, per
NESHAP requirements. The project applicant shall submit proof that SLOAPCD has been notified prior to
demolition activities to the City Community Development Department.
b. If during the demolition of the existing structures, paint is separated from the construction materials (e.g.,
chemically or physically), the paint waste shall be evaluated independently from the build ing material by a
qualified hazardous materials inspector to determine its proper management. All hazardous materials shall be
handled and disposed of in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. According to the Department
of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), if the paint is not removed from the building material during demolition
(and is not chipping or peeling), the material can be disposed of as non -hazardous construction debris. The
landfill operator shall be contacted prior to disposal of lead-based paint materials. If required, all lead work
plans shall be submitted to SLOAPCD at least 10 days prior to the start of demolition. The applicant shall
submit proof that paint waste has been evaluated by a qualified hazardous waste materials insp ector and
handled according to their recommendation to the City Community Development Department.
Monitoring Program: Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 shall be incorporated into project grading and building plans for review
and approval by the City Community Development Departm ent. Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular
inspections, in coordination with the County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, as necessary. The applicant
shall submit the geologic evaluation detailed in measure AQ-3 and documentation showing compliance with measures AQ-4
and AQ-5 to the City Community Development Department upon completion and prior to issuance of grading permits.
Biological Resources
BIO-1 If feasible, tree removal associated with any future residential (or accessory) development at the project site shall be
scheduled to occur from September 16 to January 31, outside of the typical nesting bird season, to avoid potential
impacts to nesting birds. If tree removal or other construction activities are proposed during the nesting season
(February 1 through September 15), prior to any ground disturbing activity, surveys for active nests shall be conducted
by a qualified biologist within one week prior to the st art of activities. If nesting birds are located on or near the
proposed project site, they shall be avoided until they have successfully fledged or the nest is no longer deemed active.
A non-disturbance buffer of 50 feet will be placed around non -listed, passerine species, and a 250-foot buffer will be
implemented for raptor species. All activity will remain outside of that buffer until a qualified biologist has determined
that the young have fledged or that proposed construction activities would not cause adverse impacts to the nest,
adults, eggs, or young. If special-status avian species are identified, no work shall be conducted until an appropriate
buffer is determined in consultation with the City and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
Monitoring Program: These conditions and measures shall be noted on all grading and construction plans. The City
Community Development Department and Natural Resources Manager shall verify compliance through regular inspections
and review of monitoring reports, as necessary.
Cultural Resources
CR-1 Cultural Resource Awareness Training. Prior to construction activities, a qualified archaeologist shall conduct a
cultural resource awareness training for all construction personnel including the following:
a. Review the types of archaeological artifacts that may be uncovered;
b. Provide examples of common archaeological artifacts to examine;
c. Review what makes an archaeological resource significant to archaeologists and local native Americans;
d. Describe procedures for notifying involved or interested parties in case of a new discovery;
e. Describe reporting requirements and responsibilities of construction personnel;
f. Review procedures that shall be used to record, evaluate, and mitigate new discoveries; and
Item 3
Packet Page 220
ER ###-## (1137 Peach Street Subdivision)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 53 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
g. Describe procedures that would be followed in the case of discovery of disturbed as well as intact human
burials and burial-associated artifacts.
CR-2 If cultural resources are encountered during subsurfa ce earthwork activities, all ground disturbing activities within a
25-foot radius of the find shall cease and the City shall be notified immediately. Work shall not continue until a City -
qualified archaeologist assesses the find and determines the need for further study. If the find includes Native
American affiliated materials, a local Native American tribal representative will be contacted to work in conjunction
with the City-approved archaeologist to determine the need for further study. A standard inadvertent discovery clause
shall be included in every grading and construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously
unidentified resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and
Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria b y a qualified archaeologist.
If the resource is determined significant under CEQA, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a
research design and archaeological data recovery plan, in conjunction with locally affiliated Native American
representative(s) as necessary, that will capture those categories of data for which the site is significant. The
archaeologist shall also perform appropriate technical analysis, prepare a comprehensive report, and file it with the
Central Coast Information Center (CCIC), located at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and provide for the
permanent curation of the recovered materials.
CR-3 In the event that human remains are exposed during earth disturbing activities associated with the project, an
immediate halt work order shall be issued and the Community Development Director and locally affiliated Native
American representative(s) (as necessary) shall be notified. State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that
no further disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains shall
occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and dispo sition pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determin ed to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall
notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. These requirements shall be printed on all building
and grading plans.
Monitoring Program: These conditions shall be noted on all grading and construction plans. The City shall review and
approve the City-qualified archaeologist consistent with the Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-3, AQ-4, and AQ-5.
Monitoring Program: Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 shall be incorporated into project grading and building plans for review
and approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular
inspections, in coordination with the County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, as necessary. The applicant
shall submit the geologic evaluation detailed in measure AQ-3 and documentation showing compliance with measures AQ-4
and AQ-5 to the City Community Development Department upon completion and prior to issuance of grading permits.
Noise
N-1 For the entire duration of the construction phase of the project, the following Best Management Practices (BMPs)
shall be adhered to:
1. Stationary construction equipment that generates noise that exceeds 60 dBA at the project boundaries shall
be shielded with the most modern noise control devises (i.e. mufflers, lagging, and/or motor en closures).
2. Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, rock drills, etc.) used for pr oject construction shall be
hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed -air
exhaust from pneumatically powered tools.
3. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed -air exhaust shall be
used.
4. All construction equipment shall have the manufacturers’ recommended noise abatement methods installed,
such as mufflers, engine enclosures, and engine vibration insulators, intact and operational.
Item 3
Packet Page 221
ER ###-## (1137 Peach Street Subdivision)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 54 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
5. All construction equipment shall undergo inspection at periodic intervals to ensure proper maintenance and
presence of noise control devices (e.g., mufflers, shrouding, etc.).
N-2 Construction plans shall note construction hours, truck routes, and all construction noise Best Management Practices
(BMPs) on project plans, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City Community Development Department
prior to issuance of grading/building permits. The City shall provide and post signs stating these restrictions at
construction entry sites prior to commencement of construction and maintained throughout the construction phase of
the project. All construction workers shall be briefed at a pre-construction meeting on construction hour limitations and
how, why, and where BMP measures are to be implemented.
N-3 Construction activities shall be conducted so that the maximum noise levels at affected properties will not exceed 75
dBA for single-family residences where feasible.
N-4 For all construction activity at the project site, additional noise attenuation techniques shall be employed as needed to
ensure that noise levels are maintained within levels allowed by the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Cod e, Title 9,
Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control). Such techniques shall include, but are not limited to :
• Sound blankets shall be used on noise-generating equipment.
• Stationary construction equipment that generates noise levels above 65 dBA at the project boundaries shall be
shielded with a barrier that meets a sound transmission class (a rating of how well noise barriers attenuate
sound) of 25.
• All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with factory-
recommended mufflers.
• The movement of construction-related vehicles, with the exception of passenger vehicles, along roadways
adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., Monday through
Saturday. No movement of heavy equipment shall occur on Sundays or official holidays (e.g., Thanksgiving,
Labor Day).
• Temporary sound barriers shall be constructed between construction sites and affected uses.
N-5 The project contractor shall inform residents and business operators at pro perties within 300 feet of the project of
proposed construction timelines and noise complaint procedures to minimize potential annoyance related to
construction noise. Signs shall be in place prior to and throughout grading and construction activities info rming the
public that noise-related complaints shall be directed to the construction manager prior to the City’s Community
Development Department.
Monitoring Program: These measures shall be incorporated into project grading and building plans for review and
approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City du ring regular
inspections.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Implement Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-3.
Monitoring Program: These conditions shall be noted on all grading and construction plans. The City shall review and
approve the City-qualified archaeologist consistent with the Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines .
Utilities and Service Systems
Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5, BIO-1, CR-1 through CR-3, and N-1 through N-5.
Monitoring Program: Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 shall be incorporated into project grading and building plans for review
and approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular
inspections, in coordination with the County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollu tion Control District, as necessary. The applicant
shall submit the geologic evaluation detailed in measure AQ-3 and documentation showing compliance with measures AQ-4
and AQ-5 to the City Community Development Department upon completion and prior to issuance of grading permits. BIO-1,
CR-1 through CR-3, and N1 through N-5 shall be noted on all grading and construction plans. The City Community
Development Department shall verify compliance through regular inspections and review of monitoring reports, as n ecessary.
Item 3
Packet Page 222
1137 Peach Street
ARCH-0568-2019, SBDV-0571-2019,
& EID-0800-2019
Review of five new two-bedroom, two-story single-family residences, each
with an attached two-car garage. The project includes the retention of five,
two-bedroom, single-story residences and a common-interest subdivision
to create ten lots, each will contain one of the ten residences. The
applicant has requested exceptions from development standards to allow
interior side setbacks to be reduced and to allow required parking for three
of the five existing residences to be provided in tandem.
July 22, 2020
Applicant: Levi Seligman
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution recommending the City
Council approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 3140 and the project design, and adopt
the associated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
Focus of Review
3
PC review due to:
◼New residential development with common interest
subdivision of five or more lots.
PC Purview:
◼Review the project for consistency with the General
Plan, Zoning Regulations, Subdivision Regulations and
applicable City Standards.
◼Provide a recommendation on the project to City
Council.
Project Description
5
◼Five new two-story, single-family structure
▪Two-car garages (attached)
◼Retention of five existing structures
◼Common accessway extending from Toro Street for
access to new garages and connect existing driveways
◼Common interest subdivision dividing the property into ten
lots
Previous Reviews
8
◼Project reviewed by the CHC on June 22, 2020.
▪Found project consistent with historic preservation
ordinance and guidelines.
▪Applicant agreed to explore variations in styling of some
structures (other than craftsman).
◼CHC subcommittee on June 30th reviewed and supported the
variations of style
◼Project Reviewed by the ARC on July 6, 2020
▪Found project consistent with design guidelines.
▪Recommended additional trees be planted along driveway
Project Analysis
11
Project is consistent with General Plan Land Use and
Housing Element Policies:
▪Promote Infill Development
▪Maintenance of existing housing Downtown
▪More housing in Downtown area can minimize
automobile use and impacts
Project Analysis
12
Project is consistent with Subdivision Regulations for
Common Interest Subdivision:
▪All lots are consistent with R-2 standards for lot
coverage, setbacks, and density.
▪Areas of common interest include easements for
shared vehicular access, sewer, drainage, and
utilities.
Project Analysis
13
Consistency with the Zoning Regulations.
▪Complies with density, lot coverage, building height,
and front setback development standards for R-2 zone
▪Complies with side and rear setback requirements
from all existing property lines.
▪Requested exceptions from side and rear setback
standards from proposed property lines.
▪Requested approval to allow parking in tandem for
existing residences
Project Analysis
14
Exceptions from Zoning Regulations: Side Setbacks
❑Reduction in the side and rear setback standards may
be approved within new residential subdivisions so
long as:
▪10 feet between buildings will be maintained
▪Acceptable level of solar exposure will be
provided consistent with Conservation and Open
Space Element Policy.
Project Analysis
15
Project Analysis
16
Tandem Parking
Clarification on open space
17
Open Space
Identified on
Submitted Map
Clarification on open space
18
Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Dec.
19
IS/MND was prepared and circulated from June 11,
2020 through July 11, 2020.
Mitigation Measures include:
•Idling restrictions and monitoring of effects on air
quality
•Protection of nesting birds
•Awareness of Cultural and Tribal Resource
protections
•Noise controls
Modification to finding #12
20
The site is physically suited for the type of
development allowed in the medium-high density
(R-2) zone, and provides for passive and natural
heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision.
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution recommending the City
Council approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 3140 and the project design, and adopt
the associated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
319+430+526+627+152
22
Open Space Alternative
23
Minimum
Required
Private Open
Space
Areas for
Common
Open Space
Possible New Condition: The final map shall show no less than 1,500 square feet of
common shared open space, and access to the open space, through easements recordation.
4A ,
rti r -
Y
PLANNING COMMISSION PACKAGE, 7/22/20
PEACH STREET
DEVELOPMENT
Providing much needed housing on peach street, these five new houses provide a modern
interpretation that blends seamlessly with the existing historic houses on site while preserving
a sense of character and unique design to the neighborhood- These units were designed to feel
like individual homes with private back yards and amazing views of the local mountains of San
Luis Obispo. The shared driveway is designed to provide access to all new and existing houses
while preserving as much open space per home as possible.
Prepared by TEN OVER STUDIO
ADJACENT
BUILDING
2 STORY
411221.11
SITE DEVELOPMENT
4 OF THE 5 HOMES ARE LOCATED
IN THE INTERIOR OF THE SITE AND
ADJACENT TO AN EXISTING 2-STORY
HOME
ALL 5 EXISTING HOMES HAVE BEEN
PRESERVED AND MAINTAINED
1137 PEACH
1151 PEACH
771 TORO
1143 PEACH
1163 PEACH
PRESERVED EXISTING
HOMES ON SITE
EXISTING HOMES WERE PRESERVED
AND UPGRADED
I*1q:011111►']l4114T. +�1 Ilips1.1:111A1111i1111
[.4111111111►1:151.I:1fill 11111111119.411114 11
EXISTING HOME UPGRADES INCLUDE
NEW FOUNDATIONS, WINDOWS AND
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS
lill111110,T]tiII�Ictilili i'll0
PREVAILING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD DISTINGUISHED BY:
• RAISED FIRST FLOORS
• DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS
• FRONT DOOR ORNAMENTED WITH COLOR
• PAINTED WOOD SIDING
• GABLE OR HIP ROOFS
• NO GARAGES ON STREET FRONTAGE
1 1 21 PEACH
690 TORO
1168 PEACH
1266JOHNSON
1314 PALM
SITE CONTEXT
MANY SURROUNDING HOMES ARE TWO
STORIES TALL
CORNER HOMES HAVE GARAGE
FRONTAGES FACING THE STREET
WOOD SIDING AND STUCCO ARE
PREVALENT MATERIALS THROUGHOUT
THE NEIGHBORHOOD
BANDING OF MATERIALS AND EAVE
DETAILING ARE CONSISTENTLY
REPRESENTED
SITE SUB -DIVISION
LOT DIVIDED INTO 10 INDIVIDUAL
PARCELS
AllmatUl
ADJACENT
BUILDING
ADJACENT
BUILDING
2 STORY
411221.11
SITE DESIGN
NO 2-STORY HOMES ARE ON A STREET
ELEVATION
THE NEW PROPOSED RESIDENCE ON
THE CORNER IS REDUCED IN HEIGHT TO
A 1.5 STORY HOME
ly
` • F - • 1y `-• BHA
L ti • 44
Iry
dft
d t
hLMLtiY ^ • { f�
1 a • f r ��
a
�y �" .�, 'fir E• � { �• �� �
r 1 1N �r
�� h' - r � � - +•fir
'doe.
r•
saRL Ob
ispo. Street
PEACH STREET DEVELOPMENT
TF4011ER865.541-1010 1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS U615PC
info@lenoversludin.com DATE: 7122I2 C E Xa6
NEW -.9Tvcrvf-r-
PhiLL5 (N M P.1' eNT5
fl�C• PeAlV 05
OF fxk6 mG
HtSm9400-- Vl5mc-T
t7r"7&- u14e-F2'
q F TyfE � e[ TG E+
'i..UhtuS
�,Wxv/Coq ofP �tl Tf�Y
Exs'�',n,r-g 6m-Lf:66
IN Weolv —
rAgTr-L-'Tf
NE!6G Kpof"t�.
ELEVATION EXHIBIT FROM DESIGN GUIDELINES
VIEW STUDY FROM PEACH STREET
VISUAL STUDY
FROM PEACH STREET, BACK HOMES
ARE NOT VISIBLE OVER EXISTING
HOMES
SCALE AND MASS OF 2 STORY HOMES
BEHIND EXISTING HOMES ARE
CONSISTENT WITH DESIGN GUIDELINES
PROPOSED CORNER RESIDENCE IS
REDUCED IN HEIGHT TO SCALE WITH
EXISTING HOMES
ELEVATION FROM PEACH STREET
OUTDOOR SPACE
EACH HOME HAS A PRIVATE OUTDOOR
OPEN SPACE AT A MINIMUM OF 150 SF
AllmatUl
ADJACENT
BUILDING
2 STORY
411221.11
PROJECT PARKING
EACH HOME HAS 2 PARKING SPACES
AND 1 GUEST PARKING SPACE FOR
ENTIRE SITE
BUILDING DESIGN
THE PROPOSED HOMES MAINTAIN
THE PREVAILING CHARACTERISTICS
OF THE EXISTING HOUSES ON SITE
DISTINGUISHED BY:
• RAISED FIRST FLOORS
• DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS
• FRONT DOOR ORNAMENTED WITH COLOR
• PAINTED WOOD SIDING
• GABLE OR HIP ROOFS
• NO GARAGES ON STREET FRONTAGE
THE PROPOSED HOMES UTILIZE
PROMINENT ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES
OF 2-STORY NEIGHBORING BUILDINGS:
• COMBINATION OF STUCCO AND WOOD
SIDING WITH BANDING BOARD
THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS
CONSISTENT WITH PREVAILING
CHARACTERS OF THE 1 AND 2 STORY
STRUCTURES IN THE MILL STREET
HISTORIC DISTRICT
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
TF4011ER865.541-1010
� fnfa@Eenoversludko-.co-m
r
r
06
r
44
-fir {�'q..��1.
01 „' I AO
1110
oopIr
n ' 171 } - 1•�4 +�
■
PEACH STREET DEVELOPMENT
1137 PEACH 5T, M LUIS U615PC
DATE: 7122I2D EXoll
w
`�'s
� •. � 4 Trt
_ 4
may' A ■•�r
1p
'A 1s
539 Marsh Slreet
San Luis Obispo, CA
TF40YER$05.541.1010
� info@Eenoversludin.com
Lit
a
mu
KA
r selfl ��■i�W■��!
h•iki—ii.U. I w-l'-
MEW FROM PEACH STREET - IN) 2 BED UNIT A AND [E] RESIDENCE 4
PROPOSED DESIGN PRESENTED ON 6/30/20
PEACH STREET DEVELOPMENT
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS U61SPC
DATE: 7122I2D EXel2
•;
5 I.
f I
�T+
I
C
IN) 2 BED - UNIT B, LOT 7 _ >
PROPOSED DESIGN PRESENTED ON 6/30/20
saRL Obi plo.CA PEACH STREET DEVELOPMENT
TF4011ER865.541-1010 1137 PEACH 5T, M LUIS U61SPC
info@lenoversludin.com DATE: 7122I2
r
Y X �
a IL
e * s a
ihp • '
s ■
iL
j - ..
�� ..�• MOEN ONES
lilt
7-�F-e-
r _
.M.aw
�
•�
i •firA
i l
. t• _44
- � j� � t pr }
.S �
e- �. i
y
� � �� �
v
:f Fes•' �
_, h' L� '.�rl. �'.�
ram•
-
'�#� �
-
-- ,
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
TF4011ER865.541_1010
� fnfa@Eenoversludko-.co-m
IN) 2 BED a UNIT C, LOT 8
_ PROPOSED DESIGN PRESENTED ON 6/30/20
'EACH STREET DEVELOPMENT
1137 PEACH 5T, M LUIS U615PC
DATE: 7122I2D EXo]4
06
J
Maim Lad
OMNI
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo. CA
TE40VER 865.541-1010
WARN
PEACH STREET DEVELOPMENT
1137 PERCH ST, ShNI LUIS OBISPU
DATE:7Y22/2C EXo]5
j
lag
VIP
TENOVER
539 Marsh Sireet
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541-1010
irtfo@k,novmludto.ci)m
4w
Pe
"=-MGM own
qW
IN I MEMO
A
m
�.•,:
(N 1 2 BED UNIT C, LOT 10
PROPOSED DESIGN PRESENTED ON 6/30/20
PEACH STREET DEVELOPMENT
1137 PERCH ST, SANI LUIS OBISPU
DATE:7Y22/2C EXel6
TFNO1IER
539Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
865.541-1010
irifo@tenoversludin.com
14;
AilJill
1111,11
:KA
&Sir ge,
Fff q
low, 10
416
low _i�
X=
OVERALL SITE VIEW
PROPOSED DESIGN PRESENTED ON 6/30/20
PEACH STREET DEVELOPMENT
1137 PERCH ST, M LUIS OBISPU
DATE:7Y22/2C EXe17
J141